Jump to content

The Crown (netflix)

LonghornSean

By LonghornSean
in Movies and TV

 Share

Recommended Posts

naija

naija 2869

Posted
Posted
On 11/16/2020 at 10:09 PM, TonyTexas said:

Man, this show really portrays  Charles in a bad light. If accurate, the Brits should be thankful that his reign will most likely be short. 

yeah, just finished Episode 3 and it is hard to avoid that conclusion. I understand there is more than a bit of artistic license being used here, but he does not come off good in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pokoloco

Pokoloco 1282

Posted
Posted

They're really showing the royals for the assholes they are this season. Yeesh.  It's crazy to me that the Prime Minister has to deal with this nonsense.

I remember the Mountbatten thing vividly. My father was a very pro-republic Irish American and thought that was horrible and hurt the cause. Powerful episode.  They presented it in a way where they weren't pushing either agenda. Really well done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85574

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TonyTexas said:

He can abdicate but can’t be passed over. 

This is true. And he would never. It’s probably the only other thing he’s wanted in his life besides Camilla. 

Even though his own subjects don’t want him. They’re ready for Kate and Will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Not a cat

Not a cat 5704

Posted
Posted

All of them seem to be gigantic assholes. 

Philip making the crack about the Thatchers showing up in pajamas.  Edward and Andrew are spoiled brats that need a good ass beating.  Same as Charles, except at least the two younger brothers can stand up straight.  Anne seems the least spoiled of the bunch, which isn't saying much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BonzoMontreaux

BonzoMontreaux 1093

Posted
Posted
On 11/15/2020 at 8:16 PM, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I cried during the Mountbatten episode. I think Tobias Menzies as Prince Philip is great.

This.  He makes Philip the most likeable character on the show.  Based on that portrayal, Philip is the only person I would want to meet from that bunch of assholes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

I’m still so pissed they completely ignored the attempted kidnapping of Princess Anne and her marriage to Mark Phillips.

She was such a bad ass; after the would be kidnapper had already shot four men - including her driver, her bodyguard, and a cop - he demanded she come with him and she told him “Not bloody likely!” and hauled ass with her lady-in-waiting.

The actress that plays Anne is so great and that incident is so intense and dramatic and actually factual! Why Peter Morgan left it out is so baffling to me.

And, yes, Charles was basically an abusive gaslighting asshole to Diana. She had her issues but she was only 19 years old and naively thought he loved her not that he was “settling” on her because the BRF thought they could control her and use her as a brood mare.

His biggest problem with her boiled down to jealousy. He’s spent his life in his mother’s shadow basically waiting for her to croak and here came what he saw as a dumb, shallow teenage girl who everyone loved more than him. None of the royals are particularly bright people but the conventional wisdom on Charles is that he’s dumber than most but thinks he’s brilliant. He couldn’t wrap his thick mind around the idea of Diana being an asset and instead saw her as the enemy.

That’s why I’m so glad Harry and Meghan noped the fuck out because, unfortunately, William is very much his father’s son and saw H&M’s popularity as a threat and worked to undermine them with bullshit press leaks like Charles did with Diana.

I find the BRF - both current and historical - absolutely fascinating but not because they’re some kind of virtuous bunch of role models. They’re fascinating because they’re all a bunch of fairly dim but manipulative pit vipers.

I’m on record as predicting that neither Charles nor William will ever be kings because I think once QE2 dies there will be a successful movement to abolish the monarchy.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
This.  He makes Philip the most likeable character on the show.  Based on that portrayal, Philip is the only person I would want to meet from that bunch of assholes.

Peter Morgan is 100% gilding the lily on Prince Philip.

Philip was a notorious racist and sexist shitbag bully. And a philanderer. He’s surviving on pure spite and malice at this point.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BonzoMontreaux

BonzoMontreaux 1093

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:


Peter Morgan is 100% gilding the lily on Prince Philip.

Philip was a notorious racist and sexist shitbag bully. And a philanderer. He’s surviving on pure spite and malice at this point.

Wow.  Shows you how much I know about the actual man.  Your previous take on Charles indicates that he is what he appears to be in the series.  What a gutless little man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TonyTexas

TonyTexas 10527

Posted
Posted (edited)

I was reading an article about the all new new cast for seasons 5 and 6 and one was particularly really stood out. McNulty from The Wire is slated to play Prince Charles.

As far as BamaChick's prediction that the monarchy will be abolished, a recent poll showed only 22% supported that course of action. 

Edited by TonyTexas
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Ace of Aces

The Ace of Aces 5194

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I’m still so pissed they completely ignored the attempted kidnapping of Princess Anne and her marriage to Mark Phillips.

She was such a bad ass; after the would be kidnapper had already shot four men - including her driver, her bodyguard, and a cop - he demanded she come with him and she told him “Not bloody likely!” and hauled ass with her lady-in-waiting.

The actress that plays Anne is so great and that incident is so intense and dramatic and actually factual! Why Peter Morgan left it out is so baffling to me.

And, yes, Charles was basically an abusive gaslighting asshole to Diana. She had her issues but she was only 19 years old and naively thought he loved her not that he was “settling” on her because the BRF thought they could control her and use her as a brood mare.

His biggest problem with her boiled down to jealousy. He’s spent his life in his mother’s shadow basically waiting for her to croak and here came what he saw as a dumb, shallow teenage girl who everyone loved more than him. None of the royals are particularly bright people but the conventional wisdom on Charles is that he’s dumber than most but thinks he’s brilliant. He couldn’t wrap his thick mind around the idea of Diana being an asset and instead saw her as the enemy.

That’s why I’m so glad Harry and Meghan noped the fuck out because, unfortunately, William is very much his father’s son and saw H&M’s popularity as a threat and worked to undermine them with bullshit press leaks like Charles did with Diana.

I find the BRF - both current and historical - absolutely fascinating but not because they’re some kind of virtuous bunch of role models. They’re fascinating because they’re all a bunch of fairly dim but manipulative pit vipers.

I’m on record as predicting that neither Charles nor William will ever be kings because I think once QE2 dies there will be a successful movement to abolish the monarchy.

The British economy relies far too heavily on the monarch for it to be abolished. It’s one of its biggest industries - if not the biggest. 
 

And that’s not factoring in how overwhelming popular it is - despite the loud vocal minority. 

Edited by The Ace of Aces
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OWLVIS

OWLVIS 561

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, BonzoMontreaux said:

This.  He makes Philip the most likeable character on the show.  Based on that portrayal, Philip is the only person I would want to meet from that bunch of assholes.

Prince Philip comes off as the only sane if somewhat elitist of the bunch

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted

Yeah, the BRF is the biggest tourism draw. People rightfully look at the castles and wealth and think that’s unfair, and why should we pay for that, etc. Any normal rational person would agree, but the BRF provide so much tourism money it’s insane. All they do is go to ceremonies and parades, and all types of bullshit. They may do away with it at some point, but I would think it wouldn’t be in our lifetimes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LonghornSean

LonghornSean 4023

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Damn I love this show. Bummed I don’t have anymore episodes to watch.

The Charles and Diana relationship (as portrayed in the show) just had that tinge of sadness even from the beginning. You really feel for her. And while Charles is definitely the asshole, the “arranging” of his marriage by the rest of the family does earn him a bit of sympathy from me.

Also, Anne is great in every scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
naija

naija 2869

Posted
Posted

I see some are taking what is clearly fiction as fact because it's on a screen. The problems between Diana and Charles weren't a one-way issue. Far from it. She also was reportedly the first to stray from their marriage bed. Charles is no saint, but some of the liberties taken this season just come off as vindictive and a study in character assassination. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, naija said:

I see some are taking what is clearly fiction as fact because it's on a screen. The problems between Diana and Charles weren't a one-way issue. Far from it. She also was reportedly the first to stray from their marriage bed. Charles is no saint, but some of the liberties taken this season just come off as vindictive and a study in character assassination. 

Go back to bed Camilla 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
I see some are taking what is clearly fiction as fact because it's on a screen. The problems between Diana and Charles weren't a one-way issue. Far from it. She also was reportedly the first to stray from their marriage bed. Charles is no saint, but some of the liberties taken this season just come off as vindictive and a study in character assassination. 

Yeah, none of this is true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

How so.

1 - Diana did not step out on Charles first.
2 - Charles was seeing Camilla throughout his engagement to Diana and throughout their marriage. (Admitted by Charles).
3 - Diana had flings after William and Harry were born - long after Charles had effectively abandoned the marriage.
4 - Diana had many issues but she was a 19 year old virgin who went into the marriage on good faith while Charles was a 31 year old man who got pressured into marrying the first attractive aristocratic of age virgin his courtiers could find. Who was in love with another woman he had no intention of forgetting.

Like, even Charles and Camilla and The Queen admit Charles and Camilla carried on a long term affair before and during their individual marriages. They don’t even try to push a narrative that Diana cheated first.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13273

Posted
Posted
On 11/20/2020 at 1:56 PM, Bama Chick said:

I’m on record as predicting that neither Charles nor William will ever be kings because I think once QE2 dies there will be a successful movement to abolish the monarchy.

The problem is that the monarchy does serve a constitutional purpose and one nobody wants the Prime Minister to fill. And it only gets more complicated from there as far as all their property and so forth.

Inertia is very powerful here even if the public decided it was time for the monarchy to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
naija

naija 2869

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Bama Chick said:


1 - Diana did not step out on Charles first.
2 - Charles was seeing Camilla throughout his engagement to Diana and throughout their marriage. (Admitted by Charles).
3 - Diana had flings after William and Harry were born - long after Charles had effectively abandoned the marriage.
4 - Diana had many issues but she was a 19 year old virgin who went into the marriage on good faith while Charles was a 31 year old man who got pressured into marrying the first attractive aristocratic of age virgin his courtiers could find. Who was in love with another woman he had no intention of forgetting.

Like, even Charles and Camilla and The Queen admit Charles and Camilla carried on a long term affair before and during their individual marriages. They don’t even try to push a narrative that Diana cheated first.

You are listing these things as if they are facts. #1 is clearly in dispute and it doesn't take long to find biographers of the Royal Family who disagree with you. Unless you want to claim your expertise over theirs. 

USA Today

Quote

 

The series indicates that Prince Charles never really stopped seeing Camilla Parker Bowles, even when he and Diana were dating and engaged. How much do we know about that?

Sally Bedell Smith: Charles and Camilla parted company at the end of December 1972. (They) didn't resume their love affair until late 1978. They seldom saw each other but spoke frequently on the phone. When Charles and Diana began dating, he introduced her to his social circle, including (Camilla and her husband).

Once Diana and Charles were engaged in February 1981, Charles was away frequently. He scarcely had time to see his fiancee, and there's no evidence he saw Camilla. Shortly before the wedding he arranged for more than a dozen gifts to friends – including Camilla – as gestures of gratitude. Camilla's gift was a bracelet with the monogram "GF," which stood for "Girl Friday," his nickname for Camilla. Diana found the bracelet and confronted him. He reiterated that it was over with Camilla, but on July 27, two days before the wedding, he traveled to Camilla's home and gave her the keepsake. 

Through all the turbulence of the following years, Charles and Camilla did not resume their affair until mid-1986. That was after Diana had already had an affair with her protection officer Barry Mannakee but before she began her affair with James Hewitt in November 1986

 

"Like, even Charles and Camilla and The Queen admit Charles and Camilla carried on a long term affair before and during their individual marriages. They don’t even try to push a narrative that Diana cheated first."

 

This last sentence is simply untrue. You really think The Queen has admitted or spoken about any of this publically in detail? Charles and Camilla did have affairs before and during the marriage, but nowhere has either claimed that it was continuous. As to pushing a narrative, none of those people would do that. You might feel free to disagree, but he isn't the type to go on TV and start blasting away on who cheated first, despite what The Crown  depicts him as. They also show him being a driving force for her bulimic episodes, when this was something she suffered before they were together.

In fact, read what exactly Charles said on the issue in one of the more public times he had spoken about it:

Quote

 

A Royal expert has claimed that Prince Charles was ‘really faithful’ to Princess Diana, disputing Netflix show The Crown’s depiction of him cheating on his wife.

It’s clear that the marriage between the Royals, which lasted for 15 years, had major ups and downs, with claims that the Prince had cheated on his wife with Camilla Parker Bowles (now Duchess Of Cornwall), emerging.

When asked if he had been ‘faithful and honourable’ in his marriage, Prince Charles said: ‘Yes, absolutely. Until it became irretrievably broken down, us both having tried.’

However, the Netflix show depicts the Prince (played by Josh O’Connor) having an ongoing affair with Camilla (Emerald Fennell), even in the early years of his marriage to Diana (Emma Corrin).

Royal editor Russell Myers told Lorraine Kelly on her show: ‘Lots of historians, people who are much wiser than me, are saying this actually did not happen. Charles was actually really faithful to Diana. ‘He got married, he didn’t have any contact [with Camilla] for quite a long period of time.

‘We know that later on he did admit to re-hashing his affair with Camilla but at the time it is portrayed in The Crown, I’m afraid this is false,’ he continued.

 

The Link

So, no. As to your #2, he wasn't seeing Camilla throughout his marriage, if by that you mean he was cheating with her from the get go.

Edited by naija
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13273

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, lateshow said:

What purpose do they fill, other than being a celebrity figurehead? They don't wield any real power do they?

It's complicated, but they are numerous. Most vitally is their role as an institution that binds the four countries of the UK together.

They do have power of a kind, in theory, but it is kind of understood they are never to use it against the wishes of the elected politicians and be politically neutral.

They are also the ceremonial commanders of the military and the military makes a big show of being their military which, again, is to point out how the military aligns with no Prime Minister or political party. If suddenly the Prime Minister was the commander in the chief, like our President, well that would be a politicization of the military which nobody wants.

So they do have a role to play which is kind of intendent on them not being political leaders or actually ever using the power they theoretically have.

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, lateshow said:

What purpose do they fill, other than being a celebrity figurehead? They don't wield any real power do they?

 No. 

The Queen technically has "reserve powers" that include appointing the prime minister, opening and closing Parliament, and approving legislation. However, those have constitutionally been stripped, and made to be just ceremonial rubber stamps. The people elect the prime minster and parliament approves legislation. So basically no, no power. 

But...

To say the Queen has no power would be ignoring her influential role as figurehead. The UK people love the Queen. Her approval rating is close to 80%. I would say a large chunk of Americans are obsessed with the royals too (insert every female in my family). She has influence. If she disapproved of something, it would naïve to think she couldn't influence something by her words. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...