The Crown- Netflix (Spoilers)

Homesick Alien · 27-01-2021 9:36am

fryup wrote: »

yes, but based on real people

Yes exactly. The poster stated that the drama had changes his impression of the people in question. I. E. His view of the real Diana is now that... Well I'm not going to repeat it.

And just because someone used the term imbecile 60 or 70 years ago does not make it OK now. There are a lot of terms used back then that no right minded person would dream of using these days.

odyssey06 · 27-01-2021 9:41am

Homesick Alien wrote: »

Yes exactly. The poster stated that the drama had changes his impression of the people in question. I. E. His view of the real Diana is now that... Well I'm not going to repeat it.
And just because someone used the term imbecile 60 or 70 years ago does not make it OK now. There are a lot of terms used back then that no right minded person would dream of using these days.

It was used in the script by the character, so it does seem relevant to reference how it portrays the character?
"Their illness, their idiocy and imbecility, would make people question the integrity of the bloodline."

Homesick Alien · 27-01-2021 9:52am

odyssey06 wrote: »

It was used in the script by the character, so it does seem relevant to reference how it portrays the character?
"Their illness, their idiocy and imbecility, would make people question the integrity of the bloodline."

And if it was a racial slur would it be OK to repeat it?

odyssey06 · 27-01-2021 9:53am

Homesick Alien wrote: »

And if it was a racial slur would it be OK to repeat it?

In reference to it being used in the portrayal of the character, yes.

Homesick Alien · 27-01-2021 10:30am

odyssey06 wrote: »

In reference to it being used in the portrayal of the character, yes.

I think it's clear from the posters comment about Diana that he/she is not trying to be history accurate or to stay in character in repeating offensive statements. Not sure why you're trying to defend it.

odyssey06 · 27-01-2021 11:26am

Homesick Alien wrote: »

I think it's clear from the posters comment about Diana that he/she is not trying to be history accurate or to stay in character in repeating offensive statements. Not sure why you're trying to defend it.

I didn't say anything about the Diana comments, and won't as I assume it has been reported.

Just pointing out that the description of the cousins was used in the script and so can be referenced.

eviltimeban · 27-01-2021 11:58am

Looks like the offending post has been deleted.

lost one · 29-01-2021 11:17pm

I’m on early episodes of season 3.

There are two people (a married couple I think) who appear a few times when the Royal family are together - they are with them for the filming of the documentary and later when watching it. They appeared in earlier episode too.

Anyone know who they are?

The woman looks like Harriet Walter who Churchill’s wife.

Optimalprimerib · 30-01-2021 7:47am

I think star of the show had to have been Charles in season 3 and 4. A despicable, horrid character that was moulded by his wretched upbringing and forced into a marriage that lead to utter contempt and misery.

Try saying that not using his voice.

skooterblue2 · 30-01-2021 1:43pm

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

I think star of the show had to have been Charles in season 3 and 4. A despicable, horrid character that was moulded by his wretched upbringing and forced into a marriage that lead to utter contempt and misery.

Try saying that not using his voice.

Not sure he was forced into the marriage. He could have married Camilla. I am thinking of a transfer with a promotion from the Household Guards to a stint in minding South Georgia weather station or a stint with the 14 Int Coy in Northern Ireland. That would have put the coolers on with Camilla. All is fair in Love and War. She had her fun with Captain Bowles and is now in line to be the next queen of England. Camilla wants to Queen of England more than Philip wants to be King. No wonder the queen has been so slow in abdicating.

pc7 · 30-01-2021 1:48pm

She will never be Queen, that’s already been agreed.

skooterblue2 · 30-01-2021 1:54pm

pc7 wrote: »

She will never be Queen, that’s already been agreed.

Doesnt mean she doesnt want it, and always had her eye on it.
Had her fun and kids with Parker Bowles and now off to the ball with Charlie. A right pair of saps got played proper!!!
How pathetic are you, future heir to the British Empire and you cant get laid?

"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"

Optimalprimerib · 30-01-2021 10:50pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Not sure he was forced into the marriage. He could have married Camilla. I am thinking of a transfer with a promotion from the Household Guards to a stint in minding South Georgia weather station or a stint with the 14 Int Coy in Northern Ireland. That would have put the coolers on with Camilla. All is fair in Love and War. She had her fun with Captain Bowles and is now in line to be the next queen of England. Camilla wants to Queen of England more than Philip wants to be King. No wonder the queen has been so slow in abdicating.

Good God, I don't care, it's how his moany, self-pitying character in the show would have seen it.

eviltimeban · 31-01-2021 3:33pm

I don't think Camilla can be "the queen". I think her title would be "Queen Consort" or something like that.

skooterblue2 · 31-01-2021 5:56pm

eviltimeban wrote: »

I don't think Camilla can be "the queen". I think her title would be "Queen Consort" or something like that.

Charles is due to become "Prince Regent" this year but not King. If I was Charles and that frustrated I would be snuffing out the old dear with the pillow.

".... Some day my prince will come!!!"

eviltimeban · 01-02-2021 10:03am

I think at this stage the real Charles is well used to his position. He's 72 so has lived a long life as the POW. If the Queen does die in the next, say, 5 - 10 years, he would only be king for a small percentage of his overalll life. Unlike the Queen, who has been queen for longer than not-queen.

It does make it interesting for William, who will potential be a younger king. He's 38 now, and could conceivably become king in the next 20 years.

Anyway back to the show. My favourite episode so far is probably "Moondust" in series 3. Simon Menzies is great in that role, he brings a sympathetic side to a rather unsympathetic person.

Beechwoodspark · 01-02-2021 10:19am

cml387 wrote: »

He's an actor.

Josh O'Connor is his name and he's portraying an impression of Prince Charles.

I agree he seems to be hunched up a lot but that's how he's chosen to act, I agree it's a bit offputting.

I've only seen Prince Charles on tv but he seems perfectly able to stand up straight as far as I can see.

Agree with this post.

It’s mad how some ppl watching the crown seem to think it’s a real life documentary on the royal family and not a “tv movie” with plenty of cliche and silliness.

In a way though it is a bit of a compliment to the crown series that people invest so much belief in the drama it portrays.

Charles is NOT the same man as portrayed in the crown - kinda mad that ppl have to underline that!

odyssey06 · 01-02-2021 10:27am

eviltimeban wrote: »

Anyway back to the show. My favourite episode so far is probably "Moondust" in series 3. Simon Menzies is great in that role, he brings a sympathetic side to a rather unsympathetic person.

Tobias Menzies - I first remember him as Brutus in Rome.
He was also in Outlander, Game of Thrones, Night Manager and The Terror, among others.

skooterblue2 · 01-02-2021 10:30am

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Agree with this post.

It’s mad how some ppl watching the crown seem to think it’s a real life documentary on the royal family and not a “tv movie” with plenty of cliche and silliness.

Charles is NOT the same man as portrayed in the crown - kinda mad that ppl have to underline that!

.....But its based on facts, events and real people.

skooterblue2 · 01-02-2021 10:35am

eviltimeban wrote: »

It does make it interesting for William, who will potential be a younger king. He's 38 now, and could conceivably become king in the next 20 years.

I couldnt see Charles on the throne, it would be worse than Prince Philip as King, which Mountbatten had envisaged. I think we would be better leave Charles where he is and skip down to William. Seems to be much more grounded.

Beechwoodspark · 01-02-2021 10:36am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

.....But its based on facts, events and real people.

Yes. Based on but With a significant pinch of dramatic licence and a heavy use of imagination

Beechwoodspark · 01-02-2021 11:21am

For example. All those one to one conversations that absolutely pepper the series

Where is the “objective evidence” for the conversations? I doubt it exists.

The script writer made it up maybe with a very vague plot line in mind. ( eg Charles and Diana grow apart)

It’s great riveting drama but not a historical documentary

01-02-2021 12:04pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I think we would be better leave Charles where he is and skip down to William.

Whats with the We? :P

cml387 · 01-02-2021 12:39pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Yes. Based on but With a significant pinch of dramatic licence and a heavy use of imagination

You know what annoyed me most?

The downright refusal (for whatever reason) to use the correct logo for the BBC when their equipment was featured. They correctly use an EMI 2001 camera and then stick an anaemic BBC lettering on the side.

There. I've said it.

skooterblue2 · 01-02-2021 12:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats with the We? :P

Sorry Post Colonial Stress Disorder. Comes with Rhodesian Aunt and Uncle.

NutmegGirl · 01-02-2021 1:33pm

I think we would be better leave Charles where he is and skip down to William. Seems to be much more grounded

Leaving out any argument of whether a hereditary system is fair and the usual comments about what a pampered life they lead etc, I can’t imagine William has any interest in skipping a generation, he and his family can have some bit of a “normal” life atm, I’d imagine he’s like his kids to be grown up when he takes over, and obviously that could all change tomorrow if Charles died suddenly
They are all brought up with duty and destiny and knowing what they need to do and what they need to give up
Think it would desperately unfair on Charles to be skipped for no real reason other than people think he’s a bit odd or whatever and leaves the door open for people to be skipped for any reason deemed populist at the time, they’re female, they’re gay, they’ve married the wrong person, they’ve changed religion etc
He’s in his 70’s, a time when most people have retired and he hasn’t even gotten to his main job yet
Why would he not want his chance to make any changes/improvements he might like to, he’s known he will be monarch all his life and must have plenty of ideas to implement/modernise, he already wants to streamline the family and have less of them available and let the others make their own way as some already are
He would basically have wasted his whole life otherwise preparing for something that was never going to come
He could have just gone off and made his own life and decisions in his 20’s if he’d have known he’d have to give it up in his 70’s

skooterblue2 · 01-02-2021 2:04pm

NutmegGirl wrote: »

I think we would be better leave Charles where he is and skip down to William. Seems to be much more grounded

Leaving out any argument of whether a hereditary system is fair and the usual comments about what a pampered life they lead etc, I can’t imagine William has any interest in skipping a generation, he and his family can have some bit of a “normal” life atm, I’d imagine he’s like his kids to be grown up when he takes over, and obviously that could all change tomorrow if Charles died suddenly
They are all brought up with duty and destiny and knowing what they need to do and what they need to give up
Think it would desperately unfair on Charles to be skipped for no real reason other than people think he’s a bit odd or whatever and leaves the door open for people to be skipped for any reason deemed populist at the time, they’re female, they’re gay, they’ve married the wrong person, they’ve changed religion etc
He’s in his 70’s, a time when most people have retired and he hasn’t even gotten to his main job yet
Why would he not want his chance to make any changes/improvements he might like to, he’s known he will be monarch all his life and must have plenty of ideas to implement/modernise, he already wants to streamline the family and have less of them available and let the others make their own way as some already are
He would basically have wasted his whole life otherwise preparing for something that was never going to come
He could have just gone off and made his own life and decisions in his 20’s if he’d have known he’d have to give it up in his 70’s

Might not be Williams choice, it may be trust upon him. Granny doesn't take kindly to people who shirk responsibility. Elizabeth had the crown trust upon her at an early age and she had Winston Churchill to mentor her in her early years. Prince Charles had Lord Louis Mountbatten and he seemed to have made little impression on him.

What would Charles have done with his life apparts from Farming or Gardening (no disrespect to either professions)? Its not like he was making headway in the Royal Navy or Parachute Regiment? He is not the sharpest of tools in the shed. The Crown isnt a right, it is a responsibility that he was prepared for, he just didnt take to it very well. It would be unfair to the subjects, aristocracy and office for him to take it and was not ready for it.

Any of the other children especially Princess Anne (and her daughter Zara Philips) would have been a better choice for the future lineage. I dont see much talent Princess Beatrice and Eugenie. As for Prince Edward, god bless him, couldnt hack the marines, couldnt be expected to do much else.

NutmegGirl · 01-02-2021 2:38pm

If it’s going to be thrust upon William that automatically means “Granny” is dead

And what does it matter what he’d have done with his life, majority of people just live their life and don’t necessarily have to do anything famous or noteworthy and the majority of people are academically average. If he’d been a genius, would never have been able to pursue an academic career or medicine or law etc so prob best he wasn’t
His interests are what he’s developed within the confines of a life with no choice.
If he’d had the option to actually do other things who knows what he’d have picked., He obviously seems to love farming/gardening/organic food, could have been content doing that, don’t think it’s a career that should be looked down on if you choose to do it
He wasn’t a career military person, only doing it because he was had to and to gain experience in it, don’t imagine he much enjoyed it, so therefore didn’t need to make headway, if anything if he’d loved it and been the best soldier ever it would have been a waste as he could never had stayed and made a career of it
Even Prince Harry who seemed to love bring a soldier ended up choosing /having to leave.
I agree it looks like Princess Anne would make a good queen , seems to have similar outlook to the queen , not sure why you think Zara Phillips would have any interest or be any good though, at the end of the day she’s a showjumper and the fact her mother chose not to give her kids titles shows that she wanted them to have their own life away from the royal family and they’re all prob happier not to be in direct line of succession
Anne managed to have her own life in sport and might have happier being a private citizen but duty and her upbringing keeps her involved

JDD · 02-02-2021 11:59am

The Crown isnt a right, it is a responsibility that he was prepared for, he just didnt take to it very well. It would be unfair to the subjects, aristocracy and office for him to take it and was not ready for it.

Except, it is a right. It's a responsibility too, to be sure, but it's absolutely a right. Otherwise the Queen could nominate whoever she likes to be her successor, which she can't. If she wanted William to be the next King, she would have done that already and just retired.

I mean, who says Charles isn't ready to be King? Yes, clearly the Queen doesn't think he's ready - hence why she has stayed in her position for so long, but she is only one person. And honestly far too close to the situation to be able to objectively see the situation clearly. Charles is clearly a very different person to his mother, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't make a decent king in his own right.

I think it would be very unfair to pass him over. And I don't think William wants to take the role early, nor does he want his father to be passed over in his favour.

I think Charles will make a satisfactory King for 10/15 years or so. He'll always be in the shadow of his mother, even if he was absolutely the best man in the country for the job, simply because he isn't going to be in the role for long. Let him have his day. William will be at least 30 years as King, so he has plenty of time.

skooterblue2 · 02-02-2021 1:28pm

JDD wrote: »

I mean, who says Charles isn't ready to be King? Yes, clearly the Queen doesn't think he's ready - hence why she has stayed in her position for so long, but she is only one person. And honestly far too close to the situation to be able to objectively see the situation clearly. Charles is clearly a very different person to his mother, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't make a decent king in his own right.

I think it would be very unfair to pass him over. And I don't think William wants to take the role early, nor does he want his father to be passed over in his favour.

The Queen is perfectly qualified to say if he is ready at ascend to the throne. He is not intellectually capable, not diplomatically capable, managerial experience. He has had EVERY possible opportunity and he cant make a success anywhere. Many a weak king has ended his own linage. Much like Prince Edward the abdicator, it would be better to pass him over now rather than allow a calamity to happen. Everytime he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it. He isnt a man I would look to for great thoughts or leadership. Instead of leading his own faith the church of England, he wanted to be "Defender of all faiths". He criticised the awful architecture of a hotel he was giving prizes in, little did he know it was owned by his own company. The lists go on and no. He cannot inspire men. He defended Saville from the police. If a man wont look after his own interests how you expect him to look after yours?

NutmegGirl · 02-02-2021 1:55pm

I don’t think many people nowadays look to a monarch for great thoughts or leadership or inspiration. They want a steady presence, who will turn up to do all the events , openings, speeches that are the royal family’s bread & butter

Seeing as the U.K. of 2021 is far more multicultural than that of the 1950’s when the Queen took over, being defender of all faiths may be exactly the way to go, make connections with people who would never have felt the Queen represented them, showing an interest and tolerance for all the faiths in the U.K.
He may not even be religious or have any faith, we’ve no real idea if he is or not, and we don’t need to know either to be honest
I think if you’ve spent 70 plus years preparing for a role you’d want to be a complete moron not to be ready and start doing stupid things
He knows very well that he’ll have less leeway to say and do the things he does now and I’m sure he’ll be quite content with that
He knows most likely his will be a short reign, he won’t be reinventing the wheel and he’ll just keep it steady for William who will realistically be 50ish when he gets his chance and he’ll be the one to modernise completely
I’d say 20 years ago he’d have had completely different plans but now won’t have the chance to implement them
At the end of the day, as the character said on The Crown, you’re basically waiting for your parent to die to get your main job, not something you’d be wishing for

eviltimeban · 02-02-2021 2:21pm

Maybe we should get back to talking about the show!

skooterblue2 · 02-02-2021 2:51pm

NutmegGirl wrote: »

I don’t think many people nowadays look to a monarch for great thoughts or leadership or inspiration. They want a steady presence, who will turn up to do all the events , openings, speeches that are the royal family’s bread & butter

Seeing as the U.K. of 2021 is far more multicultural than that of the 1950’s when the Queen took over, being defender of all faiths may be exactly the way to go, make connections with people who would never have felt the Queen represented them, showing an interest and tolerance for all the faiths in the U.K.
He may not even be religious or have any faith, we’ve no real idea if he is or not, and we don’t need to know either to be honest
I think if you’ve spent 70 plus years preparing for a role you’d want to be a complete moron not to be ready and start doing stupid things
He knows very well that he’ll have less leeway to say and do the things he does now and I’m sure he’ll be quite content with that
He knows most likely his will be a short reign, he won’t be reinventing the wheel and he’ll just keep it steady for William who will realistically be 50ish when he gets his chance and he’ll be the one to modernise completely
I’d say 20 years ago he’d have had completely different plans but now won’t have the chance to implement them
At the end of the day, as the character said on The Crown, you’re basically waiting for your parent to die to get your main job, not something you’d be wishing for

Good god, Dont I know. My wifes nieces and nephews are almost illiterate from looking to social media for inspiration. You look at how entertainment has dropped the level of education. Looking for inspiration on social media is like looking for a bucket of water in the desert, I am not saying it not there its just very hard to see it.

I always believed leaders lead by example. This chump isnt someone I would follow and he has the best of everything and still cant make a success anywhere in any aspect of his life. The man cannot even stand up straight. I expect a king to be a role model, show and value intellect, be a leader, an orator, a family man, a diplomat and shown to shoulder his lot in hard times. George the sixth wasn't groomed to be king but when it was thrust upon him he led Britain through the second world war and not skipping off to Canada. Far from a perfect man but a man who overcame a massive speech impediment to give inspirational speeches. That is a man who stepped forward not back.

The Black Oil · 20-02-2021 7:12pm

Loved the scene early on in 4.08 with Thatcher cooking, speaking to one of her advisors through the hatch in the kitchen. Then the camera goes closer and there's a whole team of them. Clever shot.

odyssey06 · 01-03-2021 8:18am

Big night at the Golden Globes.

* Best Television Series, Drama - The Crown
* Best Supporting Actress, Television - Gillian Anderson, The Crown
* Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series, Drama - Josh O’Connor
* Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series, Drama - Emma Corrin

JP Liz V1 · 01-03-2021 12:40pm

Emma should stay on as Diana

odyssey06 · 25-03-2021 10:29am

For fans of Josh O'Connor, he will be appearing in Britain's National Theatre production of Romeo & Juliet, opposite Jessie Buckley.
This will be airing on FTA satellite channel Sky Arts over Easter weekend.

expectationlost · 25-06-2021 11:55am

Jonny lee miller as John Major https://twitter.com/TheCrownNetflix/status/1408379478552858624 hard to believe JLM is about the same age as JM when he became PM

25-06-2021 12:40pm

expectationlost wrote: »

Jonny lee miller as John Major https://twitter.com/TheCrownNetflix/status/1408379478552858624 hard to believe JLM is about the same age as JM when he became PM

The make up department could have a good shot at a BAFTA.

JP Liz V1 · 25-06-2021 1:41pm

Oh sick boy in politics

silverharp · 25-06-2021 3:34pm

I watched it all for the first time this year, it was an an interesting forrest gump through British events. I think the series peaked in the earlier decades, though Mrs T was fun to watch. Will it run out of steam going forward? just everyone getting older

Radio5 · 05-07-2021 11:06am

Is it only going to cover up to 2000 or so ? thought I read that somewhere.

flazio · 05-07-2021 12:14pm

Radio5 wrote: »

Is it only going to cover up to 2000 or so ? thought I read that somewhere.

Peter Morgan, the show creator already released "The Queen" with Helen Mirren so he's unlikely to recover the same ground.

JP Liz V1 · 17-08-2021 3:51pm

https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1427648439194722314

..

flazio · 26-02-2022 8:02am

When you're sent to steal The Crown Jewels but miss entirely.

https://entertainment.ie/tv/on-demand-news/the-crown-robbery-jewels-props-513975/

Useless Lump · 26-02-2022 9:06am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117593432#Comment_117593432

It was originally going to be six season - with two for each Queen and a season for each decade (I think) - but for some along the way Morgan decided on five seasons.

Then last summer he changed it back to six and I believe it is to the events 1990s more time to be explored with season 5 going 1990 to 1995 and season going covering the rest of the decade.

Season 1 to 4 covered the period of history that interests me - post-War, Cold War and the Thatcher years - however it is has been a very well made series and Imelda Staunton is always great so it will be an interesting watch. For some reason the 1990s is a blurry memory for me and I am bad at remembering the things that happened so it will be educational for me.

I hope Morgan does another history based series in the near future. Maybe something about the Cold War.