The Crown

Sir Lancelot said:
Does Diana not have any responsibility for trying to make her marriage work? By all accounts she was the first one to break her marriage vows and was completely childish when she couldn’t get her own way.

Would you want to share your life with a woman who would throw herself downstairs, allegedly while pregnant, or deliberately throw up after her meals. She may have looked nice in her nice frocks but she was a complete nightmare to live with, thick as a brick, with no interest in anything that her husband did, she considered him stodgy and dull and didn’t take into account just how much older than she he was.

Meanwhile the woman who you have loved for nearly twenty years is standing there, she shares all your interests, she makes you feel happy and confident and you desperately want to be in her company. Admittedly she isn’t the most beautiful woman on the planet but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Look at photographs of Charles with Diana, he looks miserable, nervous and twitchy as a beaten dog. Now look at photographs of him with Camilla both then and now, he looks happy, content with his world and confident with Camilla. You might prefer to shag a Barbie doll but would you want to spend your life with someone who makes you feel bad about yourself?

And yes, I do think that you could say similar things to support Diana against Charles, that’s why I feel that both of them deserve sympathy.
Click to expand...
I thought due to Fanny-pad-gate that it was widely accepted that Charles played away first. Is this not true? It certainly plays into Di’s ‘poor me’ victim complex. Would be interesting if she was really the first to shag around. I remember that interview she gave doing the trademark up from under look saying how there’s three in a marriage and loads of people were saying “awww poor lass” and I was thinking “I wonder how true this is cos it all looks a bit too text book”.
 


Sir Lancelot said:
Does Diana not have any responsibility for trying to make her marriage work? By all accounts she was the first one to break her marriage vows and was completely childish when she couldn’t get her own way.

Would you want to share your life with a woman who would throw herself downstairs, allegedly while pregnant, or deliberately throw up after her meals. She may have looked nice in her nice frocks but she was a complete nightmare to live with, thick as a brick, with no interest in anything that her husband did, she considered him stodgy and dull and didn’t take into account just how much older than she he was.

Meanwhile the woman who you have loved for nearly twenty years is standing there, she shares all your interests, she makes you feel happy and confident and you desperately want to be in her company. Admittedly she isn’t the most beautiful woman on the planet but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Look at photographs of Charles with Diana, he looks miserable, nervous and twitchy as a beaten dog. Now look at photographs of him with Camilla both then and now, he looks happy, content with his world and confident with Camilla. You might prefer to shag a Barbie doll but would you want to spend your life with someone who makes you feel bad about yourself?

And yes, I do think that you could say similar things to support Diana against Charles, that’s why I feel that both of them deserve sympathy.
Click to expand...

Yeah they definitely both deserve sympathy. You’ve hit the nail on head with Charles, a huge chunk of his life wasted yet out of his control.
 
Tex said:
I thought due to Fanny-pad-gate that it was widely accepted that Charles played away first. Is this not true? It certainly plays into Di’s ‘poor me’ victim complex. Would be interesting if she was really the first to shag around. I remember that interview she gave doing the trademark up from under look saying how there’s three in a marriage and loads of people were saying “awww poor lass” and I was thinking “I wonder how true this is cos it all looks a bit too text book”.
Click to expand...

Charllie never had any intention of respecting the marriage it was all a sham from the start.

The whole series has been excellent in exposing what a sordid despicable lot the whole of them are.
 
TDalt said:
Couldn’t stand Diana. I’m anti-royal family anyway though. I won’t be watching this shit.
Click to expand...
Good watch though and certainly confirms why you should be anti royal. This family is rotten to the core.
garyswc said:
Comfortably one of the best productions ever on TV, couldn't be further away from your description.
Click to expand...
Agree. whatever your views are on the royal family the production is superb.
 
Northumberland Rocks said:
Good watch though and certainly confirms why you should be anti royal. This family is rotten to the core.

Agree. whatever your views are on the royal family the production is superb.
Click to expand...

I've found it fascinating and compelling and accurate in the wider historical context. I'm largely ambivalent re the royals in general. If someone has to be Monarch, and the uk is a monarchy then I think HM Queen has largely done an outstanding job of it, upholding tradition and values. However I think the role done properly is incompatible with being a human being. Seen in her treatment of Margaret and the denial of her wish, her cold hearted treatment of her children particularly Charles. The royals became an outmoded concept some time ago. Seemed very relevant upto and including the 2nd World War then gradually lost all meaning and relevance during the intervening decades.

I really love the show though, Jared and Lithgow are fantastic in the early series, as are pretty the entire cast. Fantastic TV
 
garyswc said:
I've found it fascinating and compelling and accurate in the wider historical context. I'm largely ambivalent re the royals in general. If someone has to be Monarch, and the uk is a monarchy then I think HM Queen has largely done an outstanding job of it, upholding tradition and values. However I think the role done properly is incompatible with being a human being. Seen in her treatment of Margaret and the denial of her wish, her cold hearted treatment of her children particularly Charles. The royals became an outmoded concept some time ago. Seemed very relevant upto and including the 2nd World War then gradually lost all meaning and relevance during the intervening decades.

I really love the show though, Jared and Lithgow are fantastic in the early series, as are pretty the entire cast. Fantastic TV
Click to expand...
Some good points...my view is it backs up why I want rid of them. :) Great TV though and certainly compelling in the historical context.
 
AndrewP said:
He is thick as shit tbf, he only managed a Desmond even though he was the future king.
Click to expand...

That might have something to do with being taken away from Cambridge for the entirety of his second year to spend time in Wales.
FootballFan said:
Charllie never had any intention of respecting the marriage it was all a sham from the start.

The whole series has been excellent in exposing what a sordid despicable lot the whole of them are.
Click to expand...

Do you think that everyone who has an affair is a sordid despicable lot? Remember that Diana also ignored her vows and had multiple blokes smuggled into Kensington Palace in the back of her Butlers car while Charles was at Highgrove.
 
Last edited:
Enjoyed it all bar having to stomach thatcher again. I like Gillian Anderson as well

i do enjoy spotting random British character actors turning up in scenes. One in the season 4 was in America when the forensic expert in midsomer murders and once of eastenders made an appearance in an American hospital
 
Last edited:
Ghfd said:
I read there are to be two more series of this. So we will have fire at Windsor, fergie, then Diana’s death, then presumably up to the queen mother and margarets deaths in early 2000s.

please god they don’t shovel in It’s a Royal Knockout, I don’t think I could stomach that again
Click to expand...
I could watch it again. :) Watching 'the runt of the litter' have his strop will be good viewing.
 
Sir Lancelot said:
That might have something to do with being taken away from Cambridge for the entirety of his second year to spend time in Wales.


Do you think that everyone who has an affair is a sordid despicable lot? Remember that Diana also ignored her vows and had multiple blokes smuggled into Kensington Palace in the back of her Butlers car while Charles was at Highgrove.
Click to expand...

I think the Queen and Charles are both despicable individuals as their actions have shown, some of the other Royals are ok but have been royally screwed so to speak.
 
HoxtonMackem said:
Binged 6 episodes last night.

Thatcher portrayal is spot on so far (and rightly shows her as an egotistical witch with no compassion at all - as strongly put at the very end of the Fagan episode while on about poor folk with mental health issues, 'they should be locked up'). I honestly thought before watching it that they would make her out to be the saviour of the nation / strong iron lady blahblahblah as all the other film/tv portrayals of her seem to have - so this is a refreshing interpretation.

Young prince Andrew comes across exactly how you'd expect him, a horrible full of himself little w***er.

Superb acting all around (enjoying it more than series' 1-3 so far) and learned a fair bit too such as Thatcher's son going missing in the Dakar rally which I never knew about.
Click to expand...
Aye. Very good series. Thatcher comes across as slightly unhinged. Royal family as completely dysfunctional. Very good acting all round.
 
Just interesting how thatcher was the one standing aside over South Africa when the other 48 commonwealth countries wanted sanctions.

not shown in the show but she called Mandela a terrorist. Of course her stance on no sanctions had nothing to do with her dear son having a lot of business in South Africa at the time.

nothings changed with a tory pm looking after families and friends
 

Back
Top