The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsIs anybody else watching "The Crown" on Netflix?
If so, what do you think?
I am kind of obsessed with it. I think it's very well done. I am kind of a sucker for historical period pieces, but this one really draws me in. Princess Margaret is particularly well played.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,920 posts)things they're getting wrong.
Philip should be calling his wife Lilibet, not Elizabeth. He was NEVER half as nice to Charles as is portrayed. He was an utter martinet, thought that just because Gordonstoun was where he thrived, that Charles should also attend. He was incapable of understanding what a totally different person his son was, and Charles suffered because of that.
They do otherwise tend to get most period details right, which is nice. I especially liked a scene in the first season where the camera is above a record player as a record starts, and then moves up to show people, including Princess Margaret, dancing. It was wonderful because it captures how relatively new, wonderful, and amazing that technology was. People could have music any time they wanted, didn't need live musicians. How fabulous was that!
Another thing I do like is that it does seem to show how isolated Elizabeth and all of her immediate family were from the rest of the world, and how they had no way of understanding that. I think Philip probably understood, at least in the early years. Even though he was born into the Greek royal family and had a life of privilege, he was also the product of a broken home and was truly a man without a country for some time. His war time service, and later time in the Royal Navy had him immersed in ordinary naval life, which he loved. It is a genuine shame that George VI didn't live another decade, because then Philip would have had a real career. It's impossible to know if that would have made the transition to Elizabeth's becoming queen any easier, but at least it would have been delayed.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Very interesting. I am just fascinated by British history. I am impressed by your knowledge.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,920 posts)by British history ever since I could read.
Back in 1970 when "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" came out, I watched the first episode with a friend. At the end I told her a bunch of stuff that wasn't in the show, as well as a synopsis of all of the rest of the wives. She was astonished, but I'd been reading about the Tudors since I was a child.
As an aside, the popularity of the novels of Philippa Gregory makes me crazy, because she gets various factual things wrong. Plus, she makes them modern people, not the 16th century people they actually were. People really were different in the past. They thought and behaved differently. They had vastly different assumptions about such things as the ability of women to learn or to run a country. A hundred and fifty years ago in this country a very large number of people, even those who understood slavery was wrong and needed to come to an end, still thought of African slaves as inferior, never to be the equal of white people. If you honestly think people in the past were just like us, only wearing funny clothes, you truly don't understand history and how much we have all changed.
(Climbs back down off her soap box.)
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)know if I have retained as much as you have. I would never get bored listening to it all. It would be great if you would post more OP's on historical topics here in the lounge. Thanks for sharing! 
pandr32
(11,635 posts)I am Canadian born with British grandparents. Much of it is factual, however lots of the content is dramatized. It does cover many of the milestone events well and Claire does a fabulous job of the Queen. Acting and sets are supperb.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)They do take some liberties with the script, but of course they need to keep it interesting. I found the Edward (David) and Wallis parts particularly interesting. I am glad they weren't left out, but I wish they would have included a bit more detail.
pandr32
(11,635 posts)The Marburg files surprised me and I immediately opened my laptop and did some research. We all really dodged a bullet with Edward's abdication and plot failures that followed--what an overly privileged asshat he was. He didn't use his position to do a damn bit of good like the others did/do. The parties and costumes made me laugh--what a wasted life.
That's the beauty of this series. It titillates and the information to research on our own is readily there. I used my phone to look up people and events constantly while watching, too, because I had forgotten so much.
I hope there will be a Season 3.
Glorfindel
(9,740 posts)Very well-done, I thought. When politics and things in general get too intense for me in this country, I tend to retreat to the safety and stability of the British monarchy. But I'm that rarest (strangest?) of things, a social-democratic American monarchist. Always have been, always will be. 
blue neen
(12,335 posts)It has been fascinating, the Princess Margaret storyline in particular.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,920 posts)She lived in the shadow of her sister, the Queen. She was probably even smarter than Elizabeth, but as a royal had absolutely no opportunity to make use of her intelligence to have a meaningful life. And so she partied, smoked, and drank. There was zero chance of having a meaningful job or career, so all she could do was party. She wound up holding her royal status over everyone, and by all accounts was an incredibly difficult guest. No one dared call her on her terrible behavior. Too bad. She got away with everything.
When she was denied marrying Peter Townsend, it was the ruin of her. It thrust her fully into her life of careless partying and always playing the Royal (I'm the sister of the Queen!) card. She more or less met her match in Armstrong-Jones, but still wound up going her own, destructive way. It does seem as though her two children have turned out okay.
The genuine tragedy of her life was that she was the second born in the royal family, and so spent her entire childhood and youth in the shadow of her sister, the heir to the throne. She was badly educated, because that's how they did it back then. Had she been born after WWII she might have been able to go to University and carve out some sort of career for herself. I've read that she was a gifted mimic and entertainer, so in a different world could have gone into show business.
We are all trapped in some way by our life circumstances. Many of us, especially in this country, can get away from those circumstances and make our own life. Princess Margaret had no way to escape her life. A genuine shame.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)for a good one? Her life seemed kind of like a fascinating train-wreck. Antony Armstrong-Jones was also an interesting character, and apparently very cruel toward her.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,920 posts)And doing a quick on-line search, it doesn't look as if there's much out there just about her. There is a relatively recent one, Princess Margaret by Tim Heald which looks like it might be okay, although the reader reviews aren't all that good.
I've simply read enough about her over the years from various sources that I know a decent amount about her.
Solly Mack
(90,795 posts)Prince Philip's mother, the Princess Andrew, Alice of Battenberg, was honored by Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial as a “Righteous Among the Nations”. She helped hide and save members of the Cohen family of Trikala, Greece. The Prince and Princess Andrew knew the Cohens before the royals were deposed. The Princess Andrew is buried at the Convent of Saint Mary Magdalene in Gethsemane on Jerusalem’s Mount of Olives.
The story goes that the gestapo got suspicious and brought the Princess Andrew in for questioning, however, as she was born deaf, she sat there, refusing to answer questions while pretending she couldn't because she couldn't hear them - she could read lips and she knew what they wanted. She could also speak quite well. But she sat quietly, looking bewildered and confused. They got frustrated and took her back home.
As a young child, Prince Philip used sign language to communicate with his mother. He was effectively orphaned at age 9. She was in a sanatorium for years for schizophrenia and his father abandoned the family completely.
Fla Dem
(23,813 posts)Both the main characters will be leaving after this season. They will be replaced by actors who will be more age appropriate as the older Queen and Prince as the saga moves forward.
The actress who plays Queen Elizabeth won’t be back for the show’s third season.
by YOHANA DESTA
APRIL 10, 2017 2:58 PM
Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Luckily, Claire Foy won’t have to wear it much longer. Though the actress is currently playing Queen Elizabeth in the glamorous, aptly titled Netflix series The Crown, she’ll be stepping down after its second season. The third season will jump several years, meaning that she and co-star Matt Smith, who plays Prince Philip, must be replaced by older actors. And Foy, it turns out, is quite ready to say ta-ta to all that.
At the BFI & Radio Times Television Festival over the weekend, Foy said it wasn’t “a shock” to learn about the recast third season. “We always knew when we signed up to it,” said the actress, according to People. “And also, not to be funny, but it’s also a real plus.”
Indeed, committing to only two seasons of a TV show was music to Foy’s ears, she says. “As an actor, there’s nothing worse than the sound of ‘seven years.’ I’m sure to some people it sounds amazing, but to us it’s like, seven years of playing the same person? And this is a tough job, you know?”
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/04/the-crown-netflix-queen-elizabeth-ii-claire-foy-season-3
Really enjoyed Season 1. Haven't had a chance yet to watch any of Season 2, but the anticipation builds!
pandr32
(11,635 posts)Claire Foy has done an outstanding job. She seems to have captured Queen E beautifully. Hopefully, whoever is cast captures the essence of all the royal family's' personalities and mannerisms as well.
Paladin
(28,280 posts)So much better than the sort of empty, upper-class "Downton Abbey" pabulum served up by PBS.
Aristus
(66,484 posts)We were appalled by QEII's tone-deaf speech to the factory workers, unable to believe that the sweet, smiling, grandmotherly woman we know today could be that socially backward. Of course it was because she had spent a life in relative isolation and had little way of knowing the realities of the lives of her subjects.
Much is made of her service in WWII, and the times she and Margaret slipped away from the palace, and roamed the crowds outside incognito. But it seems those brief forays out of her bubble of privilege weren't enough to open her mind.
I am as equally fascinated as you by the character of Margaret, not the least of which reasons is because she's drop-dead gorgeous. (I can't get past the smoking, though; she must have smelled horrible.) I'm inclined to feel sorry for her, but she's so spoiled and selfish, it's tough to empathize.
I spent most of the episode about the Kennedys in tears. Once there was a time when our nation mourned the loss of our President. If anything had happened to President Obama, half the country would have taken to the streets in celebration, waving Nazi and Confederate flags.
Looking forward to Season Three.
