Anonymous wrote:You guys, the mouse!

I know, right?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Charles portrayed as though he has special needs/is differently abled? He’s constantly slouching, avoiding eye contact, and sniveling. Bizarre caricature.

I know, was he never told to stand up straight!? At minimum, seems something the boarding school would have addressed.

Its something boarding school caused. He was horribly bullied. But he's still a wet.

Anonymous wrote:Why is Charles portrayed as though he has special needs/is differently abled? He’s constantly slouching, avoiding eye contact, and sniveling. Bizarre caricature.

I know, was he never told to stand up straight!? At minimum, seems something the boarding school would have addressed.

I also watched Diana in her own words right after bingeing the Crown and was shocked at how much less drama Diana herself seemed to carry than the show. I think the show is absolutely making things out to be worse than they were for her. I love the crown, but I’m a little uneasy with the super negative portrayals of the more modern monarchy.

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand the purpose of the monarchy. It doesn't seem like they really understand it either besides "tradition" and "history."

Why can't the PM do the ceremonial stuff in addition to the politics? That's what the POTUS does.

I'm no apologist for the monarchy but this is a weird take. The state and the government are separate in the UK. This is a distinction that was totally collapsed by the US Constitutions so POTUS is head of both. But what the Queen is doing in Britain is not just "ceremonial stuff". She is the representative of the permanency of the entire structure--which leaves the government more free to turn over without every aspect of statecraft being set on its head by some batshit lunatic bent on "draining the swamp."

Anonymous wrote:I'm on the 7th episode. God, how rude and patronizing the family is to Diana and Margaret Thatcher. It's their fault that Diana didn't know what to do and it's also their fault that Thatcher doesn't know what clothing to bring. How would she know they were going out traipsing around in the mud?

Margaret Thatcher was a terrible human being and deserved anything she got from these people.

Anonymous wrote:The parts with Prince Edward and Andrew were really interesting. I definitely saw the writers trying to do a subtle nod at Andrew's current troubles in the conversation he had with the Queen over lunch.

Overall, all 4 of her kids were snobs. Total lack of awareness of their privileged position and an overwhelming sense of entitlement. I know, I know. This is fictionally based. But not one part of me would be surprised if that was their attitude in real life.

Don’t know about the other three but there have been stories about how snobby and arrogant Andrew is for years.

Anonymous wrote:Charles was portrayed in season 2 as sympathetic but this season he is portrayed as so incredibly unlikeable, self-centered, and spoiled. Will this show ruin his chance to be King? I can see the Queen wanting to pass on the throne to William.

Not a chance. I don’t think she has the power to change the line of succession. And frankly I suspect Charles is already running a lot of the show behind the scenes already.

Anonymous wrote:The parts with Prince Edward and Andrew were really interesting. I definitely saw the writers trying to do a subtle nod at Andrew's current troubles in the conversation he had with the Queen over lunch.

Overall, all 4 of her kids were snobs. Total lack of awareness of their privileged position and an overwhelming sense of entitlement. I know, I know. This is fictionally based. But not one part of me would be surprised if that was their attitude in real life.

Anne seems pretty clear-eyed, which would fit with her real-life reputation as someone who just keeps her head down and gets on with the family business.

Charles was portrayed in season 2 as sympathetic but this season he is portrayed as so incredibly unlikeable, self-centered, and spoiled. Will this show ruin his chance to be King? I can see the Queen wanting to pass on the throne to William.

The parts with Prince Edward and Andrew were really interesting. I definitely saw the writers trying to do a subtle nod at Andrew's current troubles in the conversation he had with the Queen over lunch.

Overall, all 4 of her kids were snobs. Total lack of awareness of their privileged position and an overwhelming sense of entitlement. I know, I know. This is fictionally based. But not one part of me would be surprised if that was their attitude in real life.

Everyone interested in Diana should read Andrew Morton's book.

Anonymous wrote:I think that because I remember the events of season four, it wasn’t as enjoyable for me as the earlier seasons.

Trying to make Charles and the avalanche suspenseful was ridiculous since we all know he’s still alive.

So, that whole sequence made me think about how things would be if Charles HAD died in that avalanche. Can you imagine? Diana would have been the tragic young widow. William would be the heir apparent, making her position very different. Would she remarry? It is so weird to think about that.

I finished the season last night and was struck again and again how much of a whining jerk baby Charles was.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand the purpose of the monarchy. It doesn't seem like they really understand it either besides "tradition" and "history."

Why can't the PM do the ceremonial stuff in addition to the politics? That's what the POTUS does.

This is an incredible take. The "tradition" and "history" of the British Royal family includes the largest empire on earth, the invention of an entire Christian denomination, the rise of our own country, the first written constitution in the Magna Carta, etc.

Only the UK can decide if they want the Royal family to remain as it is or substantially as it is, but its history is significant not only in the UK, but in the development of the modern world.

You say “the largest empire on Earth” like it’s a good thing. It’s not.

It's a fact and it's neutral. You can argue the British Empire was bad or did bad things, but that doesn't negate its influence or place in hisotry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys, the mouse!

Any confirmation whether that was planned or just happened?

Crazy, wasn’t it! I can’t figure out why they’d do it on purpose or why they’d leave it in if it was an accident.

The mouse was very much planned. As another poster said, it was to illustrate that the palace was/is a very old building in need of renovation. Which is exactly what the intruder told the Queen on his visit to her chambers.

Speaking of that, it was one of my favorite episodes. When I was a kid (and even now sometimes!) I’d fantasize about breaking into some grand home or building, undetected. I think it was after I read “From the Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler” - I loved the idea of living in the Met with no one knowing.

I also liked the way they filled out his backstory and showed what real hardships he faced. They didn’t write him as some crazy dude, but as a human being who had gone through all the proper channels and had gotten nowhere. Great writing.