Royal commentators are being pretty careless with their criticisms of ‘The Crown’

The Crown S4

The royal commentators cannot STFU about The Crown’s Season 4. And all of it is bizarrely driving more interest in the series and Netflix, I guarantee. It’s not like anyone in the palace can put the genie back in the bottle – any conversation, any dramatization of the Windors in the 1980s and 1990s will end up making them look like a–holes because that’s exactly what they were and what they still are. When Diana died, they selectively co-opted her memory and pushed a revisionist history about her life and times. And here we are: royal chickens coming home to roost. Now the current commentary is that “Charles, the Queen and William are all on the same page, that The Crown is trash.” And don’t forget the “Harry and Meghan are horrible for scoring a lucrative Netflix deal commentary too. So here’s the latest:

Prince Harry won’t U-turn on his £75million Netflix deal despite the fierce criticism of The Crown’s portrayal of his parents, royal commentators claimed today. The Duke of Sussex is ‘unlikely to see a clash’ between series four of the royal drama and the deal he and wife Meghan made with the California-based broadcaster. Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams said Harry may even agree with the ‘derisory portrayal of the Royal Family as a rather sinister, uncaring and often cruel institution’.

Other royal experts have lined up to criticise the drama, including Ingrid Seward who called it ‘pretty inaccurate’, Dickie Arbiter who said ‘some of the actions are fiction’ and Sally Beddell Smith who warned ‘the level of invention has been growing’.

Inaccuracies in the drama have also been slammed, including that Charles saw Lord Mountbatten as more of a father-figure than Prince Philip, and that Margaret Thatcher told the Queen she thought women were incapable of holding high office.

Mr Fitzwilliams said the show portrays Charles as a ‘selfish, insecure wimp’, adding: ‘He is self pitying and brutal to Diana after, for example, her success in New York. His physicality is curious, it heightens the aura of inadequacy which this portrayal emphasizes. He is in love in Camilla but viewers will not sympathise with this portrayal. It is made clear that he is a product of an extremely dysfunctional family.’

The expert added that Diana ‘comes across as someone who is deeply stressed, we see bouts of bulimia, because she is a victim’. He said: ‘Gradually we see her spread her magic. She needs affection and to be appreciated. Emma Corrin is well cast in the role which is sympathetic.’

And the royal expert said: ‘William will undoubtedly detest it. I think, if he watches it, he will see it as deeply intrusive and will think its portrayal of senior royals as so malign and ill-mannered as callous and the way it takes so many liberties with fact as deeply deplorable. Harry is unlikely to see a clash between it and the Netflix deal which he and Meghan have made. He would probably argue that despite enormous dramatic licence the series has a vast audience, many of whom are fascinated by it and untroubled by how it ignores facts. Meghan won’t appear. They, as we know, were unhappy as senior royals and may agree with this derisory portrayal of the royal family as a rather sinister, uncaring and often cruel institution.’

[From The Daily Mail]

A few things… Charles WAS deeply upset and unsettled by Diana’s popularity and he was an incredibly jealous, petty man. Lord Mountbatten WAS the father he never had – Philip terrorized him as a child, and Dickie understood his sensitive nature, and helped guide him into the man he is today. And what Charles and Camilla did to Diana should never be understated – they both chose Diana because they thought she was a meek little mouse who could be easily manipulated and tossed aside once she had been a successful broodmare. Neither of them understood Diana’s popularity or why “the people” loved her so much.

As for what William and Harry think about all of this – bizarrely, I’ve yet to read anything which has the feel of a strategic leak from Kensington Palace. I think Charles’ office is the one doing damage control, and Charles is using William’s name as cover. “Oh, William will be so upset!” Yeah, upset because it’s another reminder that Charles and the entire family tried to destroy his mother. So much dysfunction.

TheCrown_403_Unit_00808

The Crown S4

Promotional photos courtesy of The Crown/Netflix.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

107 Responses to “Royal commentators are being pretty careless with their criticisms of ‘The Crown’”

  1. bettyrose says:

    RF aside, I need to know whether Thatcher really said that about women. Gillian Anderson was so brilliant, I’m now going to have trouble distinguishing her portrayal from reality (since I really don’t know much about Thatcher).

    • Nic919 says:

      I don’t know if she said that about women, but there is footage of Thatcher being against same sex marriage and her general political philosophy was of individual materialism and those who needed help should be punished. The pro apartheid stance is also accurate because Canadian PM Brian Mulroney talked about it more than once. He was a conservative himself, but by the mid 80s it was obvious to everyone but Reagan and Thatcher that apartheid needed to be stopped.

      • bettyrose says:

        Thanks Nic & Digital Unicorn. This doesn’t surprise me at all if her portrayal on the Crown was accurate (in terms of policy positions, anyway). Seems like she would’ve been better suited to life in the U.S. with her take on fierce individualism. As for the pro-apartheid stance, if that bit was true, is it also true that Lizzie actually fought for sanctions against South Africa? Honestly, that bit didn’t ring true to me as it would be so out of character for her to champion human rights, and the show ended with a disclaimer that it’s always been denied that Lizzie expressed an opinion.

      • Nic919 says:

        Brian Mulroney confirmed years later that the Queen spoke to him and others at the meeting and wanted economic sanctions to stop apartheid. By 1986 it wasn’t a radical position to take that stopping apartheid was the right thing to do. Thatcher was stubborn and pissed off the rest of the leaders for her games during that summit. But since Reagan in the US backed her, she didn’t care. Basically she pretended that removing apartheid would let the communists take over South Africa, and being anti communist was still a major issue for Americans and right wing Britons.

    • Becky says:

      You liked Gillian Anderson? I thought she was terrible (I was super little when she was in power so I don’t know what she was like) but I was annoyed with how much attention and time thatcher got because I couldn’t stand the performance of listening to her

      • bettyrose says:

        Okay, admittedly I just like Gillian Anderson and I’m thrilled that she’s still landing great roles. I can’t really compare her performance to the real Thatcher.

      • Elizabeth Phillips says:

        I thought she was awful. But then, I thought Margaret Thatcher was awful.

    • OnceUponA says:

      Thatcher was a beast who destroyed the country. She so hated the idea of workers earning a decent wage (and hated unions even more) she dismantled industry and left workers to starve.

      Ironically, one of the easiest ways to grasp the Trump-like horror she inflicted is to watch the first 10 minutes of the comedy, THE FULL MONTY.

      It starts showing a very corny (but true) documentary from the 60s when everyone had jobs and the area was thriving and eager to face the future.

      Then cut to the present (then 1997) where the town is barren, the factories have all closed, there are no jobs, everyone is broke, depressed and hopeless. (And thus the conceit of the film – with nothing left to lose, the paunchy middle-aged men become strippers to feed their families.)

      This was all Thatcher. She destroyed millions of lives.

      There’s a reason the day she died, “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead” shot to #1 on the British charts.

      Elvis Costello famously wrote a song, “Tamping the dirt down” about wanting to live long enough to dance on her grave. His feelings were shared by millions.

      And yes, she was sexist towards women, believing herself to be the only one worthy of power. With no exception given to QEII

      • bettyrose says:

        Apparently the English Beat recorded a song about how much they hate her – as featured in episode 5 of this season.

      • sunny says:

        She was haaaaaaaaated. My parents left Britain in the early 80′s to move to Canada, and they still talk about how much they hate Thatcher(to this day). She destroyed Britain’s social safety net and she her beliefs were problematic as hell.

      • Elizabeth Phillips says:

        Yes, she was awful.

    • Gorgonia says:

      Gillian Anderson is terrificly good in playing Margaret Thatcher: she was exactly like this.

  2. Darla says:

    I’m so glad to see Charles and Camilia getting their comeuppance. To me what they did was so very Cruel Intentions. I never let their PR nonsense change what I saw. I don’t go along with the revisionist assessment of Camilia either. A fun old wino! Nah.

    Honestly, I think this is so great, and as soon as my busy time is over (and I’m in the thick of it) I will be watching the hell out of The Crown!

    • bettyrose says:

      Watched it all yesterday. I really liked the scenes with Charles and Camilla. For those of us watching it all from the outside, at the time, of course it seemed absurd that Charles chose Camilla over Diana, but it makes so much sense when you see them portrayed as best friends. And there’s something sort of hilarious about the fact that Camilla isn’t even (in the show, anyway) in love with Charles, but she loves him as a friend and craves his adoration. The scene where she takes Diana to lunch and tries to emotionally wreck her is painful.

      • sunny says:

        Charles also had another long-term mistress he was involved with at the time so depicting Charles and Camilla as this great love story is certainly a choice… I wish some of that was captured on screen. But alas Dale has been largely forgotten by history in the Charles/Camilla re-brand.

    • Nlopez says:

      +1000 Darla!

    • Myra says:

      I’m usually on the ‘don’t-blame-the-mistress-blame-the husband’ train but in this instance Camilla is not just a lover on the side, she actively participates in the gaslighting of a much younger woman. Even if we were to believe Charles stopped sleeping with her prior to the wedding (which I don’t), her constant presence and interference is enough to ensure that this marriage never succeeds. She is an active and willing participant and for that she deserves the criticism.

      • bettyrose says:

        I’m rethinking my whole understanding of Camilla’s role. She wasn’t “the other” woman if she was his whole world. I don’t know who’s to blame though. Charles was horrible but he also was given no choice in the matter. He wasn’t allowed to marry Camilla, he wasn’t allowed to not marry Diana. But it does seem like they could have had an okay arrangement? Him at Highgrove and her at KP, living their lives, if only Charles and the whole firm hadn’t been jealous of Diana?

      • Becks1 says:

        I’m someone who has come around to Camilla but to see her gaslighting and treatment of Diana on screen like this – it definitely reverses my opinion. Just being the other woman -I could have forgiven that. But this is creepy and indefensible behavior towards an innocent party in this mess. It wasn’t Diana’s fault that Camilla and Charles didn’t marry.

        @Bettyrose -I wonder what would have been different if 1) Charles had been upfront with Diana from the beginning, said to her – “this isn’t a great love affair and we both know that, but I think we can work well together and represent the country well” or 2) if Charles and the firm hadn’t been so jealous. This season makes it clear that they were jealous almost from the beginning. The Queen was jealous, Charles was jealous, heck Anne was jealous. Their jealousy prevented them from being able to fully “use” Diana for good.

        Gee, that sounds familiar…..

      • Myra says:

        Yes, Camilla is not the typical ‘the other woman’ in this scenario but Charles was still a married man with a young new spouse who was under the impression that there was going to be only the two of them in the marriage. That is Charles’ fault for not making a full and honest disclosure before the engagement; and also for choosing someone so young and naive. A person closer to his age, with more worldly/societal exposure, would have been more appropriate. Camilla is to blame for aiding Charles in moulding the impressionable young girl to his suiting. It ended up causing more pain and humiliation on the wronged party. She should have graciously removed herself from their married life completely to allow the relationship to flourish or falter on its own.

      • Dani says:

        It’s all so disturbing because they were both significantly older than her (13/14 years). I’m 30 and my nephew is 17 and he’s so easily manipulated and gaslighted it’s insane to think how easily they could destroy Diana at that age. Camilla deserves the same amount (to me, even more) of blame as Charles. She pushed him to marry Diana, she tried to tear her down while pretending to be her friend and she continued an affair with Charles while having a family of her own and ruining another in the process. I would be horrified if she was my mother.

    • OnceUponA says:

      it always bothered me that the press take at the time was, “…how could Charles possibly prefer that “ugly” woman to the young hottie he had married?”

      Yes, they helped to destroy Diana, but it’s clear in hindsight that Charles did love Camilla — despite screwing around with others over the years — and it was inconceivable to the public that he could love anyone deemed less physically desirable than his wife.

      The truth is, Charles and Diana never should’ve married — unless she was 100% onboard with the perverse tradition that he would sleep with anyone else he desired, whenever and wherever. Charles famously told Diana early on, “I won’t be the first Prince of Wales without a mistress.” [Diana was clearly not onboard for that. Many posh British couples live tacitly under that understanding...And sometimes under the rose bushes.]

      It’s a vile social contract. But so is feeding a generation the myth that physical/sexual desirability is ultimately the only way to judge a woman’s worth.

      There’s lots to say about Charlie and Camilla – but no one doubts they’re crazy about each other.

      • Thirtynine says:

        I don’t think they’re crazy about each other. He enjoyed uncritical adoration and she seemed perfectly ok with living with her husband and kids. Probably why she could give him that- it would be very tiring to have to supply that on tap 24/7. A nice rest at home, with a little bit of fun and luxury on the the side to look forward to, lots of lovely perks for the family. Maybe a bit of extra status from those in the know. I honestly can’t see it as any deeper than that. And it’s absolutely confirmed that Camilla was not a even his only mistress.

    • Gail says:

      The royal family has always been and still very much exactly that cruel . I have never seen the crown because i don’t have Netflix but I have seen clips of the show and I believe that they are hitting very very close to the truth of that royal inbreed racist institutions. If tampon insert Charles and his mistress come off as cruel And evil , it’s because that are . Camilla and Charles and the queen abs her family used and destroyed an innocent girl life to produce an heir for their continued success. You reap what you sow , so may the royal family reap hell. They weren’t content with just destroying Diana, they had to do it to her son Harry and his family. And the worst part of all of this is the fact that Diana own son little willy helped them and still continue to do it to his own brother and his family. So I say William and Kate deserve what they also get . Long live the show the crown

  3. BlueSky says:

    I haven’t watched The Crown and now I’m definitely watching it! Thanks RRs.
    I’m old enough to remember the wedding and her popularity. I remember when the crowds being disappointed that Diana was on the other side of the crowd and they had to deal with Charles. Diana never stood a chance. She knew he was still seeing Camilla. They annihilated her in the press. Once she died, they most definitely tried to rewrite history as if all that never happened and Diana was so beloved by the RF.

  4. FancyHat says:

    It’s weird for all their criticism of the Crown they aren’t touching the episodes Favorites where the Queen has lunch with all of her children one on one and realizes they are giant gaping assholes. It was that episode that I realized the Queen was basically a humorless Lucille Bluth, who also hated her oldest son the most.

    I honestly can’t decide which of Liz’s kids comes across the worst – Andy showing his rapist tendencies in conversation with his mom, Charles with his narcissistic tendencies and his ability to bore anyone, Anne’s selfishness and overall unpleasant personality or Edward’s whiny greed and undeserved feeling of superiority

    • Becks1 says:

      That episode was fascinating to me and I think the RRs are purposely ignoring it. I loved how Philip was just like, oh Anne’s my favorite without any hesitation. And I found the conversation Anne and her mother had to be really interesting, in that it was clear that Anne was also bothered by Diana’s success and fame. It wasn’t only Charles. She was a problem for the whole family.

      And Andrew’s big introduction in the series was just so spot on knowing what we know about him.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        While the show lets both Anne and Margaret voice their resentment of Diana’s popularity, it also subtly implies that the Queen was resentful as well. When Charles and Diana goes on tour to Australia, the Queen treats herself to fond reminiscences of her own tour there as a young woman – watching footage of the adoring crowds, and later we’re told that the crowds for Diana was even bigger than for the Queen. Charles’ jealousy and resentment need no further elaboration. It really brings to mind that moment in Fiji where Harry and Meghan received the adoration of a huge crowd as the turning point for how they were seen as dangerous competition for the rest of the family (rather than members of the team).

        The way Andrew was introduced was also rather funny because royal watchers will know that it brings to mind William’s helicopter stunt in the backyard of the Middletons.

      • Naomi says:

        That was probably my favourite episode, it really underlined to me, the narcissism. I also liked the Thatcher at Balmoral, as someone who was pretty much against everything Thatcher was, and tbh whose impact we’re suffering today, I did love Thatchers take on the Windsors at Balmoral, petty shallow minded people. The biggest bullshit was Queen set up as anti apartheid, that’s a load of bollocks.

      • Nic919 says:

        The Queen being anti apartheid has been confirmed by other leaders at the summit, including Brian Mulroney. Thatcher played a lot of games during that meeting and the show may be exaggerating her role a bit, but Mulroney years ago said the Queen wanted economic sanctions and she wanted other commonwealth leaders to work in Thatcher in that regard. By 1986 it was an easy position to take and only the UK and US through Thatcher and Reagan were the main hold outs on trying to stop apartheid.

      • Becks1 says:

        The helicopter scene, IMO, was 100% a reference to William and the middletons.

        I also kept thinking of the Fiji moment for H&M compared to this Australia/NZ tour for Charles and Diana. We all said it triggered the royal family and I think this just confirms that.

      • Naomi says:

        @NIC919, I guess I stand corrected although I still think it was done more to keep the commonwealth together, as I imagine she feared countries may break away. Maybe I’m not being generous.

      • Nic919 says:

        I don’t think the Queen was forward thinking on this issue and you’re right it’s more related to keeping the commonwealth countries with non white leaders in the association. Really this is more about Thatcher being so damn backwards than the queen being a hero on racial issues, because as we have since seen, she certainly isn’t.

    • bettyrose says:

      Yes, Andrew, tell us more about the 17 year old actress you’re dating and all her salacious nude scenes. (The shade is astonishing, but I’d like to hope that IRL he wouldn’t have been telling his mummy those things. Eww.)

      • Nic919 says:

        I feel like the Andrew scenes were less about historical accuracy and more about making obvious allusions to current Andrew.

      • Original Penguin says:

        Both Andrew focused scenes threw great shade. They were well placed and covered his proclivities and personality well.

      • Yvette says:

        Andrew ‘did’ date an American actress with the stage name Koo Stark who starred in a hard ‘R’ rated 1976 film called “Emily” (or “The Awakening of Emily”) about a 17-year-old girl. The film is set in England in the 1920′s. Many have described the film as ‘soft-porn’ and therefore mistakenly thought Koo Stark was a porn actress. I don’t think she and Andrew dated before 1981 when she was 25.

        But it was the storyline of the 17-year-old girl that the Andrew character seemed captivated by in “The Crown,” which does seem like a commentary on the real Prince Andrew.

  5. Sofia says:

    “ any conversation, any dramatization of the Windors in the 1980s and 1990s will end up making them look like a–holes”

    Exactly. The BRF need to get that into their head. I said this on another post but they truly need to stop whining about The Crown and leave it alone – or people are going to tune in to see what the fuss is about (but it’s probably too late for that)

    • Sara says:

      They know they were/are a-holes. They just don’t like that it’s coming back to haunt them. For the world to be reminded again.

  6. Sofia says:

    Double comment

  7. Kalana says:

    Charles is a whiny, self-pitying wimp. There’s a balanced biography called “Charles at 50″ which went into all of this even back in 1998. Charles has tried to clean up his portrayal by pointing the finger at others and collaborating with his biographers but he really is whiny and self-pitying. He really is Eeyore.

    His parent were cold and cruel with him and Charles was like that with Diana and then Diana was like that with other people. And of course William is also like that. Harry was like that as well at one point and then got therapy and actually worked on his mental health.

    I’m enjoying the reactions from people new to the story. All the “Did he really say that?” and “Were they really that snobbish or cold?”

    • molly says:

      It’s a centuries-long cycle of broken, emotionally stunted people being distant and cruel to one another. The only way to break the cycle is to fix yourself and get out. Harry’s decision looks smarter and smarter every day.

    • Dani says:

      Omg I thought he was INSUFFERABLE in season 3 – I wanted to reach in to the screen and strangle him. I don’t doubt for a second that Charles maintained the same pathetic self pitying personality until present day.

  8. Mignionette says:

    So here’s my take. Sue the damn program or shut up and stop using your hired gun establishment mouth pieces to make you look better.

    People are not stupid and we were all here when it went down.

  9. Mia4s says:

    These commentators (and the Palace!) need to google the “Streisand effect”.🙄 I bailed during season 3 because I got bored, but they are tempting me to watch again.

    • Becks1 says:

      This season is so much better than Season 3. The first episode alone just completely hooked me.

      • Nic919 says:

        This may be the best season yet. Last season was overall boring and they skipped parts that made no sense, like Anne almost being kidnapped.

        This season they finally focused on a female character who did something, instead of just watching, which to be honest is all the Queen does this season too, along with Anne, who basically was exposition central.

    • MsDiMeanOur says:

      i also bailed 2 episodes into s3.. i dont know why
      perhaps its the queens accent (funny though, KeenKate sounds exactly like that)

      however, the coverage here (and on the Daily fail) is making me curious..

  10. Ariel says:

    I feel like the royal family and their enablers (both in the palace and in the press) have zero understanding of the Streisand Effect- wherein you shout so loudly about a small thing that you want to quiet, that it becomes 1000 times more famous.
    I mean, Diana was a huge deal, and maybe her portrayal in the Crown was always going to stir up big reactions- but i feel like they are making it worse. Making themselves look worse.
    Imagine if Charles could be like- i regret it. I regret i was pushed into marrying her, she was little more than a child. I regret that i was jealous of her charisma, which no one in my inbred family has even a sliver of. I wish i had behaved differently as a young man.

    • lanne says:

      While a regular person might be that introspective, someone like Charles who was raised to believe he is better than everyone isn’t likely capable of being introspective. These are selfish, small-minded people who probably truly believe they are being persecuted.

    • ShazBot says:

      “Imagine if Charles could be like- i regret it. I regret i was pushed into marrying her, she was little more than a child. I regret that i was jealous of her charisma, which no one in my inbred family has even a sliver of. I wish i had behaved differently as a young man.”

      MAN. Could you imagine!? That would honestly be groundbreaking for a member of the royal family.

  11. Becks1 says:

    Oh and I also think all this desperate damage control is coming from Charles. He’s the one who suddenly looks really bad in this season (I thought in season 3 he was a little dull but actually a sympathetic person in many way, but this season is NOT holding back.) William wouldn’t be pushing all this because the series doesn’t make him look bad. If anything I think it makes William seem sympathetic bc you remember how messed up his parents marriage was from the beginning.

    • Sofia says:

      Which is probably why William/KP are silent. It doesn’t effect William in that it doesn’t make him look bad, therefore they don’t need to do anything. Plus they’re also probably thinking that any sympathy for Diana conjured from this series could “transfer” to William so again, he doesn’t need to do anything against the show

    • molly says:

      The more I learn about Charles, Diana, Camilla, and the whole RF, the less I judge William for running to Middletons all time. Of course he craves the love and stability of a “normal” family.

      Exactly the same with Harry. Oh, he wants out of this messy world full of backstabbing people who don’t really know or like each other in the first place? OF COURSE HE DOES.

  12. Jessie says:

    I just can’t fathom their thinking that Harry should cancel a 75 MILLION POUND DEAL because his asshole family, the same assholes who probably threaten to cut him off if they haven’t already, the same family he had to move to the other side of the world to get away from, was portrayed accurately

    • Darla says:

      LOL I know, that’s so true. They really are hilarious.

    • lanne says:

      They are supposed to cancel the deal because Harry’s supposed to be penniless and lost without his family. He isn’t supposed to thrive, and his “woke” wife is supposed to suffer as well. She’s supposed to leave him in disgust so that he will come crawling back to his family and rejoin the merry trio with the Cambridges. The thing is, the palace idiots wrote that script, but either forgot to mail to it Harry, or didn’t realize that Harry wouldn’t follow it.

    • I love how the Netflix deal amount keeps going down the more the Royal Rota bitch about it: 150£ million, to 100£million, and now they are saying 75£million. They don’t have a F***ing clue what is going on in SussexLand and it shows. 😂

  13. Catherine says:

    I expect Charles is plotting, expect leaks on both boys. Expect a lot of drama out of CH. the Crown – omg – dragged him and Camilla to hell. And rightly so.

  14. sara says:

    dude. only last month will + kate were doing a huge promo for the new david attenborough netflix show, and were sitting on netflix chairs, and appearing with the netflix logo. they had a whole screening.

  15. February-Pisces says:

    If Charles was smart he would have got together with Peter Morgan after the first season of The Crown and got his side on record. He might have done that anyway, but it wouldn’t change history. I think Charles and Diana both put each other through hell, but that doesn’t matter now, because in the end Charles and Camilla got their happily ever after, Diana didn’t, so that sense of injustice will always be there based on that alone.

  16. A says:

    “ Inaccuracies in the drama have also been slammed, including that Charles saw Lord Mountbatten as more of a father-figure than Prince Philip, and that Margaret Thatcher told the Queen she thought women were incapable of holding high office.”

    Are these inaccuracies though? Milk snatcher was famously anti-feminist. She loathed other women, particularly poor, working class women who did not come from or marry into money. She got by bc she fashioned herself as “not like the other girls” where it was convenient, and as a simple housewife doing up the household budget where it wasn’t.

    And Charles was close to Mountbatten. He was closer in a different way, likely didn’t see him as a father figure, but Mountbatten was his favourite uncle for sure, and who he turned to for advice for things he couldn’t bother his parents with. This is such a bizarre nitpick to me.

    As for the royals turning against the Crown, ofc they did. They’re fundamentally feckless and disloyal. They were all over the show when it was convenient to them, when it boosted the Queen’s profile back when Claire Foy was on the show, when it made her look good. Now the needle is shifting ever so slightly, even though the portrayal is still likely to be a light criticism of the subjects at hand, and they’re pissy abt it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it could be so much worse. Peter Morgan is one of the biggest royal asskissers in the business. He recycled the Queens worst moment into a movie that engendered her sympathy she didn’t fucking deserve. They should be thanking him on bended knee for his services, but whatever I guess.

    • Sofia says:

      “ into a movie that engendered her sympathy she didn’t fucking deserve.”

      Plus it managed to make Tony Blair look like a good guy. Tony fucking BLAIR.

    • Nic919 says:

      It’s funny you say that because Good Morning America this morning had a guy describe Peter Morgan as an anti monarchist and I thought “what?”

      • A says:

        Peter Morgan fancies himself as an anti-monarchist, although if he is, I have to say that that sentiment very rarely ever comes through in his work, which has always managed to leave the audience with the remarkable ability to see the royals in a good light, no matter what their defects are. So either he’s really fucking bad at what he does for a living, or he’s not much of an anti-monarchist at all.

    • ClaireB says:

      I don’t think The Queen was overly sympathetic to Elizabeth. It definitely showed the family’s privilege, their complete lack of compassion for their subjects and their emotional constipation. I felt like it made the argument that these factors make the royals unfit for duty in the modern world, actually. I realize Morgan could have gone a lot harder on the queen, but I didn’t feel like she came off very sympathetically.

      • A says:

        “I felt like it made the argument that these factors make the royals unfit for duty in the modern world, actually.”

        The problem is, in the process of making that argument, Peter Morgan has to make the concurrent argument that they are the way they are, because they are subject to a cruel and painful institution, and therefore the victims of it as well. I am not interested in that argument, bc the point of it is to make the audience go, “Oh those poor royals, their role just makes them all these things that are so unfit for the modern world. All this privilege is just so much more COMPLICATED than the rest of us dumb common peasants thought, isn’t it?”

        But it’s not complicated. It’s quite simple. The Queen is not remotely a victim, and she is not a sympathetic figure. She is the beneficiary of enormous amounts of privilege, which she exercises for her own whims, even if it comes at the expense of the rest of us who don’t have any of those privileges, because she truly thinks she is above the rest of us thanks to her accident of birth, that she and her family can contravene the law if it suits them.

        I have flat out no pity to spare for a dumb old bitch who covers up the criminal activities of her son, who was engaging in the services of a sex-trafficking pedophile predator to gain access to underage girls, who were coerced into having sex with him. There is nothing complicated or pitiable about such a person, and an institution that protects people who in turn leverage their power and influence to protect criminals and stall investigations and efforts to obtain justice for people who were harmed.

        Morgan not going harder on the Queen is a travesty in light of all of the reality. Granted, the full truth about Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein was not out at the time of the movie, but the rotten truth about the position of the BRF, the corruption at the core of the institution itself, has always been there. But he never chooses to examine that. Peter Morgan makes a choice to focus on individual portraits of people, which, by definition, require those individuals to be rendered empathetic to the audience. But in making that choice, he also makes the decision to not go all in on the criticisms they rightfully deserve. “He should have gone harder, but didn’t,” IS the problem. Not going hard enough DOES fail to hold these people accountable, at a time when that is just not an option on the table, when questioning notions of inherent privilege and status in the harshest way possible is a necessity for justice.

  17. DS9 says:

    If William’s marriage is anything to go by, William shouldn’t have issues win this because he’s clearly fine with how things went down with his mother, with the exception of her death.

    He married a woman who has been eager to be the exact blend of what the Firm wants her to be, a docile, malleable, never rock the boat shadow support for William who has no distinct personality and what her husband wants, a upper class playact who wears motherhood like a badge of honor, doesn’t outshine him in any way, and gives him exactly as much or as little attention as he needs depending on his mood and gardening interests.

    • Harper says:

      That’s what they want you to think. Kate may be a raging bitch that William is terrified of, who smokes cigs all day to keep her weight down, throws vases at him to get him up off the couch, and spends her days online shopping for makeup. If the Crown showed us anything it’s that the royals like their perfect images and we have no reason to think Will & Kate’s marriage isn’t a public relations project just like Charles & Di were back in the day.

      • DS9 says:

        Right. That is what they want us to think, that’s the point.

        They’ve shown time and time again that it’s the appearance that counts, what shows up in the papers, the thin, devoted wife and mother, with her Diana cosplay but none of the drama and controversy.

      • Gorgonia says:

        I agree with you, Harper. Maybe Kate is exactly like you say, under closed doors. Maybe she is an opportunist, who takes all the benefits she can from the situation.

      • KaitlinH says:

        There already have been rumors of problems such as William cheating with Rose Hanbury, the Marchioness of Cholmondeley. Whether true or not, Kate has shown her bitchy side when she ignored Harry and Meghan at the church during their last public appearance. Seemed very petty.

  18. DS9 says:

    It’s always been interesting to me how formative circumstances with Mountbatten and Edward VIII are to the Royals and yet everyone else outside of that circle views those circumstances differently.

    So of course, their feelings are hurt on those topics. They cannot and will not be objective.

  19. S808 says:

    Mind boggling that they think Harry should break a probably iron tight contract cause of how shitty the family that cut him off are being portrayed when the family has continued to work with the people that terrorized his wife to the point that they had to leave the country. Harry has no reason to be loyal to those people.

    I’m glad Charles and Camilla are being dragged through the mud, they absolutely deserve it. They don’t deserve peace or a peaceful ending for what they did to Diana.

    • Mignionette says:

      It’s not about the contract, rather what it assures Harry. Economic independence from the family so they don’t have to go back running cap in hand.

      They wanted H&M to fail so they’d come running back. But with that kind of money it’s not going to happen.

      That’s why they keep trying to make Netflix look bad. But what they’re doing is making them more popular, The comments on Twitter last night were not just in English, they were in every language. It was a global hit. Diana was and still is an icon the BRF cannot escape and this season allowed her to f*ck them from the grave once more.

  20. Flamingo says:

    I’m not sure I agree that Camilla couldn’t figure out why Diana was so popular. There was a scene in season 4 where she pretty clearly stated that Diana was prettier, more charismatic, more photogenic, more everything than she could ever be.

  21. Mimi says:

    If you want to know William’s/Kensington Palace’s stance, look no further than their mouthpiece Dan Wooton. He is all aboard the hate train for Charles & Camila, which tells me that KP is taking great delight in the backlash from The Crown and actively pushing it as well.

    • Nic919 says:

      Interesting. And I expect to hear more about gardening activities very soon. Charles isn’t going to take criticism on being a cheater quietly when his son is doing the same thing but with a more compliant spouse.

      • Midnight@theOasis says:

        Ooh. Maybe this will lead to open warfare between Clarence House and KP. Should be entertaining.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Doubt there will be open warfare. PWT is counting on the Duchy Money. He is not *automatically* made PoW. He NEEDS Charles for that.

  22. Eleonor says:

    Netflix couldn’t hope for all this free pr.
    And yes the RF is cruel: Diana wasn’t an easy person, and that marriage was a mess from the start, but people loved her because she was human, warm, and nobody in the RF shows any kind of emotion. Except Harry.

  23. lemonylips says:

    Although I know it’s a fictional show based on real life stories etc. I am finding it really problematic that Philip has the best lines all the times. I mean I love Tobias Menzies, maybe it’s him being so great, but everytime an episode is over I feel so bad for enjoying his moments on the screen in that character, cause that man is horrible.

    • Becks1 says:

      Both Matt Smith and Tobias Menzies really nailed Phillip, IMO. Even when he’s being a total asshole I enjoy it because they are so good.

      • I found the bedroom scene between Phillip and Diana in the last episode pretty interesting from a story arc point of view. Where Diana says maybe she’ll set up her own court and go it alone and Phillip tells Diana she does NOT want to go there. As he says the line, Menzies voice gets harder and menacing and his body leans into her in a threatening manner and invades her space. Diana’s last words in that almost final scene are, “Are you threatening me, Sir?” An interesting comment to basically close out Season 4. Makes you know Season 5 is going to definitely GO THERE.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I’m insanely excited for season 5 and it’s going to be hard to wait until 2022 to watch it.

      • Margaret says:

        I found the bedroom scene between Phillip and Diana particularly interesting because it took place over Christmas 1989. I think it was Christmas Eve. Anyway, we have access to Diana’s actual words spoken to her friend (maybe lover) James Gilbey only a week later on New Year’s Eve 1989 in the Squidygate tapes, in which she tells her friend that that day she felt very sad and empty, and goes on to say, ‘… and I thought: “Bloody hell, after all I’ve done for this f**king family”‘. Later she was speaking about the Queen Mother, and said the QM was ‘always looking at me with a strange look in her eyes. It’s not hatred; it’s sort of interest and pity mixed in one. I am not quite sure. I don’t understand it. Everytime I look up, she’s looking at me, then looks away, and smiles”. It’s interesting to have some contemporaneous actual words from Diana.

  24. RoyalBlue says:

    the RR are consolidating their points and refocusing their efforts in criticizing the Crown from defending Charles to attacking the Sussexes.

    • Midnight@theOasis says:

      Imagine the hell H&M would be catching right now if they were still there as part of the Royal Family. So glad they escaped and put an ocean and a continent between them and the RF/BM/ RRs.

  25. L4frimaire says:

    These people act like the public have collective amnesia. This stuff is recent enough for many to have a front row seat and they know a lot more than the writers of the Crown do. The comments from non-royal watchers are both hilarious and insightful at times. The comments from Saeed Jones are funny AF. I only saw the first 2 episodes, it was ok but not feeling the emotional investments some others are, mostly because the royals recent behavior is so bad, and the current blustering of the press comes across a contrived.

    • molly says:

      Plenty of people had a front row seat, and they certainly gossiped about it with everyone they knew. Even if you weren’t old enough to be around for Charles/Di, many of us grew up around moms and grandmas who had VERY strong thoughts on the situation.

  26. Amy Bee says:

    The royal rota and commentators are actively rewriting history to benefit the Royal Family but I don’t think it’s working.

    • Sarah says:

      The internet has enhanced a lot of terrible issues in the world but it also allows for much clearer paper trails and I don’t think this lot have figured that out yet.

  27. Sarah says:

    the ‘derisory portrayal of the Royal Family as a rather sinister, uncaring and often cruel institution’.

    Sounds spot on to me. We have eyes you know.

  28. Lucy says:

    Looking at these pictures, how tall is the box the actor playing Charles is standing on? I thought I read the actress playing Diana is actually 6’3″?
    Asking the important questions here 😄

    • Nic919 says:

      The actress cast as Diana in season five is much taller, although I don’t think she’s 6’3. This actress is much shorter and the actor playing Charles is taller than him so the height gap is real, if not historically accurate.

      • Original Penguin says:

        The original photo of Charles and Diana dancing in Australia shows her height really well.

        I thought Josh O Connor was great last season, but a little too young here. I wish they’d switched actors for him this season, made him a bit more middle aged so we could really see the age difference (you can see it in the real Australian photos)

      • Ames says:

        Elizabeth Debicki is playing Diana in season 5, and she is, indeed, 6′ 3″.

  29. NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

    The Crown is an anthology of issues regarding how problematic the royals are. If you look at it like that rather than a historical piece, it goes down well.

  30. Feeshalori says:

    Charles does not come out well in this season at all. Maybe he should call Mark Bolland for a PR refresher tuneup!

  31. Ames says:

    That revisionist history BS isn’t gonna work, because too many people SAW WITH THEIR OWN EYES what a douche nugget Charles was.

    Something I begrudge Harry and Megan was that their wedding afforded Charles to snatch an opportunity to look semi-human and “fatherly” by (halfway) walking Megan down the aisle. And snatch it, he did. He leaps on ANY opportunity to burnish his image.

    But Charles is a terrible person, raised in a terrible system. by throughly terrible people. What Diana EVER saw in that man, I’ll never understand . . .

    And why the hell would Harry be expected to shun Netflix? The Crown is a show ON Netflix … it’s not the sum total of the company. What kind of kneejerk stupidity is that?

  32. L4frimaire says:

    I’ve only seen 2 episodes so far so not that committed, but the royals are definitely overreacting. They just don’t want people to remember all their f*cksh*t during the Diana years. I get the comparisons of Meghan and Diana, but they are very different women who had very different roles, and I have never thought of Meghan as the new Diana. That’s unfair to both women. However, the royals seemed to use Meghan to exorcise their demons, their angst and anger about both Diana and Edward/ Wallis. That along with their inherent racism and jealousy of her competence and media attention. They still are going guns blazing so as much as the press are trying to bait them, hope the Sussexes just stay out of this because there is no point in commenting on some tv show the royals are pissed about.

  33. Gorgonia says:

    I love The crown 4 and I find the portrait of Lady Di pretty accurate: even if it’s a little romanced, it’s believable. Some things are pretty clear: 1) Diana was a too bright personality for the lot of them. They thought they could manipulate her but they were wrong. 2) The marriage was a great mistake from the very start. If the engagement lasted longer, probably they would never have married, besides all the Camilla situation, they were too distant to make it work anycase. 3) the RF wronged Diana in many ways. 3) I think Diana’s own family is guilty too: they knew her personality, her characteristics, they should have stopped all the charade or, at least, asked for a longer engagement, not an hurried marriage. The Spencers were just a lot of opportunists. Even with all this, Diana achieved a lot during her life. such a shame for the RF they weren’t able to see the great advantages this woman would bring to the monarchy.

Commenting Guidelines

Celebitchy aims to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment