Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Crown, season II  (Read 18914 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Margaret

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1431

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 4118





Ignore
« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2017, 11:41:15 PM »

^^^ How interesting!  I came away with a totally opposite view of Charles.   I thought his father was a monster to insist on him staying at Gordonstoun.  But I've always felt that way.  Perhaps there was enough depicted in the show to satisfy each point of view.
Logged
NoviceDisher
Banned
Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 141

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 538





Ignore
« Reply #46 on: December 29, 2017, 01:15:46 AM »

^^^ How interesting!  I came away with a totally opposite view of Charles.   I thought his father was a monster to insist on him staying at Gordonstoun.  But I've always felt that way.  Perhaps there was enough depicted in the show to satisfy each point of view.

I don't have much knowledge of the BRF so my view was mostly formed by the Crown. IDK what part of the DOE building the wall was dramatized, but when you see him so determined and so alone with such a family baggage of the Nazi sisters, the mad mother and the father who blames him for his sister's death I am surprised how much I admired the DOE for all he achieved. And then to be asked to give it all up for someone who is as unaccomplished as the queen because royalty made me really roll my eyes. The QM who indulges Prince Charles so much (I saw in a documentary) has the gall to say perhaps the DOE could be in charge of the photographer during the coronation. Prince Charles has not achieved even now 50% of  what the DOE did given his circumstances. So I felt he came across as indulged and a failure in many ways compared to his father given all the advantages he had. George is like that I feel given all his advantages. William is like that too. In fact I came to the conclusion that compared to the DOE his descendants are really a waste in terms achievements despite the advantages they had. Prince Harry comes the closest to me and that too by several miles.
Logged
cordtx

Warned
Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1544

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 9645





Ignore
« Reply #47 on: December 29, 2017, 02:46:17 AM »

They did have Lord Porchy  , QE supposed lover in the Kennedy episode, but it was a quick second
Logged
Rebecca

Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 164

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 441





Ignore
« Reply #48 on: December 29, 2017, 03:27:09 AM »

The surprising thing for me how sympathetic I felt for most characters at various points.

1. The Queen in the episode Hyde Park Corner when Queen Mary deeply curtseys to her. Claire Foy has such a lost, shocked expression on her face that it has finally sunk in that she is Queen after her grandmother whom she curtseys her whole life now does it to her.
2. The Queen Mother when she talks about loss in Scotland. Loss of a husband, a home, crown, responsibilities. I always thought of her as being tone deaf. But looking at her as a relatively young widow and the loss she must have felt humanized her. I still think she was out of touch and not a very nice person because of what she was like to DOE for instance but I felt a bit sorry for her.
3. Princess Margaret. I don't think she is a nice person at all, but her struggle to fit in and the loss she must have felt of father, Peter made me more sympathetic to her.
4. DOE most of all. I never particularly cared for him because I've of his gaffes and even the occasional obnoxious comments. But when I saw how much he overcame and what a horrible childhood he had added to how horrible the palace officials and the QM treated him, I came away admiring him for the life he build for himself. He is so accomplished certainly more so than the Queen. He is the one I came away admiring most of all and it is mostly due to Matt Smith who portrayed his struggle well.

I did not like two characters. Lord Mountbatten, I just did not find him likable. Most of all I am surprised at my reaction to Prince Charles. I've always considered him spoilt, out of touch and living in his own world. But the Crown reiterated all that as a child, he comes across as such a wimpy, non motivated child indulged by everyone and a huge disappointment to his parents especially DOE. Instead of feeling sorry for Prince Charles I felt sorry for the DOE and the Crown. Prince Charles has spent a lifetime cultivating his interests and working for a place so I give all credit to him. But the child Prince Charles in the Crown comes across as George does now to me. Not suitable to be heir, quite annoying and his sister would be better. I still think Princess Anne would have been a  better heir and so would Charlotte be than Prince Charles and George respectively. I am surprised the Crown reiterated that for me.

IMO, it is not possible to determine whether a 4 year old is 'suitable' for his role in life.

Also, I would think that given his difficult childhood, Prince Philip would have tried to make sure his son had an easier time of it.
Logged
Margaret

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1431

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 4118





Ignore
« Reply #49 on: December 29, 2017, 03:37:52 AM »

^^^ How interesting!  I came away with a totally opposite view of Charles.   I thought his father was a monster to insist on him staying at Gordonstoun.  But I've always felt that way.  Perhaps there was enough depicted in the show to satisfy each point of view.

I don't have much knowledge of the BRF so my view was mostly formed by the Crown. IDK what part of the DOE building the wall was dramatized, but when you see him so determined and so alone with such a family baggage of the Nazi sisters, the mad mother and the father who blames him for his sister's death I am surprised how much I admired the DOE for all he achieved. And then to be asked to give it all up for someone who is as unaccomplished as the queen because royalty made me really roll my eyes. The QM who indulges Prince Charles so much (I saw in a documentary) has the gall to say perhaps the DOE could be in charge of the photographer during the coronation. Prince Charles has not achieved even now 50% of  what the DOE did given his circumstances. So I felt he came across as indulged and a failure in many ways compared to his father given all the advantages he had. George is like that I feel given all his advantages. William is like that too. In fact I came to the conclusion that compared to the DOE his descendants are really a waste in terms achievements despite the advantages they had. Prince Harry comes the closest to me and that too by several miles.

I'm not sure what you mean by Philip being asked to "give it all up" for Elizabeth.  Yes, he had to deal with adversity in his early years, and he went on to become a competent naval officer.  But he was always going to be second fiddle to his wife once Elizabeth became queen, and he would - or should - have known that.  

Philip's role as consort to the monarch and Charles' as Prince of Wales are very different.  Philip achieved a lot over the years but of the two of them, I think Charles is the one to have achieved something really substantial in his life.   He created a role for himself and has had nearly 40 years to develop and execute his plans.  His work for The Prince's Trust and other projects such as the restoration of Dumfries House and the Poundbury development are long term projects of which he should be very proud.   Philip was never going to have the opportunity to do what Charles has done though since his role was always going to be a supportive, subsidiary one.  Charles has achieved a lot as a result of his own initiative and own long-term efforts.  So far William hasn't shown the same sort of independence and initiative as his father and will not have as much time to carve out his niche as his father has had. George is too young to be considered.  Anyone whose main source of information about the BRF is watching The Crown, is not going to have a full picture of Charles' achievements.   And there are a lot of historical inaccuracies in The Crown, too, which is primarily an entertainment and is not a docu-drama.  
Logged
Margaret

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1431

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 4118





Ignore
« Reply #50 on: December 29, 2017, 03:42:04 AM »

Deleted.
Logged
NoviceDisher
Banned
Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 141

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 538





Ignore
« Reply #51 on: December 29, 2017, 04:12:16 AM »

The surprising thing for me how sympathetic I felt for most characters at various points.

1. The Queen in the episode Hyde Park Corner when Queen Mary deeply curtseys to her. Claire Foy has such a lost, shocked expression on her face that it has finally sunk in that she is Queen after her grandmother whom she curtseys her whole life now does it to her.
2. The Queen Mother when she talks about loss in Scotland. Loss of a husband, a home, crown, responsibilities. I always thought of her as being tone deaf. But looking at her as a relatively young widow and the loss she must have felt humanized her. I still think she was out of touch and not a very nice person because of what she was like to DOE for instance but I felt a bit sorry for her.
3. Princess Margaret. I don't think she is a nice person at all, but her struggle to fit in and the loss she must have felt of father, Peter made me more sympathetic to her.
4. DOE most of all. I never particularly cared for him because I've of his gaffes and even the occasional obnoxious comments. But when I saw how much he overcame and what a horrible childhood he had added to how horrible the palace officials and the QM treated him, I came away admiring him for the life he build for himself. He is so accomplished certainly more so than the Queen. He is the one I came away admiring most of all and it is mostly due to Matt Smith who portrayed his struggle well.

I did not like two characters. Lord Mountbatten, I just did not find him likable. Most of all I am surprised at my reaction to Prince Charles. I've always considered him spoilt, out of touch and living in his own world. But the Crown reiterated all that as a child, he comes across as such a wimpy, non motivated child indulged by everyone and a huge disappointment to his parents especially DOE. Instead of feeling sorry for Prince Charles I felt sorry for the DOE and the Crown. Prince Charles has spent a lifetime cultivating his interests and working for a place so I give all credit to him. But the child Prince Charles in the Crown comes across as George does now to me. Not suitable to be heir, quite annoying and his sister would be better. I still think Princess Anne would have been a  better heir and so would Charlotte be than Prince Charles and George respectively. I am surprised the Crown reiterated that for me.

IMO, it is not possible to determine whether a 4 year old is 'suitable' for his role in life.

Also, I would think that given his difficult childhood, Prince Philip would have tried to make sure his son had an easier time of it.

Agree about the 4 year. But completely disagree with @Bold.

Which part of Prince Charles' life was difficult growing up ? All these are taken from the Crown. DOE left Greece in an orange crate at age 1, had to live in exile, his mother was put in a mental asylum, just disappeared one day, they lost contact for years and their father abandoned him. He had no home of his own, one of the most poignant scenes for me is when DOE is trying to do renovations to Clarence House and he says it is the first home he ever had. He was shunted from relative to relative, his very fees was paid by the largesse of relatives. He had put out his hand since he was a child, his family of origin scattered and effectively was almost an orphan. It's almost like a tragic story in it's origins. It takes great will power to grow up like that and achieve what he did. It shows strength of character.

Contrast that to Prince Charles, born heir to the throne. The only sorrow he had probably that he did not meet his parents for months at a time, but I expect he was compensated with toys and attention. He was indulged as the heir, treated different from Princess Anne at least by one nanny (she says so in the documentary Queen at 90).  The QM spoilt him and he had no concept of the real world (from a documentary). So the DOE probably thought that he needed time in the real world away from the palace where everyone fell over themselves to indulge him. I agree. But Prince Charles comes across that he did not have the strength of character for anything that is remotely difficult . He comes across as spoilt, unable really to function in any capacity on his own like he does in RL.
Logged
NoviceDisher
Banned
Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 141

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 538





Ignore
« Reply #52 on: December 29, 2017, 04:21:34 AM »

^^^ How interesting!  I came away with a totally opposite view of Charles.   I thought his father was a monster to insist on him staying at Gordonstoun.  But I've always felt that way.  Perhaps there was enough depicted in the show to satisfy each point of view.

I don't have much knowledge of the BRF so my view was mostly formed by the Crown. IDK what part of the DOE building the wall was dramatized, but when you see him so determined and so alone with such a family baggage of the Nazi sisters, the mad mother and the father who blames him for his sister's death I am surprised how much I admired the DOE for all he achieved. And then to be asked to give it all up for someone who is as unaccomplished as the queen because royalty made me really roll my eyes. The QM who indulges Prince Charles so much (I saw in a documentary) has the gall to say perhaps the DOE could be in charge of the photographer during the coronation. Prince Charles has not achieved even now 50% of  what the DOE did given his circumstances. So I felt he came across as indulged and a failure in many ways compared to his father given all the advantages he had. George is like that I feel given all his advantages. William is like that too. In fact I came to the conclusion that compared to the DOE his descendants are really a waste in terms achievements despite the advantages they had. Prince Harry comes the closest to me and that too by several miles.

I'm not sure what you mean by Philip being asked to "give it all up" for Elizabeth.  Yes, he had to deal with adversity in his early years, and he went on to become a competent naval officer.  But he was always going to be second fiddle to his wife once Elizabeth became queen, and he would - or should - have known that.  

Philip's role as consort to the monarch and Charles' as Prince of Wales are very different.  Philip achieved a lot over the years but of the two of them, I think Charles is the one to have achieved something really substantial in his life.   He created a role for himself and has had nearly 40 years to develop and execute his plans.  His work for The Prince's Trust and other projects such as the restoration of Dumfries House and the Poundbury development are long term projects of which he should be very proud.   Philip was never going to have the opportunity to do what Charles has done though since his role was always going to be a supportive, subsidiary one.  Charles has achieved a lot as a result of his own initiative and own long-term efforts.  So far William hasn't shown the same sort of independence and initiative as his father and will not have as much time to carve out his niche as his father has had. George is too young to be considered.  Anyone whose main source of information about the BRF is watching The Crown, is not going to have a full picture of Charles' achievements.   And there are a lot of historical inaccuracies in The Crown, too, which is primarily an entertainment and is not a docu-drama.  

Well have to disagree about the DOE "giving it all up".  Most of my info is from the crown butI have also watched documentaries.  According to it he had a thriving navy career which he achieved mostly due to his effort with probably Mountbatten helping him. He is despised by the Palace, not given a role, thwarted at every turn, even by the QM, especially the QM. Yet he managed to carve an identity for himself like Prince Albert. I don't know much about DOE but I do know quite a bit about Prince Albert and Queen Vic. He is in the mold of Prince Albert.

Prince Charles had the means, no one stopping him, support, money for what he did. He does not come across as independent. DOE on the other hand legend is he cooked himself breakfast in the dining room using an electric skillet until the Queen objected to the smell , carried his bags while Prince Charles still has his valet put toothpaste on his brush according to rumor (don't know the truth of this). DOE comes across as spartan, disciplined, ambitious and tenacious. Prince Charles comes across as spoilt, indulged and out of touch and the Crown reiterates it for me strangely.
Logged
Ellie

Muted
Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1944

Offline Offline

Posts: 7201


proud moron thx Scooby Doo




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: December 29, 2017, 04:45:35 AM »

The toothpaste story was when he had a broken arm. Itís otherwise a myth.

Charles was told no at many turns with his charity work, and used his naval pension to get his Trust off the ground, not the Duchy fortune. He was expected to do nothing and follow the examples of previous heirs. He created a role for the heir instead of sitting around on his hands waiting and wasting time. Sadly his sons havenít learned from his example, especially William.

Philip had his trials too and was treated horribly by the grey men and his nasty mother in law. He has done great things playing second fiddle. It doesnít excuse his terrible treatment of his oldest son, which continues. Charles took him to Poundbury a few years back and her said something about how it was a stupid waste. He was poorly served by being forced to attend a school unsuitable for his temperament and interests. Philip is a rare breed and wanted Charles to be like him. Heís not. Square hole, round peg... Anne is like him. 

As for George, heís a freaking child. His father bullies him it seems like Philip bullied Charles. Itís sad to see that sweet spirit and th anxiety in a little one. You nurture your kids and donít try to change them.
Logged

writing angry fauxminist letters in the Lesbaru
Margaret

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1431

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 4118





Ignore
« Reply #54 on: December 29, 2017, 05:57:04 AM »

The toothpaste story was when he had a broken arm. Itís otherwise a myth.

Charles was told no at many turns with his charity work, and used his naval pension to get his Trust off the ground, not the Duchy fortune. He was expected to do nothing and follow the examples of previous heirs. He created a role for the heir instead of sitting around on his hands waiting and wasting time. Sadly his sons havenít learned from his example, especially William.

Philip had his trials too and was treated horribly by the grey men and his nasty mother in law. He has done great things playing second fiddle. It doesnít excuse his terrible treatment of his oldest son, which continues. Charles took him to Poundbury a few years back and her said something about how it was a stupid waste. He was poorly served by being forced to attend a school unsuitable for his temperament and interests. Philip is a rare breed and wanted Charles to be like him. Heís not. Square hole, round peg... Anne is like him.  

As for George, heís a freaking child. His father bullies him it seems like Philip bullied Charles. Itís sad to see that sweet spirit and th anxiety in a little one. You nurture your kids and donít try to change them.

Well said. Star  I particularly like the bolded bit.



Logged
Ellie

Muted
Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1944

Offline Offline

Posts: 7201


proud moron thx Scooby Doo




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: December 29, 2017, 06:07:59 AM »

Thanks Margaret!  Star

It bugs me seeing George and how anxious and shy he is, and how his parents complain about his behavior a lot when he seems like such a sweet little boy, I wanna hug him.

Those stories of Philip and Charles remind me of my own dad, who is Charles's age, and the way his father treated him. It is very generational I think--hard on your children, especially the eldest son. It's so damaging and a family dysfunction my own family has I desperately try to, well, negate with my own kid. It's sad as I think Philip believed he was doing the right thing as a good father of the time, too, but it's clear to others during that time that it was really bad for such a sensitive, shy, coddled child like Charles, made worse by how he was treated by the other kids.

Anne's the one who's the tough cookie and very like her father in her attitude. I think the Queen Mum sensed that reticence, shyness and so on in Charles and tried to be the supportive one because his mother was absent and his father was so strong-willed, and so was Anne. Such dysfunction. The QM was probably one of the few people such as uncle Dickie who gave Charles affection he needed. And we know now how much affection plays into raising a child and their own psychology and so on.
Logged

writing angry fauxminist letters in the Lesbaru
Lille

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1211

Offline Offline

Posts: 6061





Ignore
« Reply #56 on: December 29, 2017, 10:28:17 AM »

The toothpaste story was when he had a broken arm. Itís otherwise a myth.

Charles was told no at many turns with his charity work, and used his naval pension to get his Trust off the ground, not the Duchy fortune. He was expected to do nothing and follow the examples of previous heirs. He created a role for the heir instead of sitting around on his hands waiting and wasting time. Sadly his sons havenít learned from his example, especially William.

Philip had his trials too and was treated horribly by the grey men and his nasty mother in law. He has done great things playing second fiddle. It doesnít excuse his terrible treatment of his oldest son, which continues. Charles took him to Poundbury a few years back and her said something about how it was a stupid waste. He was poorly served by being forced to attend a school unsuitable for his temperament and interests. Philip is a rare breed and wanted Charles to be like him. Heís not. Square hole, round peg... Anne is like him. 

As for George, heís a freaking child. His father bullies him it seems like Philip bullied Charles. Itís sad to see that sweet spirit and th anxiety in a little one. You nurture your kids and donít try to change them.

 Star Star Star
Logged
NoviceDisher
Banned
Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 141

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 538





Ignore
« Reply #57 on: December 31, 2017, 04:30:10 PM »

The toothpaste story was when he had a broken arm. Itís otherwise a myth.

Charles was told no at many turns with his charity work, and used his naval pension to get his Trust off the ground, not the Duchy fortune. He was expected to do nothing and follow the examples of previous heirs. He created a role for the heir instead of sitting around on his hands waiting and wasting time. Sadly his sons havenít learned from his example, especially William.

Philip had his trials too and was treated horribly by the grey men and his nasty mother in law. He has done great things playing second fiddle. It doesnít excuse his terrible treatment of his oldest son, which continues. Charles took him to Poundbury a few years back and her said something about how it was a stupid waste. He was poorly served by being forced to attend a school unsuitable for his temperament and interests. Philip is a rare breed and wanted Charles to be like him. Heís not. Square hole, round peg... Anne is like him.  

As for George, heís a freaking child. His father bullies him it seems like Philip bullied Charles. Itís sad to see that sweet spirit and th anxiety in a little one. You nurture your kids and donít try to change them.
Shocked

George is a child yes, but you must be seeing things I do not know because I do not see any bullying least of all from William. The kid probably has people bowing and curtsying to him even now, his parents don't disappear for months like the Queen and DOE did, in fact the William and Kate seem to be very hands on compared to previous generations. They have a nanny, Carole Middleton practically lives with them, they have staff.  In what way is George bullied. He was a smart, outgoing child. Now he is anxious unlike his sister. He is also naughty like a normal child during Pippa's wedding and was told off by Kate like a normal mom. I don't see anything resembling Prince Charles and DOE with William and George.
Logged
NoviceDisher
Banned
Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 141

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 538





Ignore
« Reply #58 on: December 31, 2017, 04:34:12 PM »

Thanks Margaret!  Star

It bugs me seeing George and how anxious and shy he is, and how his parents complain about his behavior a lot when he seems like such a sweet little boy, I wanna hug him.

Those stories of Philip and Charles remind me of my own dad, who is Charles's age, and the way his father treated him. It is very generational I think--hard on your children, especially the eldest son. It's so damaging and a family dysfunction my own family has I desperately try to, well, negate with my own kid. It's sad as I think Philip believed he was doing the right thing as a good father of the time, too, but it's clear to others during that time that it was really bad for such a sensitive, shy, coddled child like Charles, made worse by how he was treated by the other kids.

Anne's the one who's the tough cookie and very like her father in her attitude. I think the Queen Mum sensed that reticence, shyness and so on in Charles and tried to be the supportive one because his mother was absent and his father was so strong-willed, and so was Anne. Such dysfunction. The QM was probably one of the few people such as uncle Dickie who gave Charles affection he needed. And we know now how much affection plays into raising a child and their own psychology and so on.

Prince Charles was mollycoddled, excused, prevented from facing the real world by people around him. The world was changing. You could not have mistresses as you wish. He never got with the program. That is why an innocent girl got caught in the middle as a brood mare. If he had been brought up with more empathy he would be a better husband. He is a better husband now. But others had to pay the price for the happiness of his second marriage.
Logged
Ellie

Muted
Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1944

Offline Offline

Posts: 7201


proud moron thx Scooby Doo




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: December 31, 2017, 04:43:37 PM »

The toothpaste story was when he had a broken arm. Itís otherwise a myth.

Charles was told no at many turns with his charity work, and used his naval pension to get his Trust off the ground, not the Duchy fortune. He was expected to do nothing and follow the examples of previous heirs. He created a role for the heir instead of sitting around on his hands waiting and wasting time. Sadly his sons havenít learned from his example, especially William.

Philip had his trials too and was treated horribly by the grey men and his nasty mother in law. He has done great things playing second fiddle. It doesnít excuse his terrible treatment of his oldest son, which continues. Charles took him to Poundbury a few years back and her said something about how it was a stupid waste. He was poorly served by being forced to attend a school unsuitable for his temperament and interests. Philip is a rare breed and wanted Charles to be like him. Heís not. Square hole, round peg... Anne is like him.  

As for George, heís a freaking child. His father bullies him it seems like Philip bullied Charles. Itís sad to see that sweet spirit and th anxiety in a little one. You nurture your kids and donít try to change them.
Shocked

George is a child yes, but you must be seeing things I do not know because I do not see any bullying least of all from William. The kid probably has people bowing and curtsying to him even now, his parents don't disappear for months like the Queen and DOE did, in fact the William and Kate seem to be very hands on compared to previous generations. They have a nanny, Carole Middleton practically lives with them, they have staff.  In what way is George bullied. He was a smart, outgoing child. Now he is anxious unlike his sister. He is also naughty like a normal child during Pippa's wedding and was told off by Kate like a normal mom. I don't see anything resembling Prince Charles and DOE with William and George.

And why is he anxious? Look at that sweet little boy and the way he's treated in public--scolded, told off, talked about with language like naughty, bad, loud vs his sister "the angel from heaven" as William calls her. It's a lot to live up to for a child. William and Kate talk about him as if they'd rather he weren't around, and nothing they have ever said has ever been positive. Same crap, different parent as far as I am concerned. I don't think either of them are hands on--they seem very awkward with their children, especially Kate, really. It's all about PR and their public image as perfect parents. I'm sure the nannies and her mother do all the heavy lifting and W&K do the fun stuff when they feel like it, as in the days of the aristocracy. It's the same as when HM was a parent. You show up for baths and bed, and sometimes playtime if you feel up for it or have the time! I see the same familial dysfunction from the Windsors there and the Spencers too, it's terrible for children.
Logged

writing angry fauxminist letters in the Lesbaru
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: