The Crown [Netflix]

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Eggegg said:

As a Brit, I've grown into admiring the Royals from being quite anti them when I was younger. Yes there is some element of leeching there (the main issue being just how much land in the UK is owned by the Royal family), but it is more than compensated by giving the country a sense of identity and helping to push Brand Britain across the world. I think the British still have a picture of their own sets of values and culture and the royal family in some way help to solidify that. 
 

You seem to miss how many Welsh, Irish and Scots don't see this working for THEIR sense of identity.  Additionally they quite resent having their own identities, objectives and well-being lumped in with that of England -- i.e. Scotland was NOT in favor of BREXIT.

This is what I really appreciate about the series -- it shows just how arrogant these people really are.  That speech of the queen mother about the English forever going after the monarchy to diminish it, the ungrateful miserable, little people swine -- and she starts her long list of examples with the Barons after defeating King John's forces at Runnymede, which was in the frackin' THIRTEENTH CENTURY (1215).  Constantly these people talk about due deference, subservience, and respect for themselves because they are royals.  Elizabeth comes off marginally better because she truly recognizes (at least in this fictional series) duty.  WWII was when she was alive, and the royal family really did seem to do their duty, providing examples of carrying on stiff-lipped and so on in the face terrible adversity -- and from what I understand historically, the British were appreciative.  But by the 1960's, o ye gawds and leetle fishies!  They were just a financially burdensome museum rattling around in all that land they own, that the miserable average little people have no access to.  The queen mother and Elizabeth's sense that they were performing a dreadful act of sacrifice to meet people who were merely rich, but still little, as part of the campaign to win back hearts tells us everything.

If they went they'd all live lives of endless pleasure, as that nazi Duke of Windsor did.  That's all.  They are maybe the wealthiest people on the globe.  How much of that would go to the British treasury do you think if they left.  Not much.  Not the same as in Cromwell's day after Charlie 1 was beheaded.  Those Stuarts -- the most feckless of any dynasty, from James to James.

I spend a fair amount of time in the UK -- and have loads of friends from all over there.  A lot of them despise the royals, and would really like them gone, for all kinds of reasons, starting with the whole class business of birth so embedded in the society.

[Dr. Pepper]

24 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Um, there might be a tiny smidge of truth, in so much that if they gave up the throne and all that comes with it, then it would probably end up being quite disasterous financially for them and their descendents. So understandable they wouldn't do it.  Abdicating the throne has already been proven to be a bad move from those who have done it.
 

Financially most of them are independently wealthy, certainly the queen and her immediate family.  They'll be just fine. Abdicating the throne did little to truly harm the one who abdicated.  He lived a very privileged life until his death.  Shit,  even the descendants of deposed (and sometimes executed) kings proved to have lived quite well.  *Ahem* Philip Mountbatten *Ahem*

Quote

Plus there isn't really any appetite for them to do it. The country by and large loves them, they are very popular worldwide and there isn't really anyone calling for them to go. If they did go they would be viewed as traitors and be publically shamed for doing so. You probably are quite removed from Britain, but  many Brits take a lot of pride in their tradition and sense of place in the world, the Royal family are part of that, and it would be a great loss if we ever went to a more presidential model. God knows we wouldn't want a Trump as head of state!
 

There's nothing to prevent a Trump being Prime Minister.  Which, sure, isn't a head of state, but your head of state is ceremonial and hardly counts.  

The royal's popularity around the world really matters little to it being absurd that this institution still exists and that these people want to continue being part of it even while claiming that it's such a tremendous sacrifice.  Some, like Elizabeth, obviously drank the koolaid and thinks her sky fairy wants it this way, but others stay because they love it.  

Quote

Ok fair enough, I'm not that far into Season 2 yet to comment. So far that hasn't been the assessment of what is happening with her, or with any of the other characters on the show.

If you made it to the episode where Margaret discusses the thrill of being among the natives, then I'm not sure what you think the assessment is.  She obviously did not give up being a royal, she obviously doesn't truly want to be nobody.  Ultimately, much of this season is about loyalty and desire for the crown above all else.  

23 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You seem to miss how many Welsh, Irish and Scots don't see this working for THEIR sense of identity.  Additionally they quite resent having their own identities, objectives and well-being lumped in with that of England -- i.e. Scotland was NOT in favor of BREXIT.

This is what really gets me when people claim everyone loves the royal family and are just super happy to be lumped in with them.  It's only true if you ignore all the voices that aren't English.  It's all rather disgusting. 

[Eggegg]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/

https://fullfact.org/news/how-strong-public-support-monarchy/

Those republicans are in the minority I'm afraid. The Royal family is here to stay for a while yet.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Eggegg said:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/

https://fullfact.org/news/how-strong-public-support-monarchy/

Those republicans are in the minority I'm afraid. The Royal family is here to stay for a while yet.

Who argued otherwise?  You're the one who is all up in his royal coat of arms about the goodness of the monarchy for Britain and how very much they are lurved.

Nevertheless getting rid of the monarchy would be the best thing the damned KINGdom could do for itself, to start re-entering the world as it is, rather than fantasy-fueled pure English tradition of lords of the manor and Christmas pud and the all white forelock pulling folk who know their place.

[HexMachina]

Yes you rather seem to be missing the point here Eggegg. It’s not that people dispute the Royal’s popularity, they are question why in the hell they have such popularity. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Yes you rather seem to be missing the point here Eggegg. It’s not that people dispute the Royal’s popularity, they are question why in the hell they have such popularity. 

Especially in the USA!  But thinking USians have been wondering this ever since the 19th century, why are we such fools for titles -- lordessa the spectacles we made of ourselves, north and south, when the Prince of Wales visited in 1860 -- he went to Mount Vernon even! -- and any other time one or more of them grace this colony of such miserable shopkeepers and low-bred drudges.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Yes you rather seem to be missing the point here Eggegg. It’s not that people dispute the Royal’s popularity, they are question why in the hell they have such popularity. 

Yes, this.  I mean, I fully admit that I'll click on some royal news when I see it so it's not like I'm immune here.  But they are bland as hell and contribute almost nothing meaningful.  Even the tourism boost is iffy, and I'm pretty sure that industry would adjust itself if the royal family went away.  I'd still want to come see the castles/houses-turned-museums and all the history they show and I think many others would too.  I'd probably feel better about it knowing that children are no longer being brought up in that environment and taught to believe they have to follow that same path.

On that note, this season was really great at showing how heartbreaking the lives of the children are in this sort of lifestyle.  Raised by a slew of nannies and boarding school teachers, limited time with mom and dad, made to feel that this is all their only purpose in life.  

[Zorral]

Myself, I never paid any attention to the royals of any kind, until Diana.

Still, the whole Margaret arc, because it's Margaret, is just so tedious.  She was a really nasty piece of work. If it were ye olden days she was the kind of royal who would have people arrested, whisked away to some unknown prison, and left to starve to death.  Thank goodness for those who crossed her that it wasn't yet olden days.

But such olden days are probably coming back to the USA, with politicians who have no self-control, are thoroughly vindictive and can't ever let the slightest even unintentional slight go-- much less any true assessment of their horrible behaviors.

[HexMachina]

6 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yes, this.  I mean, I fully admit that I'll click on some royal news when I see it so it's not like I'm immune here.  But they are bland as hell and contribute almost nothing meaningful.  Even the tourism boost is iffy, and I'm pretty sure that industry would adjust itself if the royal family went away.  I'd still want to come see the castles/houses-turned-museums and all the history they show and I think many others would too.  I'd probably feel better about it knowing that children are no longer being brought up in that environment and taught to believe they have to follow that same path.

On that note, this season was really great at showing how heartbreaking the lives of the children are in this sort of lifestyle.  Raised by a slew of nannies and boarding school teachers, limited time with mom and dad, made to feel that this is all their only purpose in life.  

I’m always skeeved out by the media attention William and Kate’s children get. It’s like parents who post photos etc of children on social media, only instead of just sharing these photos with friends, it’s the world. Did we really need a photo of George in his new school uniform first day of school? No, we did not

[Eggegg]

20 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I’m always skeeved out by the media attention William and Kate’s children get. It’s like parents who post photos etc of children on social media, only instead of just sharing these photos with friends, it’s the world. Did we really need a photo of George in his new school uniform first day of school? No, we did not

I have no interest in Kate or William or their kid George, but I am not surprised that they are immensely popular or that every single detail of their life is in enormous demand. I am able to understand that other people like stuff that I do not. My wife's family are Spanish and they go crazy over this stuff, my wife is obsessed with it. They all love The Crown. 

12 hours ago, Zorral said:

Nevertheless getting rid of the monarchy would be the best thing the damned KINGdom could do for itself, to start re-entering the world as it is, rather than fantasy-fueled pure English tradition of lords of the manor and Christmas pud and the all white forelock pulling folk who know their place.

Nobody wants to see Britain as it really is. Most of it is pretty grim. The fantasy is useful and thats the point. 

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

Still, the whole Margaret arc, because it's Margaret, is just so tedious.  She was a really nasty piece of work. If it were ye olden days she was the kind of royal who would have people arrested, whisked away to some unknown prison, and left to starve to death.  Thank goodness for those who crossed her that it wasn't yet olden days.

Haven't seen the whole season yet, but I like Margaret because she is a bit of a tragic character, and was in real life. She was always in her sisters shadow and would have been a terrible royal and was too much of a wildchild to really be accepted. I think its quite sad.



 

[HexMachina]

7 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I have no interest in Kate or William or their kid George, but I am not surprised that they are immensely popular or that every single detail of their life is in enormous demand. I am able to understand that other people like stuff that I do not. My wife's family are Spanish and they go crazy over this stuff, my wife is obsessed with it. They all love The Crown. 

Nobody wants to see Britain as it really is. Most of it is pretty grim. The fantasy is useful and thats the point. 

Haven't seen the whole season yet, but I like Margaret because she is a bit of a tragic character, and was in real life. She was always in her sisters shadow and would have been a terrible royal and was too much of a wildchild to really be accepted. I think its quite sad.



 

Right, but do you not find the focus and attention paid to 5eir children disturbing or discomforting? It’s not like the kids have an “opt out” choice to escape from such scrutiny. They will have to live with the stories written about them and photos taken of them for the rest of their life, knowing millions have seen/read them. 

I feel the same about people obsessing over celebrity children fwiw

[Eggegg]

42 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Right, but do you not find the focus and attention paid to 5eir children disturbing or discomforting? It’s not like the kids have an “opt out” choice to escape from such scrutiny. They will have to live with the stories written about them and photos taken of them for the rest of their life, knowing millions have seen/read them. 

I feel the same about people obsessing over celebrity children fwiw

Yeah I don't like it, agree with it or join in with it. I will happily skip any pictures of the little prince and am not in any way interested in his life or what any of them are doing. But a lot of people are, and it seems to represent something to them that means something.

I don't understand anyone's obsession with celebrity, the Kardashians for me represent the very worst elements of modern culture, the vacuous selfie driven narcissistic extremes are basically being championed by these people and I can't stand it. But we live in a free society and people can like what they like. 

In principal though, no I don't agree with the exploitation of children or the intense focus on them, its odd and a bit creepy. Thats why I think its ok for the Royals to be able to step back a bit and keep a sort of barrier between them and the press.

[Zorral]

Phillip is such a damned bully -- and he blackmails the queen over bullying his son into being forced to go through hell -- because he did, and because HE can't be king, and his son can.  Is this fact or is this fiction.

If true, how could any man send his son through that?  Worst of all, one might think Charles thinks, is that he'll never be king after all that terror and misery that was to 'toughen him up' for the role.  That Phillip resents like hell his son particularly outranks him was not secret.  That is really mean parenting.

Also, who could possibly believe that private audience conversation between Jackie and Elizabeth?  Or that Jackie didn't know the proper addresses of monarchs, fer pete's sake? Or -- and particularly JFK didn't? Fer pete's sake his father was minister to St. James!  The Kennedy kids lived among those circles and were partly educated among them.Who could believe that Jackie would be so out of control that she'd trash talk the queen at another party?  When there are zero / none reports of her losing it at events and functions of this sort ever.  Her self-control was legendary -- and I know some people who knew her, and knew her intimately. This sounds like Gore Vidal's voice and making shyte up out of sheer malice.  As well as fiction.

What did occur to me, however, is if Elizabeth did give Jackie a tour of Buck, maybe this is partly where Jackie got the idea to do her television tour of the renovated White House.

[Martini Sigil]

I'm only 2 episodes into S2.... but Claire Foy is so damn good... it's like you can hear her internal monologue 

[Zorral]

46 minutes ago, Martini Sigil said:

I'm only 2 episodes into S2.... but Claire Foy is so damn good... it's like you can hear her internal monologue 

O lordessa yes -- Claire Foyle is brilliant (and surely far superior to the real queen, but then, that's what being a actor and star is -- not to mention, like everyone else, far more attractive, even when dowdy, prim and locked down).  All the actors are brilliant, except those playing the Americans, JFK and Jackie.  They were horrible.

[Eggegg]

10 hours ago, Martini Sigil said:

I'm only 2 episodes into S2.... but Claire Foy is so damn good... it's like you can hear her internal monologue 

Whats so funny is how similar she looks like the queen.. from behind! She'd got the stance just right. Perfect handbag impression.

[Zorral]

One might think she's got her stash in there, so tightly does she clutch it.

 

[Mladen]

I just finished Episode 2 (Season 2). I am a bit late due to hectic real life and I wanted to finish Godless before starting this one.

Claire Foy is a force of nature. Personally, I have never been too keen on these award-bait roles but she does it incredibly. She doesn't speak and yet you understand everything. And the more you watch her face, the more you find out. It is so quiet in spoken and so loud and clear in what is left unspoken. She is brilliant and most certainly the best actress on TV right now. And by quite a margin. 

All in all, I enjoy this one quite a lot. Music is stunning, the camera work superb and the production is put in quite good use. I am looking forward to next episode.

[Zorral]

She plays Elizabeth much better than she did Anne Boleyn.  She gave us not a bit of what Anne Boleyn had to have possessed to have kept Hal 8 dangling for so very long -- the charm, the wit, the fun, the intelligence.  Her Anne was just mean and petty and sour -- so unlikeable.  The real Anne couldn't have been so unlikeable to have gotten so far.  If only she'd been able to produce a boy . . .  but then, where would Elizabeth the Great have been?

I haven't been able to figure out how I feel about her character's (Kate Balfour) portrayal in Crossbones, which is when I became aware of the actress.  Nor do I recall her at all from Little Doritt, the other role that I would have seen her in, among her many credits.

 

 

[Mladen]

19 hours ago, Zorral said:

She plays Elizabeth much better than she did Anne Boleyn.  She gave us not a bit of what Anne Boleyn had to have possessed to have kept Hal 8 dangling for so very long -- the charm, the wit, the fun, the intelligence.  Her Anne was just mean and petty and sour -- so unlikeable.  The real Anne couldn't have been so unlikeable to have gotten so far.  If only she'd been able to produce a boy . . .  but then, where would Elizabeth the Great have been?

I haven't been able to figure out how I feel about her character's (Kate Balfour) portrayal in Crossbones, which is when I became aware of the actress.  Nor do I recall her at all from Little Doritt, the other role that I would have seen her in, among her many credits.

Honestly, this was the first time I have seen her. And the role reminded me of another Windsor PR project "Queen" with Helen Mirren. And let me say, as much as I love that performance, in a year with Judi Dench in "Notes on the Scandal" and Meryl Streep in "Devil Wears Prada", to win every God damn award, making it almost unbelievable landslide (which lately has become a fashion with Blanchett, Moore, Larson and  Stone doing the same), it was a role that screamed "Oscars" so much. So, while I was ready to give Ms Foy a chance, I was already "against" the hoopla that the role was going to create (and it did create a lot of buzz). But, she is amazing. And there is no point denying that. Not many great actresses on TV can do so much without speaking (Robin Wright and Julianna Margulies come to mind) but Foy manages to make the text itself redundant. Her eyes and her face is so expressive even when she is still, without any sort of facial movements. In my opinion, it is truly amazing.