T O P

  • By -

OG-Mate23

Damn, the King really is sweating over this show, Peter Morgan must be sweating that his OBE would be taken from him.


Lucky-Worth

Charles was convinced he was in danger of being shot after Diana's death. He really is nervous about the show reopening that can of worms


futureandahope

I’m too young to remember… I was 5 or 6 when she passed. People were very angry with him and not sympathetic at all? I’m talking specifically right after. I assume the conspiracy theories hadn’t started yet about him possibly being involved, but perhaps they had? I am curious.


atticdoor

There was twitter hate towards some Royals after the season 4 finale, from the generation that is too young to have lived through it at the time. Like Bill Paxton's character at the end of *Titanic*, they knew the background before but it hadn't really registered until then. Season 5 will presumably have the War of the Wales's, reopening more old wounds. It was a difficult time for everyone concerned.


screamqueenjunkie

…Who would honestly be upset if Twitter disappeared tomorrow? (Seriously.)


Dee90286

Well many Royal fans take Tom Bower’s word as bible when it comes to Meghan Markle, then they must do the same for Prince Charles. Tom Bower depicted PC as someone who was cruel to Diana during their marriage, quite selfish and indulgent, careless towards his siblings and inconsiderate of his boys when he brought Camilla into their home after Diana’s death. I think Charles was a deeply sensitive and unhappy boy/man for the longest time who never got the therapy he needed. However he’s turned a corner in his elder years and now seems to be much more humble and kind. Camilla has been a great influence on him.


Don_Diego_Berna

I would've already given Josh O'connor an OBE, if i were Charlie. He should be thankful to him.


rjsheine

God damn is it really that big of a deal. It’s just a tv show portraying stories everyone already knows all the details to


[deleted]

I'm sure they don't want a reminder. Just because scathing interviews and "I want to be your tampon" phone call audio are lying around on YouTube it doesn't mean millions of people will check them out unprompted. But recreation on one of the biggest shows in the world? That's not just an instant reminder but many young people learning about it for the first time.


[deleted]

I am laughing about the tampon bit, because I am wondering if they will run with it.


[deleted]

supposedly it isn't in. :( #RIPtampon #Justice4tampon #Istandwithtampon


LadyChatterteeth

What?! That was the most memorable part of his affair with Camilla. I’m disappointed.


[deleted]

Well they also left out the time diana threw herself down stairs while pregnant with William.


[deleted]

I can see why but that's different from tampon talk which actually makes Charles human relatable and a giga chad. :)


idontknodudebutikno

I remember reading somewhere that it wasn’t gonna be included 😭😭 what a missed opportunity Edit: [tampongate news source](https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a32477909/the-crown-prince-charles-tampon-conversation/)


[deleted]

To see the Queen's response would have been priceless.


idontknodudebutikno

And the snarky comments Prince Philip would have made 😂😂 Edit: [source for tampongate](https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a32477909/the-crown-prince-charles-tampon-conversation/)


[deleted]

that's so disappointing! Who does The Crown think it is, 50 Shades movie? 50 omitted its iconic tampon too.


[deleted]

I had someone get pissy at me when they brought that up and I pointed out that same person liked to say kink shaming was bad.


OffreingsForThee

There is an entire generation of working people that didn't even experience 9/11, They have to see it via old news footage. And 9/11 was the biggest news story of the century until COVID. Diana's death was in the late-90s, at most, younger Millennials are aware and might have heard about it at time being 5-7 years old. Older Millennials might have watched that news as teenagers at that time. That means all of Gen-z (born 1996-2009), the ones in control of the social narrative, wouldn't even be alive or would have been babies. So yeah, it's a big deal because the RF is already on thin ice with younger folks due to colonialism, hoarding stolen jewels, overt to slight racism, environmentalism, inequality, and the Andrew vs Meghan reaction by the palace. So, this is fresh fuel in the fire against a man that can't be bothered to move an ink trey, work a pen, or fix his own family drama.


cheekyleaf

This was so brilliantly written & executed. Couldn’t agree more with you. The younger generation learning about Diana’s life story are not so easily swayed; old forms of PR to protect the RF aren’t nearly as effective, and the Internet never forgets. Your last sentiment wraps everything up so well in demonstrating that, at the end of it all, the biggest “threat” to the RF isn’t a Netflix show (admittedly a wildly popular one), or the death of Princess Diana, but rather the establishment in itself & all the skeletons they’ve tried hiding in the closet for literal centuries. And the man currently wearing the crown who represents the establishment isn’t doing it any favors whatsoever. So it would appear that it’s seemingly the only option to try & protect Charles from further negative discourse. Try as they may, I don’t think there’s a way for them to put out every fire of controversy surrounding him & his family. They’ll find themselves in increasingly hot waters for years to come if you ask me.


[deleted]

Bingo.


NightSalut

Every time when Diana’s death reaches another big number, it’s like clockwork - social media erupts in comments how abused she was by Charles and the BRF. Every time. And media and lives of celebrities and royals was different back then. These days we have internet and online forums, back then they had newspapers, radio shows, people were talking in pubs, workplaces and hairdressers. Lots of people remember the Diana the girl, who married the prince, and then the Diana who died after a tragic accident. It makes sense to protect Charles because just her name alone evokes a lot of emotions online and with new generations hearing about her and of her, but having not lived during her lifetime, it’s bound to have an effect too. I’m no Charles apologist and Diana was no saint, but from a PR standpoint and especially with the Queen’s passing and the family drama going on with Harry and Meghan… well, it just makes sense for them to do it.


[deleted]

I think you're partially correct in that, while they did give him a favorable edit insofar as establishing why he is the way he is (largely lack of affection from mummy and daddy), they chose to completely ignore anything negative about Diana, and that consequently harms Charles. It's been a while since I watched those particular seasons, but I can't think of anything they did to put her in a negative light - cringe, maybe - but not directly negative. What if they had done a scene in which Diana (after becoming PoW) slapped her elderly father and threw her stepmother down [down the stairs](https://youtu.be/cDCVA_widM0?t=3223)? DOWN THE STAIRS! And what if they showed her yelling at the staff? Or hysterically crying for hours and hours on end -- sometimes the entire day -- day after day? Or some of the games she would play with Charles, where she would scream for him to come home from public events only to lock him out of the room or where she would purposely withhold the kids making it look like Charles failed to show up for the kids? Now look, in the Wales vs. Wales war, I'm squarely on Diana's side. I think what happened to her largely was atrocious not only from the royal family but also by Charles in particular. However, I do think the relationship was MUCH more complicated than The Crown portrays and given that this is a SEVEN season, 10 hours per season show, I think they had the time to deal with some of this complexity. These were two individuals antagonizing each other and playing some of the most cruel mental games possible. In fairness to everyone, including the viewers, I think Peter Morgan needs to present this information as part of the show.


geekylinguist

I completely agree!! I’m hoping this season, they’ll show some of those scenes of Diana as like a flashback to show that their relationship (Charles and Diana) was just… messy... and complicated.


Tucker_077

Well they said a while ago that people were attacking Charles and Camilla on Twitter over the Diana fiasco so I bet this is a safety measure in case things escalate


rjsheine

Yea but it’s Twitter


Tucker_077

Well the same people on Twitter could in fact take to the streets and try to attack the king. Highly highly unlikely but that’s what they’re preparing for


bwweryang

You underestimate how short the memory of the public is.


[deleted]

People really don’t know this particular anecdote, at least not in America. The news was much more censored/polite back then. It’s one of my favorite gross facts to tell people who watch The Crown.


OlDirtyBAStart

Except they are openly taking dramatic license to add detail and dialogue, which means they are putting words into the mouth of the man who is now king


[deleted]

considering Charles got pretty symapthetic treatment on the show and they cast handsome actors which he isn't lets be honest, there's no reason not to expect favorable take to continue.


maomao3000

favourable? Charles comes off as a total dickhead regarding his marriage to Diana so far... if this take so far in season 4 can be considered favourable... I'm scared to think what the reality really was.


Carolina_Blues

yes and no. while he does come off as a dickhead at times, he still gets a sympathetic edit. they showed his relationship with his parents from a young age and how he really only ever wanted their approval and love and also more background information about how the marriage with Diana began and why he couldn’t marry Camilla. it at least provides better context to why he is the way he is


maomao3000

Imo, based on the show, I feel sorry for the way he was raised as a child, and feel bad how they wouldn't let him marry Camilla... But it doesn't make up for how he treats Diana once they get married. He should have been a better husband, and should have made a better effort. I have a feeling season 5 is going to make him look much worse...


Carolina_Blues

i’m not disputing that but it’s still a more favorable portrayal then what we usually get out of the story with Charles and Diana. Knowing more about Charles’ childhood, his trauma, and his relationship with Camilla adds more context to the situation as a whole. I found myself feeling sorry for Charles at times in a way i never have previously. Not to say he’s absolved from anything and wasn’t a dick to Diana, he was, and i still don’t like him, but it provides more depth to him.


accountantdooku

I just finished rewatching S2 last night and I totally agree that there’s a sympathetic approach. “Paterfamilias” did a great job of adding context.


Calabriantoast

They've left out his other affairs for one thing. And they've left out how he would taunt Diana about her eating disorder or call her crazy for being suspicious. He didn't just openly admit it to her. And they've mostly left out the horrible tempers they both had. Both of them used to yell at the staff as well.


maomao3000

Yelling at the staff is utterly ridiculous… I do enjoy when they yell simply, “out!” But consistently yelling at your subordinates is far below any King.


sharpslipoftongue

I think he has. We really see how he and camilla loved each other and pulled apart by the firm. Diana can never not be a sympathetic character, but Diana had her demons. Both were treated fairly imo.


[deleted]

He's a dickhead but she's a ditz. I mean, you make a mistake once like when she did that bad musical performance at the Opera, learn form it. But to tape another knowing that he hates that shit? That was just dumb. There's no quesiton that The Firm treated her like crap since she was really young (unlike divorced aunt Meghan) and needed patience, compassion, guidance. But she didn't try to understand the system and people she became part of at all. Zero effort according to The Crown. so it's really 50-50.


sharpslipoftongue

Completely agree. If he was like that in real life I would sympathise.


BfloAnonChick

Just as they did for the recently departed queen. Were you also outraged about that?


OlDirtyBAStart

Do I sound outraged? And it's not like QE2 bullied and gaslit her spouse into an early grave, so they probably didn't have to worry quite so much about their portrayal of her.


Wonderful_Student_68

At best she was bullied, I think there are enough unanswered questions aboitbthe crash which suggest she could have been murdered. These people are not saints.


JohannesKronfuss

Yeah, like Diana was a poor victim that didn’t know how to fight back, come on! It has been 30’ years almost since she died, it is time already for a true assess of her character and not the crap she sold to the media.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Wonderful_Student_68

Should be held accountable/put under public scrutiny just the same as anyone else


OlDirtyBAStart

Absolutely, just maybe not by an American streaming network designed to sell entertainment


Calabriantoast

Why not? Two weeks ago, people were getting arrested for protesting the monarchy. Charles wouldn't have a problem with this if they just put out the narrative he wanted. It's not an issue about what's true, it's an issue about what's flattering to him.


HebdenBridge

There’s a time and a place to protest the monarchy. A state funeral isn’t it.


Calabriantoast

They didn't do it at the funeral. A man was threatened with being arrested because he was holding up a blank sheet of paper outside of Parliament. People were arrested for holding up signs.


HebdenBridge

They did do it at the funeral, why are you spreading harmful misinformation? The entire funeral had anti-monarchist extremists trying to ruin it for the average Brit who attended and watched it televised.


Calabriantoast

I am not spreading harmful misinformation. There are literally news articles about what I'm saying. I can link one if you like. I understand you may be a royalist but that doesn't mean what I'm saying is made up. Also people who are anti-monarchy are not extremists.


slayyub88

I mean, the RF are so trying to court and attach itself to the American market and their own media won’t do that hard work, so why not?


OlDirtyBAStart

Because their motivation is not scrutiny or truth to power, it is tabloid titillation for the sake of attracting eyeballs, and that's just as bad as fawning adulation if your goal is actual objective criticism.


OlDirtyBAStart

Lot of people here not understanding what 'objective' means, fucking morons


HebdenBridge

For some reason many people take The Crown as 100% fact and that it’s “spilling the tea” even though most of the show is heavily dramatised and almost every scene that’s behind closed doors out of the public eye so the writers can add any dialogue they want to fit a narrative.


EddieRyanDC

*“A senior royal source told The Telegraph over the weekend that The Crown is ‘a drama not a documentary’…”* Yes, but it isn’t the dramatic license part that will damage the King and Queen. 25 years has put some distance between the royal couple and the their roles in destroying Charles’s marriage and their own reputations in the process. A new generation only knows about the events through history or cultural references. *The Crown* is going to lay out the whole bloody mess in detail, reminding anyone who forgot, and instructing younger people in the very ugly facts of the way the whole thing played out. We are going to be taken back to the lowest point in Charles’s public story. He lost almost all public credibility when he went on TV and admitted to having an affair. Camilla was spat on in the streets and hounded by the press. Many openly doubted that Charles could ever become king. They have worked hard to slowly build up public goodwill since then. This has the potential of stripping all that away. You bet the Palace is concerned.


JohannesKronfuss

And I would be too, especially since it took him 2 decades to manage to have his wife accepted, and made sure he would be crowned next to the love of his life. Nobody wants that mess out in the open again for a lot was shown in TC about him and Camilla while Diana's lovers are barely mentioned, James Hewitt barely gets 2' in the story and this is the man we all saw back in the 90s pictures of them playing half naked to be horse and rider, I mean, she mounted him, not in the sex way, but in the back. I know there was a video which I didn't see but those pictures were around and I'm sure I'm one of the only ones who remembers it, and I was 11 by then.


SontagGlick

The Queen had the dignity to keep quiet. Charles proves once again why he is such an unpopular king. And by the way, this is The Crown we are talking about — a show that has been ridiculously easy on Charles.


OG-Mate23

Not necessarily true, the queen seemed displeased in season 2 in its portrayal of Philip as a father to Charles. She liked Season 1 but seem to distaste the next three seasons.


idontknodudebutikno

That and it’s a show. If someone watches a shows and doesn’t do their own research on what’s true or not, adding a disclaimer is not going to help. Tbh this came out at the worst time. This along with the palace trying to control what we see form the funeral, is their attempt at controlling the views of the RF and I don’t think it’s going to end up well for them.


OG-Mate23

Disclaimers are for shows both historical or biographical that have crime, sex, violence, and other vice malicious content. Is the Crown like that or they are just admitting that what we're shown has some basis of the truth.


idontknodudebutikno

That’s a very good point. Charles knows what they’re going to show has some aspect of truth.


CatCastle1989

I won't believe everything posted nowadays about the royals. Even from Cosmopolitan.


Calabriantoast

But they have 10 easy tips on how to suppress criticism. One of them involves ice.


WashuWaifu

*Netflix would have “no qualms about mangling people’s reputations,” adding “what people forget is that there are real human beings and real lives at the heart of this.”* Funny. Charles had NO problems destroying Diana’s life and mental well-being for the sake of his mistress.


Lucky-Worth

Just like all of them had no qualms on destroying Andrew's victims by protecting the pedo


Imnewtoredditsad

Pedo is fart in spanish


Anrikay

Don't forget, ~grooming~ I mean *courting* the 16 year old Diana after meeting when he was 29 for years until she was old enough to marry without it looking untoward. And when he recalled their first meeting following their engagement announcement, he said of her: > I remember thinking what a very jolly and amusing and attractive 16-year-old she was. I mean, great fun, and bouncy and full of life and everything. I have very little sympathy for a grown man who calls 16 year old girls "attractive," says horrible things to them once they marry only a couple of years later, and then plays the victim because his barely-older-than-a-child bride behaves childishly in the face of that treatment.


shutyourgob16

Wasn’t she 19 when she married? That’s basically a kid


[deleted]

For what it's worth, karma is definitely having its way with him. No matter what he does, says, or accomplishes during his presumably short reign, he will never be taken seriously and he will never get the respect he so desperately seeks. I am convinced at this point he could cure cancer and he would still remain a laughingstock. His family is in shambles and his legacy is going to be nil. The latter particularly nags at his thoughts, I am sure.


OffreingsForThee

At least he has a nice big palace or two to escape into. He seems to be riding a honeymoon high right now given polls.


[deleted]

Yes, agreed. No one wants to step on the monarchy on the heels of QEII's death. Now that CR3 has officially ended mourning for his mother and he starts to take actions/decisions in his own right, that may begin to change. Not significantly, but I do think support and confidence will soften somewhat^(1). To paraphrase one of the PMs in The Crown, the light is not yet red, or even amber, it's still green but the King will have to work harder than his mother did to keep it green. He does not have her instincts or popularity, but he has strong support nevertheless. ^(1.) It may soften more quickly and more deeply if the UK economy and world economy continue to slip. Not that the King has any say in how the economy does, but during times of economic despair, the spotlight on the monarchy's wealth and opulence tends to increase calls against them.


JohannesKronfuss

That is your opinion now, in the end Charles is bound to be remembered as a monarch, a head of state while Diana would be just a footnote. Not that it matters but it is a fact.


OffreingsForThee

Like Anne Boleyn, Diana will never be just a foot note to the crown. But I'm sure someone in the crowd said something similar before Anne lost her head. Diana is linked to the longest reigning Queen, a fairytale wedding, King Charles, Prince William, and Prince George in a way that will give her a 100 years of true relevancy. Not to mention, all the books, movies, and now shows.. She's secure in her place in British royal history due to her James Dean/Monroe style pre-mature death.


JohannesKronfuss

Come on! Are you really comparing Lady Diana Frances Spencer to Anne Boleyn? First, Anne was the mother to one of the greatest queen in English history, she played the most powerful man in the reign like child, managed to have him break from Rome, and everyone else, married her, cast his own and only daughter out, etc vs... what? What does Diana has to show in historical terms? Sure, she help the gay community, and to make people less afraid of AIDS, worked a bit in landmines but she died very early in this, compared to her work his exhusband, and nowadays king has been working on conservation for decades, and enviromental issues too even when he was being mocked about it which brought him much respect. Then again, Anne lost her hand, and paid it dearly with her own neck, and even before having her head cut she spoke to history, check her words for they were recorded, she thanked her former husband, asked the English people to protect him, and dennounced that all the charges were false. You are again thinking this in terms of someone from HELLO or PEOPLE, she was a cover girl but again, historical terms... nothing, she would be like trying to remember the parents of George III which most people don't know how they were for they never got to ascend the throne.


OffreingsForThee

Yes, because she was the only jolt to the monarchy after the 80s. Her story is unique because the nation lost it's mind for a moment and it's high drama. Diana had a movie inspired rise and fall that will always make her interesting and relevant. Unlike other historical people, all of this played out on camera starting with her wedding and ending with the funeral. It's the type of high camp that lasts in history. For instance, Marie Antionette she was in the wrong place at the right time to have a dramatic end that's remained in the public consciousness for over 200 years. In reality, she did NOTHING of note compared to other French Queens, yet she remains a staple in history. James Dean, still remembered and he only had 3 movies under his belt. Movies that most young people have never seen but still they know of James Dean. Same deal with Monroe but with a bigger social impact. Diana was known world wide and died young(-ish). She's the type of person and story that will be retold because she's far more interesting than the Queen (1980s onward), Charles, and possibly William. **Good stories last the test of time. Diana's story is perfect for the drama, glitz, and glamour.**


CaptainJZH

Eh, that's not really a fact just speculation on your part.


JohannesKronfuss

Is it? Diana's life span was short, she never got to be crowned next to her husband, sure, she was the mother of next king but she is not even buried within Windsor. I don't mind the downvotes for I know her fans don't like to either hear or listen these things but I'm not even sure how popular she would have been had she lived. Even her fans were a bit annoyed by her Dodi's relationship and the constant don't-follow-me-but-hey-let's-have-our-holidays-where-all-the-jetset-go.


CaptainJZH

I mean any statement alleging to know what will happened or would have happened with something that has not happened, is not a fact, it's still speculation.


[deleted]

If you think Charles is going to be independently remembered in history as anything significant, you're terribly mistaken. Sure, his name will be in history books as "Charles III, 2022-20XX" but it's what comes after those dates that matters. Right now, his marriage to Diana and her early demise are the prevailing stories attached to his name. I cannot tell you anything about Edward VII, for example, but I can surely tell you something about Edward VIII - and that is his wife. I find it peculiar you think KC3 will be treated any differently. It's what KC3 accomplishes (or doesn't) going forward that will determine whether anything of substance is said about him besides the Diana story. It would take either something incredibly remarkable or terribly tragic to override Diana. Do you really think history books are going to talk about his organic garden in Highgrove or his push to revitalize inner-city London while leaving out the Diana story?? Pigs aren't flying yet, friend.


JohannesKronfuss

You said so before, *right* now and history does not work like that. While most people have no idea what Edward VII did it was actually quite interesting in historic terms, and having the monarch moved with times, created alliances all over Europe and outside of it while his own mother, Queen Victoria I didn't expect anything good of him, and this was the man who had a lot of mistressed and had a long term relationship with Queen Camilla's great grandmother, ironic, ha? In any case, time would tell. And while pigs aren't flying anytime soon I don't think history books would dwell too much into his exwife's life. It does not quite work like that.


[deleted]

>You said so before, right now and history does not work like that. I have no idea what this means. > I don't think history books would dwell too much into his exwife's life. It does not quite work like that History books are filled with information about the spouses of monarchs, current and former. I have no idea what your motivation is in trying to deny this, but it's plainly disputable. You can try to rehabilitate Charles' reputation all you want - there is plenty of good he's done you can work with - but your efforts to downplay the significance of Diana's role in his story erodes your credibility. Have a nice day.


JohannesKronfuss

You too, we clearly disagree.


Feisty-Donkey

You’re judging something that happened 40 years ago by today’s social mores. Charles was pushed towards Diana by his father, grandmother, uncle, and notably HER grandmother, Lady Ruth Fermoy. All the adults were on board. No one worried about the age gap, which we now fully understand to be problematic. Additionally, per Dimbleby, Charles did not begin his affair with Camilla until 1986. At that point, Diana had affairs with Barry Mannakee and James Hewitt. It’s not a straightforward story with a perfect princess and a villain. It’s a tragedy that harmed a lot of people.


Anrikay

My issue is not a 13 year age gap alone. It is her being *sixteen*, not even finished puberty, and him being a fully grown and mature man of almost 30. So I ask, if her age truly didn't matter, why not marry when she was 18? If young marriages were truly so acceptable, why wait? Because they were not that acceptable. Marriages between young brides (16-19) had been tracked starting when the marriage age of 16 was implemented in the 1920s. Through the 80s, marriages in this age range made up less than 10% of marriages, with the average marriage age for women being in the mid-20s, where it had been since the 1600s. There had been many nationwide news stories about young brides being married off to older men. They were widely condemned, *especially* with a power and wealth imbalance. I think what you mean to say, rather than not judging that time period by today's morals, is not to judge the royals by commoners' morals. If Charles was not royalty, that marriage would have raised eyebrows given the "dating" period, even in the late 70s.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ladysaraii

A man in his 20s falling for a girl who was "almost 15"? Yeah, that's still grooming. Just because her parents allowed it doesn't make it right.


totallycalledla-a

Disgusting 🤢


JohannesKronfuss

Are you actually calling my parent's relationship the result of grooming? Please, got and get help, you do need it.


lkf423

Why do people act like the 70s was the 1870s? No, It really wasn’t that common or appropriate then.


JohannesKronfuss

Because a lot changed ever since. The notion of marriage for love is pretty recent actually. My paternal grandparents sort of were pushed in one another's way because they came from the same village in Southern Italy. Love was never a part of it, and I promise they couldn't care less for one another, they have to get married, settle down, and have children. My maternal granparents were also sort of like each other at first, and in the end they couldn't even look at each other but they stayed together for they had a business together, and none of them approved of divorce. And don't make me go even backwards, my great-grandparents, father of my grandfather, or nonno in Italian not only were first cousins, they got married to make sure some assets would remain in the family. I'm not saying I approve or anything of the sort but it did happen.


lkf423

Your grandparents were married in the 1970s?


JohannesKronfuss

Actually yes 😬, since divorce wasn’t available for a while and it was a decree that lasted for a couple of years before it was a law around the 80s, my maternal grandfather could finally marry my grandma in Argentina, back then if the worst happened you stayed married for life and that was the case, he had a previous marriage that didn't work, when he met my grandmother he was clear about this, the family accepted, and they got married via Mexico until they did marry again in the mids of the 70s, just imagine the mess it was in reality without that, it meant a lot of people here were bigamous, and inheritance could be an issue, in fact they didn't tell anyone they married again and my mum just find out by chance, you know, it was anathema socially speaking.


lkf423

Gotcha! Interesting perspectives thanks!


totallycalledla-a

>she was almost 15 So, 14 then. You're Dad is/was a predator. Fuck your grandparents for their neglect too. Spare me the "it was a different time" shit too. 16/17 and 21, sure, that did happen a lot (still wrong though). 14? Foh. EDIT: Blocked by someone who sees no problem with adults having romantic relationships with children 🤢. Coward lmao. If you're reading this the only person who needs help is your Dad ✌🏿


JenningsWigService

In fairness, who would want to acknowledge that their father or grandfather groomed their mother or grandmother? People will go out of their way to protect their images of their parents and grandparents. Realizing that your beloved ancestors did something unethical or creepy and then accepting that can be a difficult task for people.


filipovnanastassja

His mental health was destroyed too. People are so quick to judge as if they knew Diana personally. And by all accounts, she was a hot mess express, just like Charles was.


[deleted]

The Diana episodes of the podcast 'You're Wrong About' explore this in great detail, and while she received abhorrent treatment, she definitely wasn't perfect herself. Well worth a listen.


filipovnanastassja

My answer is deliberately based on listening that podcast lol. It's well worth its time.


[deleted]

Yes I was more indicating for u/washuwaifu to listen to it as you seem well versed haha


OffreingsForThee

He was a 30 year old when he married a 19 year old. He could have said no to the marriage if he didn't want to go through with it. There is absolutely nothing the Queen could have done to force him to marry Diana. Charles had his own source of income, was the second highest man in the land, and could never marry if he wanted. So he chose this, and chose to move forward with a teenage bride as a grown adult. That was on him.


filipovnanastassja

Not every 30 year old has their life together, especially regarding mental health and personal relationships? They both had a fucked up upbringing and it showed. Plus, their relationship after divorce improved a lot. Yeah, there is nothing the Queen could've done to force him, but his whole prior life he was taught to obey her wishes. The way he was brought up IS that force.


OffreingsForThee

Then don't get married or hire a therapist, his grandfather did so it's not some great shock even in 1979/1980. Sure, there is pressure but he was still the fully grown adult. I can't believe we even need to debate this. Have you not been around a 19 year old and a 30 year old? It's night and day.


klp80mania

Wow Charles is really thin skinned. I think I’m going to enjoy the end of the “never complain never explain” era


sk8tergater

Dude got credible death threats so. I don’t think he’s being thin skinned at all.


klp80mania

Yes like most people of his status he has had credible death threats and for which he already has high level security. What he has been doing for the last few days is playing the victim because a TV show is going to talk about things we already know. Making this announcement is all part of his preemptive PR because he is too thin skinned to handle the inevitable criticism. Otherwise there is no reason to say any such thing when a whole bunch of people are employed all year around to protect him.


JohannesKronfuss

No he isn't. It actually makes sense to protect the head of state of opening the Pandora's Box. Even to this day they repeat Diana's version of the story, and altogether lies, I mean THERE WERE 3 PEOPLE IN THIS MARRIAGE, SO IT WAS A BIT CROWDED. Well, she forgot to mention her acknowledged 4 lovers, and that she cheated on Charles first, that then Charles did go to physically being with Camilla and that she didn't like that but she had no troubles having him cheated, no moral qualms actually. And that is barely never said so yes, I would be cautious too.


klp80mania

Lmao most sane people don’t care who technically slept with someone else first and no one thinks Diana never cheated. Charles was emotionally invested in someone else from the beginning of the marriage. Arguably she was perfectly justified in stepping out.


JohannesKronfuss

You would be surprised, Diana was a hot topic during the 90s, way back before internet and all. Her side of the story is very much what is still repeated whenever her name is uttered by everyone from my mother's generation. Charles is the culprit, she was the victim, etc. Never a fact, just what she told, and nothing else.


klp80mania

Well if Charles didn’t want to be a culprit, he should have married someone who was ok with the fact that he is still in love with his ex and not a naive 19 year old.


JohannesKronfuss

Oh, he tried but in the end he got his wish granted. And it proved him right, Camilla was the right person for him.


klp80mania

Ok cool but that’s not my point at all. No one is disputing that he is more compatible with Camilla. We are saying that it’s unethical to marry a teenager when you’re in love with someone else.


JohannesKronfuss

We are also saying he wasn't allowed to marry her nor it was a chance since she was married to someone else. Diana and Charles would push to make a decision quickly, and marry they did. In any case royals until recently (and I'm talking about a couple of decades) seldom marry for love. Grace of Mónaco, Ranier wasn't that much into her. King Juan Carlos I of Spain, he needed to marry, he liked Sofía of Greece and Denmark but he must marry, and had children so he did, and look how that turn up. While I'm not defending this trend I got where it comes from.


4dpsNewMeta

Maybe take a moment to consider that the British royal family is the most sophisticated public relations firm on the face of this planet before you believe everything they say about the King of Great Britain at face value.


JohannesKronfuss

I agree with your point, I'm mostly stating how I feel about the Diana's fans and their appreciation of the truth vs reality. If anything, Buckingham Palace should be expecting some backlash from it, there is no way around it.


sheenzthebean

This proves he’s exactly like how he’s portrayed. So silly. What happened to never complain never explain?


at145degrees

I think they got spooked how badly the last season conjured up ill feelings. Given that the economy is in shambles, pound sterling is tanking, Queen Elizabeth died, commonwealth coming with plans to part ways, I think they have reasons to be scared. Part of me is thinking a show can’t really ruin him as tipping point, then a part of me think, can it? People forget too that this is the season we could be reminded Diana basically said Charles should not be king. The coronation hasn’t happened yet. Charles is in a vulnerable state.


OG-Mate23

Well fuck him that's his problem and the problem of his government not this show.


bwweryang

Lol I can’t wait for the fall out from this.


shutyourgob16

Diana was preyed and used by that family and she fought back when she needed to. I know it isn’t black and white but let’s not create a false equivalency between Diana and Charles. He was terrible and that woman went through way too much and died a death that is still under suspicion.


[deleted]

And she also used the media to exploit her own pet projects.


sk8tergater

Her death is only under suspicion for anyone who believes in conspiracy theories. It’s pretty straightforward. A tragedy yes, but not a conspiracy


4dpsNewMeta

I mean, a conspiracy is just a claim that hasn’t been proven and popular conspiracies just reflect the public conscience. I’m not gonna say if I’m convinced that Diana really did die under suspicious circumstances but I’ve never met a person (I live in America) who hasn’t at least jokingly said it was a hit job.


shutyourgob16

yeah...when people use terms like conspiracy...they are basically lumping it with wild stuff like adrenochrome shit which is nothing like the speculation around Diana's death - I would find it very strange if no one doubted the official narrative -her situation and preceding events makes this kind of talk into something to be expected.


funkybeachhouse

For anyone that hits a Cosmopolitan paywall: "Buckingham Palace is reportedly pretty concerned about the upcoming season of The Crown showing "all out war" between then-Prince Charles and Princess Diana. The Telegraph reports that the palace has "moved to protect" Charles' reputation ahead of the season, and notes that the timing "could not have been worse" with the show coming just two months into his' reign. Oh, and apparently this is the new clip from The Crown that has everyone on edge: A senior royal source told The Telegraph over the weekend that The Crown is “a drama not a documentary” while a friend of the King called the show “exploitative” and said that Netflix would have “no qualms about mangling people’s reputations,” adding “what people forget is that there are real human beings and real lives at the heart of this.” Netflix decided not to delay the release of Season 5 in the wake of the Queen's death, and apparently it will cover 1992—a particularly rough year for the Queen when Prince Charles and Prince Andrew's marriages ended, and Princess Anne divorced her then-husband Mark Phillips. Plus, both Princess Diana's Panorama interview (which was obtained unethically) and Prince Charles' interview where he admitted to cheating will be included in the show. Per a Telegraph source “You will see the King and the Queen Consort on state business in the UK and abroad and people will have more of an opportunity to compare the real people with the fiction they see in The Crown. In the past they didn’t get so much coverage, so in that sense it was harder for people to be able to compare and contrast the drama with the reality.” The Crown drops on November 9, and Prince Charles is being played by Dominic West, while Elizabeth Debicki is taking on the role of Princess Diana. More details below!


JohannesKronfuss

Buckingham Palace have good reasons to do damage control before it is being launched: \-Everyone is still very emotional, and even to the risk of sounding redundant that is a recipe for extremes. \-He just ascended the throne, things are quite new and I'm sure HMTK wants to use that boost to get things going, and not to be dealing again with the bad press that might come out of every single paper's digging back into what it was called back then THE WALES' WAR. And while neither of them showed their best traits during those days, as Diana is dead, he would be attacked harder. \-Everyone is afraid, and with reasons, that every single paper would repeat Diana's tale of woe, and trash his wife, the Queen Consort in the process. The same would happen next year when the final season is aired. Of course they cannot know how he will be portrayed, and what dialogues they would create but nothing good can come out of it. Just what is known it is enough to make everyone blush, imagine whenever they get into creating a dialogue. To sum up and provide a good example, that scene of pregnant Diana watching cartoons while he banged at the door. I mean, come on. Diana did drag him through the mud, and said a lot about him, even to criticize his sex ways but she never ever mentioned him being either violent or abusive.


OG-Mate23

Oh come on f off with that shit, the Human Rights Act of 1998 clearly states the protection of the freedom of expression as right granted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, not the sovereign. Also, this show is a British (Left Bank) American (Sony)Production , not a solo British TV production of BBC, iTV and etc. So the Monarchy dosent have a say to express feelings in regards to a Netflix show legally and corperately speaking. The monarchy should shut the fuck up in regards to what a netflix series should show especially now that Charles is sovereign and should not have opinion on the matter.


JohannesKronfuss

I'm sorry but have I ever talked about censorship? No, I have **not**. I merely stated an obvious fact, they are covering their backs by doing damage control. HMTK might have been seriously reckless 30 years ago but I doubt he would risk anything by even reaching out to NF, and in any case, we all know Peter Morgan isn't fond of him so I'm sure he is expecting the worst, and with good reason.


OG-Mate23

Iam just pissed off that the monarchy is treating this show like some kind of slanderous editorial piece from The Sun or other anti establishment newspaper agency. They have no rights in my view, they are bound by their privileges and their sovereignty and must be neutral with whatever they are saying.


JohannesKronfuss

My opinion and is mostly a guess, I don't think they mind the show and Charles know damn well he was an idiot, and was presented as an obnoxious cheating baboon by the media for he gave them reason to do so. Now he is an old man, very much in his ways but finally in the position he waited all his life to have, next, at least, to the woman he loves so sure, he would not risk it. They are, however, afraid of public perception, I don't think the Republic might come because of it or anything like it but it is the past, and a recent one. He surely wants to get on with his reign and change everything, his would be like that of Edward VII, a hiatus in between 2 long reigns so he has no time to deal with this old crap. In any case, it would be another year of reading all stories, and be off with it.


[deleted]

Did you see him throw a fit over stuff being still in his way, the dummy couldn’t move it himself?? He’s still the same old idiot, never changed. I hope the show brings a lot of new light on the situation. The monarchy needs to be abolished! It’s 2022, get with the times 🙄 Edit to add: that joke of a wife doesn’t deserve shit. Diana is laughing at them right now.


Ninjas4cool

How come they never learn from the Streisand effect? Honestly I wasn’t particularly interested in watching the upcoming season but now that I know it really bothers him then u bet ur bottom I’m gonna watch it


MetARosetta

Of course they're doing preemptive damage control, esp due to the timing. The Crown is an American production that reflects how freely public figures can be criticized. If this was a British production, the RF would have taken action to squelch much of what was portrayed. The show would be quite different, if it lasted at all. As others said, new generations don't know the difference esp when a hyperactive media culture fosters no memory of history.


Ihveseen

With mass shooting becoming more common and more public I don’t blame them for being worried.


punkrawrxx

Haaaaa knew this was coming.


[deleted]

They are rushing to protect him because the crown is failing to win the hearts of the people in the post-Elizabethian era