The crown isn’t real - but all the unsavoury bits are!

[CoulsenAvenge]

AIBU! I keep seeing people and newspaper article saying the crown is fake and people are taking it as history etc but in reality all the nasty bits people are up in arms about ARE true.

• queens cousins shut off in an institution and family pretended they were dead
• Charles giving camilla a bracelet right before marrying Diana
• Diana being fragile and unsupported by monarchy
• Edward smarming about how they would want him at Cambridge and he did get into Cambridge even though he wasn’t intelligent enough to be there by halves
• Charles having an affair with camilla (maybe timings off but they did have an affair)
• Margaret Thatcher leaving Balmoral early so clearly didn’t enjoy it or value being there
• Prince Phillip and Queen Mother being big snobs about having to meet and greet ‘common’ people has been said about them a lot.

Well Edward can,t be too think if he got a 2.2 from cambridge. Anyone else we say look they have a cambridge degree well done

The emphasis being on 'anyone else' -- the university more or less had to admit Edward, despite his woeful A-levels, which (2 Ds and a C) were far below the grades of other school-leavers admitted to read History, and then invent a specific 'degree-lite' course to occupy him for the requisite number of years.

There's also the fact that he was 'sponsored' through his degree with the Royal Marines, on the proviso that he served five years with them afterwards. He served four months.

The Royal Marine thing surises me. He never comes across as royal marine material.

@june2007

The Royal Marine thing surises me. He never comes across as royal marine material.

I assume that was the problem! Apparently Philip was deeply pissed off he didn’t stick it out.

I imagine, left to himself and not being a royal, he’d have tried to get into drama school and graduated to small parts in daytime soaps. You can imagine him as a desk sergeant in some cop show. The one who says ‘It’s for you, boss’ a lot.

I remember getting my A level results the same day as Edward and being pissed off he got to go to Cambridge and I got the local College of Higher Education when my results were better

Well Ruthie Henshall met him through the theatre didn,t she.

@HardlyEver

I might be the least Thatcherite person on the planet (and I haven't started this season of The Crown yet, so have seen no specifics of the plot and GA's performance) but if I were a lower-middle-class PM making semi-compulsory visits to staghunt in what is by repute a freezing, uncomfortable house, inhabited by insanely-rich royals who, frankly, haven't a lot else to do, I think I would both be (a) leaving early and (b) and making it quite clear I was leaving early because of, you know, wrecking the country single-handed etc etc.

I think that Mrs T would rise at 4 am to work, so by 6 am she was probably champing at the bit to get on with her day. It's the equivalent of me going out at 10 am!

I'm amazed they left out Diana intentionally throwing herself down a flight of stairs while pregnant with Prince William.

I find it amazing she was so self absorbed and damaged she could do such a thing.
Also found it interesting she made a big show and dance about being a hands on mother earth in later years.
What's more amazing is she then PUT HER AWFUL BEHAVIOUR IN A BOOK for William to read

Just awful stuff.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/princess-diana-pregnant-threw-down-stairs-prince-charles-wales-william-tapes-royal-family-windsor-a7788111.html%3famp

What gets me about the royals is that the queen's uncle had to give up the crown due to marrying a divorcee, yet it's fine for Charles to marry a divorcee ie Camilla and he's still first in line to the throne.

Awarebear you don,t think views on divorce have changed from the 1930,s to the preseant time then?

@june2007, yes views on the matter have changed over time however the royal family are meant to stick to certain rules and traditions, what's good for the goose....

What gets me the most is how dull people are to the creative process of writing something like this - not everything will be accurate in a factual step by step manner. Events and happenings will need to be assimilated in order to portray the essence because other wise it would take a lifetime! It is known as creative license!

I think the writing is brilliant. I think the monarchy should end. It is all too wired for words - a ruling class? Come on!

Weird not wired

@Awarethebear

What gets me about the royals is that the queen's uncle had to give up the crown due to marrying a divorcee, yet it's fine for Charles to marry a divorcee ie Camilla and he's still first in line to the throne.

The Queen had no choice but to allow that to happen. Charles was living with Camilla and she felt the Crown was being brought into disrepute because the media wrote about them all the time. Once they were married, all that eased off.

I don't watch The Crown. Have they got to the bit where Diana pushed her stepmother down the stairs yet?

You haven't mentioned any of the things I found factually incorrect.

@keeprocking
How do you know the Queen is a kind woman?

The thing I am starting to get annoyed about is how the producers have said oh it's fiction, we're allowed to portray them as we wish because a)the royals are famously anti-litigation and probably wouldn't take us to court for slander and b)it's just entertainment

But at the end of episodes they include real, factual information about some of the characters, for example the dude that got into the queen's bedroom. So there's this funny merger of fact and fiction which is, I guess, their aim and here we all are talking about it.

Also did Thatcher really make kedgeree for the Cabinet?!

I feel like the first 2 seasons were very sympathetic on the Queen especially and even Philip, but season 3 and the current one are portraying them both in a very harsh light. They are both hugely unlikeable now.

Wonder which is closest to reality?!

@Awarethebear

What gets me about the royals is that the queen's uncle had to give up the crown due to marrying a divorcee, yet it's fine for Charles to marry a divorcee ie Camilla and he's still first in line to the throne.

Everything has to move with the times, even the royals.

Plus the Queen saw the effect that had on her own father and then on herself - neither of whom had expected to take the throne. She probably wouldn't want to have that happen again.

Not to mention the wider divorces in the family have an impact too - she can hardly allow Prince Charles, Princess Anne, and Prince Andrew to divorce but say Charles can't marry someone else who happens to be divorced.

I feel the Balmoral scenes have to be overegged. Surely there's no way the Queen would have let MT go out shooting/ hiking in heels and a suit.

I think they wanted to show that you had these two women at the head of the UK - one was born into it and the other got there herself. Both seemed more comfortable working with men. Margaret Thatcher and the Queen never got along well (I remember that well) and I think the Crown is trying to show that although MT had got so far, she was like a fish out of water in that environment.

I can't believe they wouldn't have told her secretary what she should take with her.