The Crown - season 6

[1975wasthebest]

Is anyone else looking forward to this? The first part of the final season is on Netflix from 16th November (four episodes), and the second part (six episodes) from 14th December.

https://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/the-crown-season-6

I thought the previous series was a bit boring so I'm hoping for more drama this time round.

I was 18 when she died and with my mum and two older sisters we were in the 'good for her' camp when it came to news of holidays and boyfriends. Like why not, after the shit she'd been dealt for several years. She was so young.

But I find myself contemplating that scene where she says she'll book a BA flight home and Dodi says no I'll get you a private jet but we have to go via Paris etc etc. it's like she was still in a state of being controlled by men, perhaps, she didn't want to go and seeing her boys was important so why couldn't she just stick to her own plans. I'm finding it really frustrating. She was easily influenced and not the independent woman I remember admiring.

I still admire her. But the outcomes of her own choices are harrowing.

I've not enjoyed this series so much and I think there were probably other important royal events during the Diana period that have been excluded and shouldn't have been. I liked in the earlier series where all the characters were brought to life. This was just Diana fest which we've seen a thousand times.

Of course, we don't know what really happened.

However, from what I remember, and from the way things are shown in the series, she was liable to be mobbed in public places.

So, quite possibly, just getting a flight back home with BA might have been very chaotic, with lots of paparazzi in her face? I thought, in the series, this was behind the offer of a private flight home.

Yes I would have thought the same only in the scene Diana says she's like travelling BA and it's fine, making it something she must have done regularly (and presumably had to have royal titles were taken away.

It could be made up to support the storyline of the Al-fyeds closing in on her. Though that makes her more naive and more vulnerable than I thought I remembered her.

Or, neither are true. She was genuinely happy to spend extra time with Dodi and felt she had nothing to be concerned about (either from them or the press). Agree with a few other apps who said the coming and going for dinner was nonsense, how they would expect to have privacy was ridiculous.

Yes I picked up on this. I know that taking a BA flight wouldn't have been wise given the paparazzi issue, however my first thought was that this was yet another controlling relationship she was moving into. I am sure Dodi didnt intentionally do this - it is how he was raised by his controlling father. But the insistence that she come to Paris with him when she really just wanted to go to her boys.

If this indeed happened in that way!

Also did anyone notice this one: When Duncan Muir excitedly drove off to Balmoral to photograph the Princes - he drove off in a Volvo with a 2001 number plate... In 1997!

The trouble is whilst she may not have felt safe in Paris, where would she have felt safe? It must’ve felt very suffocating to only feel safe in royal palaces after her divorce.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-12763611/As-Crown-focuses-weeks-Dianas-life-RICHARD-KAY-speaking-five-six-times-day-reveals-reality-far-compelling-poignant-Netflix-series-fiction.html

I came across this whilst fact checking. It’s interesting.

Very good, just finished

Really moving

You fact checked via the daily heil? 🤣

Seriously though, I am not going to read it as I don't want to give them the click bait but also, the DM are well known to be scathing of the crown. They don't like us meddling with their establishment 😬

Also did anyone notice this one: When Duncan Muir excitedly drove off to Balmoral to photograph the Princes - he drove off in a Volvo with a 2001 number plate... In 1997! Yes I noticed that. So much for their accuracy

There were those of us who lived through those days and read everything about Diana at that time. You probably didn't. Diana spoke to royal journalists all the time.

Eh? You have no idea how old I am, what I read or didn't read. I was Diana obsessed since the Royal Wedding when I was 8yo. I had grown out of the obsession by 97 (being 24 and had other things to do) but I do recall the press being all about Diana at that time.

I was making the point that the DM isn't really the place to go for fact checking or any endorsement of the crown. I didn't read the article for the reasons I have already given,

The fact that the article is in the DM is neither here nor there. The article was written by Richard Kay who knew Diana and talked to her all the time. I am two years older than Diana had she lived. I enjoyed the Crown but most of it was poetic licence

He is also being paid by the Daily Mail though. Much of research on The Crown was stuff the papers were printing at the time. They have all quickly changed their tune since. So who knows what the truth is. No matter how much The Mail handwrings about our poor dead Queen, most of us know this is drama. It's not pretending to be anything else. Unlike the made up nonsense and gossip from the British Tabloids masquerading as the truth. The Mail hate Netflix for giving Harry and Meghan money to sue them with. They are not unbiased in their coverage of anything on Netflix, never mind The Crown!

They are not unbiased in their coverage of anything on Netflix, never mind The Crown! Of course they are biased. But there are lots of people who didn't live through the Diana era who swallow The Crown whole. That's the problem. As for William and Harry, The Crown is rehashing their lives for the entertainment of the masses. I am complicit in this because I watch it.

Even if people think Doctor Who regenerated into Prince Philip and shagged Anne Boleyn, does it really matter? Everything we know about the Royals is gossip and conjecture. The research was done from the books and newspaper articles printed at the time. All told by people pretending they have inside information, or leaked from inside the Palace- just things that they want us to know. If people are so disinterested in the Royal Family then watch the Crown and think the actual conversations are real, firstly they must be extremely hard of thinking, but secondly, after watching The Crown, they will be disinterested in them again. They will not stage a revolution because they think King Charles was a bit bad tempered when he spoke to his staff! They will not fail their A Level History because they only watched The Crown. Its inconsequential!

The article demonstrably includes "facts" that he could not know, e.g. that Prince Charles didn't discuss things with his mother. Unless he was with Charles or the Queen all the time, that can only be speculation. And frankly I strongly doubt that Diana was on the phone to him several times a day.

You simply cannot ignore the fact that the Mail has a long track record for misrepresenting facts, particularly when they don't suit the editor's or the proprietors' agendas.

You're happy with the Crown because its bias accords with yours. The Royal family are a bunch of humourless deer murderers. It's written by a well known republican so of course you agree with it..
False details like Princess Margaret attending Camilla's birthday are so jarring. It's painting the picture that Margaret was prevented from marrying the love of her life by the evil royal machine (by implication the Queen). Therefore Margaret supported love struck Charles and Camilla.

As brilliant as the cast are, I would have preferred to keep Claire Foy, Matt Smith and Vanessa Kirby. I've struggled to see Olivia Coleman and Imelda Staunton as the same person as Claire Foy and think consistency of cast would have been better. I can't see Lesley Manville as Margaret. VK was so convincing and nothing like either LM or HBC.

I don't want to watch Diana's life unraveling - this must be very hard for her children. I think they should have stopped before this series really.

Let's not forget that Bashir had led her to believe that everyone in her inner circle were selling stories about her, so no, she wouldn't trust anyone.

I find it so sad to think that she died believing that everyone that she should have been able to trust, were stabbing her in the back.

I've watched the first two episodes and what struck me (and it seemed, the advisor of the Queen) was how desperate M A-F was to be part of the establishment. He loved all of that and wanted a British passport and wanted to mix with the higher orders. I don't believe Mo paid the paparazzo but he certainly engineered the relationship and after they died he already convinced himself the relationship was on a sure-footing because he still wanted to be part of that society. Did his son dying in the same car as Diana kill his ambitions? Most probably.

The actor who plays Mohammed is outstanding.

The actor who played Dodi was too. Browbeaten, harassed, never good enough. His fianceé wasn't the right type to get her father in law the British citizenship he desperately wanted. Hence why he wanted Dodi to pursue Diana, who was born an aristocrat.

Debicki has Diana's movements down to a tee. Not just her face, but the way she walks, gestures, everything. It's so good. But I find myself drawn to the Fayeds more, and I don't give a stuff about the RF.

"As brilliant as the cast are, I would have preferred to keep Claire Foy, Matt Smith and Vanessa Kirby. I've struggled to see Olivia Coleman and Imelda Staunton as the same person as Claire Foy and think consistency of cast would have been better. I can't see Lesley Manville as Margaret. VK was so convincing and nothing like either LM or HBC."

I agree. I didn't make it past S2. I thought the late, great Helen McCrory would have been a great handover from Claire Foy..although she would have had to have been replaced by now :(

I thought Olivia Colman was a terrible choice.

I mean the ' deer murdering ' ( hunting) happened, just at a different time, and still does happen! If anything, they have shown Margaret to be a nicer person than she was! They could have gone to town on her!

I meannthe ' deer murdering ' ( hunting) happened, just at a different time, and still does happen! If anything, they have shown Margaret to be a nicer person than she was! The stag shooting was supposedly suggested by Princess Anne to cheer William up. What a load of old bollocks. Princess Anne who has somehow accidentally mislaid her husband Tim Laurence who she married in 1992. As for hunting, I hope you are a vegetarian if you're condemning it. The woman who works for me hunts rabbits on our farm. You would appreciate that if you hurt your leg in a rabbit hole. She gives the rabbits to our farm cats who control the mice and rats.
Yes Margaret was a crashing snob who was notoriously foul to people. She didn't want to give up royal life so didn't marry PT. She was however totally loyal to her sister the Queen.

I am actually a vegetarian, but I'm not bothered about deer hunting ( other types of hunting and shooting, where the biodiversity of land is destroyed to make way for pheasant and grouse shooting, arguably yes.) but they showed something that actually happens. It's not a false narrative. These things are such minor issues that are well used to move a story on and to bring a narrative together. None of us know what happens with the Royals or how loyal or not they are to each other. They tell us what they want us to know. People making programmes about them and maintaining interest in them is what they need to keep them going. Them going to visit a nursery or even big events like Earthshot aren't what maintains interest in them. It's the gossip, the family fallouts and slagging off Meghan and Harry that keeps them relevant, whether they like it or not.

and slagging off Meghan and Harry that keeps them relevant, whether they like it or not. I couldn't give a rat's ass about M&H now. The papers are making up a whole load of nonsense about them and the RF now. It's so tedious.