"The Crown" (2016-Present) - Netflix Drama Series on Queen Elizabeth II


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
An Ard Ri said:
The Crown season 2: US President set to appear - and you’ll NEVER guess who’s playing JFK.

The Crown season 2: President JFK and Jackie Kennedy actors cast | TV & Radio | Showbiz & TV | Express.co.uk
Click to expand...

Sounds like fun - always wondered how that meeting went, and Peter MOrgans take will be interesting. But is the fact that JFK is being played by Dexter meant to be some kind of Meta point that I'm missing?

On a semi-related topic; I've got my fingers crossed that there will be more of the extended royal circle of Europe as they were willing to have the German relatives (even speaking Deutsch, nach) turn up, albeit briefly. Did anyone else get the feeling that the Greek Royals are possibly being set up as a plot point for later in the series in the episodes about the Queens coronation, likewise it would be odd not to talk about Spain and Juan Carlos either as that was pretty big and relevant. As for the Middle East, Iran would need a look in for season 3 (I'm surprised that operation Ajax and Mossagegh wern't mentioned even in passing in the current one), and poss Jordan too in episodes on the 1980s and 1990s...

But alas given the needs of the script and the need not to confuse the audience probably not...:sad:
 
Given the fact that a large percentage of people don't even know who is who within the extended BRF I doubt very much that other royals will play a role at all other than maybe a passing mention of the coup in Greece as Philip's mother ending up living in BP as a result. Otherwise I don't see any need to bring in foreign royals at all as they aren't really part of the story of the BRF in the latter half of the 20th century and early 21st century. There is some contact of course but very little these days, unlike in the days of Victoria and Edward VII when a family gathering meant the European royals were included. Now a family gathering for the BRF doesn't include any foreign royals, other than maybe the Greeks due to Philip. It would need to be a very, very extended family gathering for the Europeans to be included.
 
Iluvbertie said:
Given the fact that a large percentage of people don't even know who is who within the extended BRF I doubt very much that other royals will play a role at all other than maybe a passing mention of the coup in Greece as Philip's mother ending up living in BP as a result. Otherwise I don't see any need to bring in foreign royals at all as they aren't really part of the story of the BRF in the latter half of the 20th century and early 21st century. There is some contact of course but very little these days, unlike in the days of Victoria and Edward VII when a family gathering meant the European royals were included. Now a family gathering for the BRF doesn't include any foreign royals, other than maybe the Greeks due to Philip. It would need to be a very, very extended family gathering for the Europeans to be included.
Click to expand...

Given that one of the main themes of the show is about how the crown adapts and survives at least passing mentions of the fates of other monarchies and what went wrong fo them (and what others got right) could be a useful plot idea esp if the countries in question had been subject to British "influence" ie interference in the past, like Iran and the legacy of George V selling out his Russian cousins in the revolution could be a huge source of drama and very relevant. a single episode would suffice so it would not be arcane and confusing - one of the shows great strengths is how clear and lucid it is for those who don't know anything about the topic and the relative clarity of the story lines. But you're probably right - it's about the Windsors and their lives and loves, they are the main characters and its primarily entertainment not a history lesson. It was just an idea I had reading about the Kennedys turning up and I got overexcited.
 
Last edited:
The Kennedy's State Visit to the UK was a huge world wide event for its day as there were two young beautiful women at the centre of it.

Other royals not so much. Why any mention of the Russian royals considering that event happened even before Philip was born, let alone Elizabeth, I don't understand. This is the life of Elizabeth not that of her grandfather or even father.
 
Iluvbertie said:
The Kennedy's State Visit to the UK was a huge world wide event for its day as there were two young beautiful women at the centre of it.

Other royals not so much. Why any mention of the Russian royals considering that event happened even before Philip was born, let alone Elizabeth, I don't understand. This is the life of Elizabeth not that of her grandfather or even father.
Click to expand...

Point taken. There will always be other to shows and movies and in all honestly I'm still amazed that The Crown got made at all. I guess I was just really stoked and impressed that Prinz Ernst August Von Hannover was there in the name debate episode and not simply given as a random bozo or a local - that's the kind of little things that makes the show so good for a pedantic nerd like me.
:flowers:
 
Article from Sky News: BAFTA TV Awards: Netflix's The Crown leads the way with five nominations
Critically acclaimed royal drama The Crown has picked up five nominations for the BAFTA TV Awards.

It leads the way for May's ceremony, picking up nods including best drama and best supporting actors for Jared Harris, Vanessa Kirby and John Lithgow.

Claire Foy is also nominated for leading actress for her portrayal of a young Queen Elizabeth II in the Netflix show.

Both Foy and the show won a Golden Globe earlier this year, making The Crown one of the streaming giant's most successful shows yet.

A third series of the drama is reportedly in the works, jumping years into the future in its portrayal of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.
Click to expand...
 
Skippyboo said:
Benedict Cumberbatch is closer in looks to what 1960s Tony Armstrong Jones looked like if we had our pick of any actor. Vanessa Kirby doesn't really look like Margaret and is way too tall. So the actor playing Tony will have to be tall too to match her.

Toby Stephens played Snowden opposite Lucy Cohu's Margaret in The Queen's Sister back in 2005.
Click to expand...

Benedict Cumberbatch would probably be too expensive for a Netflix TV series.
 
WreathOfLaurels said:
Point taken. There will always be other to shows and movies and in all honestly I'm still amazed that The Crown got made at all. I guess I was just really stoked and impressed that Prinz Ernst August Von Hannover was there in the name debate episode and not simply given as a random bozo or a local - that's the kind of little things that makes the show so good for a pedantic nerd like me.
:flowers:
Click to expand...
Are you? People have wanted to make a series about her for many years now, and as PetticoatLane said in post 227 after the Golden Globes: Well, playing HM The Queen again proves highly lucrative for those who take on the role.

I replayed (in post 229) by saying: That's what happens when you play the world's biggest icon.

And if you want to know why Netflix bet big on the Crown - read the article from Business Insider in this post:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...series-on-the-queen-37008-13.html#post1954226

HRHHermione said:
Not this Netflix series. The budget on it has been insane.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I posted this article in post 22:
BBC lost The Crown jewel because it can't compete with Netflix - Telegraph
The BBC pitched for blockbuster new royal drama The Crown but could not compete with the global financial might of Netflix, its head of television has admitted.

Danny Cohen, director of television, said the corporation wanted to broadcast The Crown, a landmark drama about the life of the Queen, considering it a "classic BBC subject".

But, he has disclosed, it could not keep up with the coffers of Netflix and lost out, despite its strong British connection.

In the end, the drama is set to become the most expensive Netflix drama to date, win a $100million budget.

"It's a classic BBC subject, but we couldn't compete with the amount of money Netflix were prepared to pay for that production, even though we would have loved to be a co-producer."
Click to expand...
 
Haven't watched the whole thing but from what I've seen the only actor I don't like is the one playing Prince Phillip; everyone else is rather impressive.
 
I love Matt Smith as Philip (and I loved him as The Doctor as well).
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
Haven't watched the whole thing but from what I've seen the only actor I don't like is the one playing Prince Phillip; everyone else is rather impressive.
Click to expand...


Matt Smith.

Anyone who comes off of the Dr. Who franchise gets a career boost.
 
Is the HUGE plot twist that Philip and Elizabeth had two more children? or that they underwent more tours together and apart? that there were suggestions of infidelity on behalf of one or both of them? or that they got on well with the Kennedys? or ...

or are they going to make up something?????
 
Maybe they, whomever writers, producers and sponsors want to maybe make up history so they will have more people view the TV show......adding drama seems to be the way of things anymore where it is true or not........as real history is and could be boring......so add some spice to it........:bang:
 
Last edited:
It's on Netflix. It doesn't have sponsors. The Queen and Philip are going to have Andrew and Edward. Margaret is going to marry Antony Armstrong-Jones. In season 1, we knew the King was going to die, Elizabeth would become Queen, Queen Mary would die and Margaret didn't marry Peter but it was still interesting. I watch the Dunkirk movie today. I still found it to be a great movie even though I knew the British forces got off that beach. I cried at the scene where the little boats show up.
 
The "huge twist" is...

...that HM wears mini-skirts and DOES the TWIST.
 
Skippyboo said:
It's on Netflix. It doesn't have sponsors. The Queen and Philip are going to have Andrew and Edward. Margaret is going to marry Antony Armstrong-Jones. In season 1, we knew the King was going to die, Elizabeth would become Queen, Queen Mary would die and Margaret didn't marry Peter but it was still interesting. I watch the Dunkirk movie today. I still found it to be a great movie even though I knew the British forces got off that beach. I cried at the scene where the little boats show up.
Click to expand...

My apologies to you Skippyboo as I do not know anything about Netfix.
And I got my movies mixed up for I was thinking about the PPS show on Queen Victoria which I hope is coming on soon. That I really enjoyed a great deal, this show that you are discussing, I know nothing about it.
 
I have seen The Crown and it was a hard-to-swallow series, the praises for it were beyond my understanding. I had to hit myself to stay awake. Poor acting, poor storyline, poor similarities with real persons and real events. Big thumb down!
 
Exactly these fantasy intimate talks, the romantic scenes between the Duke and Princess Elizabeth, the poor similarities with King George VI, Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret... Even the scenery with the coronation was so wrong.

Wrong
King George VI coughing up blood into the toilet while the series opened in 1947. The King wasn't diagnosed with lung cancer until four years later, the blood-spewing was most unlikely at that point.

Wrong
In the series Westminster Abbey was richly decorated with flowers. In real it was very sparse because of post-war austerity: picture

Wrong
In the series the bride was nervous and stumbled her vows. In reality the King wrote a letter: "You were so calm and composed during the service, and said your words with such conviction." link

Wrong
Princess Alice (the groom's mother) wore a nun's habit at the wedding. That is not true: picture (Princess Alice is in dark dress next to Princess Margaret)

Wrong
In the series there was a caption to pass time: "Twelve months later, eight months pregnant". In reality Prince Charles was already born when couple celebrated their first wedding anniversary!

Wrong
In the series King George VI had his lung removed with his family waiting. But Queen Mary was at Marlborough House, Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip were at Clarence House and the two toddlers Charles and Anne were in Scotland... Link

Wrong
In the episode featuring the great fog, there seems a sort of affair between Winston Churchill and his secretary, Venetia Scott. In real life there was no Mrs Scott at all. Link.

Wrong
In the series Prince Philip was struggling to kneel before the Queen at her Coronation. In real he just kneeled anyway. Prince Philip was royalborn himself and knew (knows) how it works, do it seems unlikely that he would have had a problem with this.


Etc. Etc. Etc.

:bang:
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
I have seen The Crown and it was a hard-to-swallow series, the praises for it were beyond my understanding. I had to hit myself to stay awake. Poor acting, poor storyline, poor similarities with real persons and real events. Big thumb down!
Click to expand...



Poor storyline ???? What did you expect?
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
Haven't watched the whole thing but from what I've seen the only actor I don't like is the one playing Prince Phillip; everyone else is rather impressive.
Click to expand...

MTE, Philip was one of the best looking men I've ever seen and Matt Smith is "strange" looking to be honest :lol:

Claire Foy as QEII is amazing tho, it's interesting to see how things would have been in such a turbulent stage of her life, she was supposed to have had more time to get ready.

I am not very satisfied with the way they portrayed the Queen Mother either, she's "weak" here and we all know she was the rock of this family during her entire life.

And frankly, this is to be seen with a pinch of salt and suspension of disbelief, if you want historical accuracy, go for a documentary, this is a tv show based on real events but of course they would tweak a lot of things to create storylines and such.
 
Last edited:
leidi said:
MTE, Philip was one of the best looking men I've ever seen and Matt Smith is "strange" looking to be honest :lol:

Claire Foy as QEII is amazing tho, it's interesting to see how things would have been in such a turbulent stage of her life, she was supposed to have had more time to get ready.

I am not very satisfied with the way they portrayed the Queen Mother either, she's "weak" here and we all know she was the rock of this family during her entire life.

And frankly, this is to be seen with a pinch of salt and suspension of disbelief, if you want historical accuracy, go for a documentary, this is a tv show based on real events but of course they would tweak a lot of things to create storylines and such.
Click to expand...

A 100 million dollar production and still then showing factual errors which could have been avoided by simply watching the pictures: Princess Alice was not in a nun habit at the wedding: fact. Westminster Abbey was sparsely decorated because of the austerity and rationing after the war: fact. Prince Charles was already born when the couple celebrated their first wedding anniversary: fact.

"Tweaking" because of the storyline? Let the bride be nervous and stumble over her vows while in reality she was self-assured and clear? Let the Prince hesistate to kneel before his Queen while the world could see in the very first coloured Eurovision live broadcast that he simply went down the knees to bring homage. Etc. What is the point of this "tweaking". To portray Elizabeth as a weak and insecure woman and to portray Philip as a stubborn and unwilling man? Just because of a pattern-thinking: "This is Hollywood, so a woman is always weak and insecure and a man is always masculine and self-assured"?

Come on, please....

:ermm:
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
A 100 million dollar production and still then showing factual errors which could have been avoided by simply watching the pictures: Princess Alice was not in a nun habit at the wedding: fact. Westminster Abbey was sparsely decorated because of the austerity and rationing after the war: fact. Prince Charles was already born when the couple celebrated their first wedding anniversary: fact.

"Tweaking" because of the storyline? Let the bride be nervous and stumble over her vows while in reality she was self-assured and clear? Let the Prince hesistate to kneel before his Queen while the world could see in the very first coloured Eurovision live broadcast that he simply went down the knees to bring homage. Etc. What is the point of this "tweaking". To portray Elizabeth as a weak and insecure woman and to portray Philip as a stubborn and unwilling man? Just because of a pattern-thinking: "This is Hollywood, so a woman is always weak and insecure and a man is always masculine and self-assured"?

Come on, please....

:ermm:
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the idea is to portray her as a young woman who was basically thrown to the wolves because of the early death of her father and had to take on a role she wasn't 100% prepared to take at that particular moment in time, later in the season you can see how she evolved from being scared of telling her opinion to basically telling Churchill to f*** off :lol:

I am watching this as if I was not a royal watcher, I tend to do so when I see there's going to be a royal series or something, otherwise I wouldn't enjoy watching and there are good things to take from the series, the music and cinematography are quite enjoyable.

That's of course my opinion, I'm not a big fan of the series but I liked the first season in a detached kind of way, many people who don't follow royalty as we do loved it (for its entertainment value).

And let's face it, we are always going to find some fault in every single royal movie/tv series made, because we're very focussed on detail and accuracy, something the producers/directors/actors are not that much into doing since the idea is to sell a good entertainment product, nothing more than that ;)
 
I am not convinced. For a 100 million production one might expect perfectionism. Showing a pregnant Princess Elizabeth celebrating her first wedding anniversary, showing an "American Disney style" rich decorated Westminster Abbey while only two big bouquets were to be seen in reality, showing the Prince's mother in a nun's habit at the wedding while every wedding group portrait sees her in a long robe with sash et al, is purely a far too low standard for that amount of money.

It is the same category of laziness as so many faults in that awful remake of War & Peace. For an example: Vicomte de Mortemart, a French nobleman who is supposed to have fled to Russia during the French Revolution, is shown wearing the Legion d'Honneur, an Order brought in by Napoleon after the overthrow of the country’s monarchy... Just laziness and sloppy standards. No other words for it.
 
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair said:
I am not convinced. For a 100 million production one might expect perfectionism. Showing a pregnant Princess Elizabeth celebrating her first wedding anniversary, showing an "American Disney style" rich decorated Westminster Abbey while only two big bouquets were to be seen in reality, showing the Prince's mother in a nun's habit at the wedding while every wedding group portrait sees her in a long robe with sash et al, is purely a far too low standard for that amount of money.

It is the same fault as in that awful remake of War & Peace where a French royalist general was sporting the red sash of the Légion d'Honneur. A "republican" sash and only established 10 years after the death of Louis XVI. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Click to expand...

Be thankful this wasn't an absolute travesty like those "Will & Kate" TV movies ?????
Or the "Charles III" play-to-movie, which was absolutely horrible, like "The Royals" from E with a Shakespearean twist :unsure:

Duc_et_Pair said:
I am not convinced. For a 100 million production one might expect perfectionism. Showing a pregnant Princess Elizabeth celebrating her first wedding anniversary, showing an "American Disney style" rich decorated Westminster Abbey while only two big bouquets were to be seen in reality, showing the Prince's mother in a nun's habit at the wedding while every wedding group portrait sees her in a long robe with sash et al, is purely a far too low standard for that amount of money.

It is the same fault as in that awful remake of War & Peace where a French royalist general was sporting the red sash of the Légion d'Honneur. A "republican" sash and only established 10 years after the death of Louis XVI. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Click to expand...

You know that because you have extensively studied royal issues, 95% of the world population wouldn't know better ;)

And that 95% is their target audience tbh, we're just some casualties along the way ?
 
Last edited:
When someone pretends to show a biographic movie based on historical characters, eeermmmm... living characters even... then one may expect accuratesse.

It is well known that Britain, one of the victors of WWII, suffered a post-war shortage in almost everything. The Palace, knowing about the austerity which was enforced on the population, wanted the wedding to be restraint.

When then the wedding is shown almost à la Hollywood, then that is pure falsification of history and not correctly giving the essential information that it happened in a very austere pre-war period and that the royals themselves were aware of it.

The same with showing Princess Alice of Battenberg as a nun during the wedding. What is the purpose? Just pure falsification of facts. They cold have shown Queen Elizabeth's mother-in-law in habit at the Coronation, as that was factual indeed. It is laziness and sloppiness, there is no other qualification for it and also no justification at all.
 
THE CROWN Season 2 TRAILER (2017) Netflix Series

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Locked
Netflix Docu-Series of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (2022)
49 50 51
Replies
2K
Views
187K
Ista
Ista
Marengo
  • Sticky
Queen Elizabeth (1926-2022) and the Duke of Edinburgh (1921-2021)
2 3
Replies
75
Views
11K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
J
God Save the Queen anthem
Replies
0
Views
185
jf161
J
M
Distribution of the Jewels of Queen Elizabeth II
3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
17K
muriel
muriel
Z
The new order of precedence
Replies
2
Views
8K
LauraS3514
LauraS3514

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom