^ I'm curious too.
And I didn't have a problem with the sound.
And I didn't have a problem with the sound.
The Crown - Netflix - Outstanding
- Thread starter DarthTom
- Start date
Goddamn you bastards!!
Another show to put on my list that I'll never get around to seeing until everyone else is 6 seasons ahead of me! Given it is a Netflix show there is no worries of the damned thing dropping off the platform before I get around to it. Unlike other shows that will now forever be unwatched
Hugo - queued
Another show to put on my list that I'll never get around to seeing until everyone else is 6 seasons ahead of me! Given it is a Netflix show there is no worries of the damned thing dropping off the platform before I get around to it. Unlike other shows that will now forever be unwatched
Hugo - queued
I immediately thought of Diana when they showed the scene of the photographers speeding to follow the car carrying Peter Townsend and Margaret. That was probably intentional.
Sigh....the press is ridiculous.
I thought of Diana during that scene as well.
And I would say it's the paparazzi that is ridiculous, not the press.
And I would say it's the paparazzi that is ridiculous, not the press.
While strictly speaking yes, that's true, it is the press in general that encourage the market for pap photos of royalty and celebrities at all costs - the topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge from a couple of years ago, for example. there was a market for them in the mainstream press, so that encourages them being taken.
Yeah, part of it is the culture of the media and its consumption. The paps will often go to great lengths to be the first and get the best shots, often crossing moral lines, which is especially true in this day and age. Privacy doesn't mean anything to paps.
For me at least, it's easier to feel compassion and sorry for people like the Queen or even Margaret as depicted in the series because they were born into fame and had no choice about the consequences of the paparazzi. I have less sympathy for other famous people e.g. the Kardashians who have exploited fame but think they should also have the right like a light switch to flip it on and off when it suits them and/or benefits them.
^^ Yes, exactly. I think sometimes it's a bit easy to forget that they're people too. But you're right, there does seem to be two types of fame. Those that are born into it don't get that privilege of flipping a switch either.
At the risk of De-evolving this thread into a political conversation, I'm not sure we have it much better. All you have to do is look at Southern US states who have enacted, "religious freedom laws," that on the guise of protecting Christians from gay people actually discriminate against them. Moreover, the fight against abortion continues to this day for mostly because of people's religious convictions.
Our constitution may explicitly guarantee a division of church and state but we struggle to this day to follow it.
Regarding The Crown and Elizabeth's no-win situation with her sister and divorce and the Church of England is was fascinating to get a peak on how perhaps she struggled internally with her personal promise to Margaret versus her role as head of the church.
Interestingly enough, I found it odd that Margaret was going to be more severely punished than Edward was 17 years earlier. He at least was given an, "allowance," by the crown to live outside of Britain. You have to wonder why parliament was going to be more harsh with her than with him?
Whereas we have almost the opposite scenario - although our Head of State is also head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, the actual intrusion of religion into government is very limited and diminishing. Politicians are broadly secular publicly and open discussion of religious conviction in a political forum by anyone other than an Archbishop is looked upon with suspicion and a hint of scorn.
Question. Could Prince Harry marry Meghan Markle who quite ironically is an American divorcee herself? Or would the Queen be put in the same circumstance she was with her sister Margaret some 50 years ago?
The heir to the throne is married to a divorcee, so Harry would have good cause to cite precedent
Times change, even in royalty, it seems.
If The Crown pushes forward in time, it will eventually be seen that Elizabeth becomes quite a progressive monarch if such a thing isn't an oxymoron. She is after all the reason why we no longer have a male preference hereditary monarchy.
The heir to the throne is married to a divorcee, so Harry would have good cause to cite precedent
Times change, even in royalty, it seems.
If The Crown pushes forward in time, it will eventually be seen that Elizabeth becomes quite a progressive monarch if such a thing isn't an oxymoron. She is after all the reason why we no longer have a male preference hereditary monarchy.
I forgot about Camilla. Albeit, she is easy to forget about.
I re-watched the final episode last night and it really is poignant if even somewhat historically accurate. You have Margaret, devastated that her sister would break a promise that she made to her and both to their father of always protecting each other. Phillip finishes down his road of complete emasculation by Elizabeth - sent off to open the Olympics in Australia on her behalf - basically being told to get it together. And Elizabeth herself at complete odds with her role as the monarch versus what is right/wrong as Elizabeth Windsor.
All of these people seem enormously unhappy with their lot in life and their roles within the monarchy. It however is hard to feel sorry for people who have it so easy comparatively I'd think to the average British citizen during the 1950's.
Well, Camilla aside, the Prince of Wales himself is divorced and is still next in line. So all that old nonsense is gone.
True, but I thought re-marriage was the issue related to the church? You can get divorced under Christian doctrine, just not remarried. Charles waited until after Diana's death to marry Camilla.
Oh yes, I see your point. The church said you can get divorced, but once divorced cannot remarry. Though in that case both parties were divorced and remarrying.
Christian doctrine permits even divorced people to remarry so long as the former spouse is dead. Diana was dead when Charles married Camilla.
Hence Margaret's mistake was to not have had Peter Townsend's first wife murdered.
I found it quite funny when someone (Joan Rivers?) on TV back in the 80s got The Who's Pete Townshend confused with Group Captain Peter Townsend.
Similar threads
