@@@ I don’t think Philip/Elizabeth would have cultivated a better relationship with their kids if they weren’t representing the monarchy. Active parenting wasn’t “done” in those social classes and definitely not in that generation. That stretches back to at least Victoria, and I’m sure beyond her. Charles was always going to go to boarding school.
@@@ I don’t think Philip/Elizabeth would have cultivated a better relationship with their kids if they weren’t representing the monarchy. Active parenting wasn’t “done” in those social classes and definitely not in that generation. That stretches back to at least Victoria, and I’m sure beyond her. Charles was always going to go to boarding school.
Hands off parenting by royalty has existed for hundreds of years (until recently), with only a few exceptions in European history. For as long as royalty has been a thing. And also, going to boarding school at age 8 is still a thing for upper class families in the UK. Charles going off at that age is definitely not considered something to be horrified by - it's something he'd have in common with his peers.
I was more responding to the idea that Elizabeth and her family would have been better off if she’d had time to be a mom first, before taking on her role as Queen.
It’s sexist. Her family would have been better off if Philip had stepped up as a dad while she took on a role, considered by them, to be given to her by God.
@@ same here. It was so apparent when Charles was interacting with his Welsh tutor and his family. You end up feeling a sense of sadness for Charles - for his lack of parental love. It kind of boggles my mind though, as to why QEII is so emotionally void, especially since it seems like she had a very good (loving?) relationship with her father/mother at the beginning of her childhood. Was it because she was thrust so quickly into the role of the future monarch and told to be/act/think a certain way? But maybe all the royals were taught to be that way with kids (best for the children to be seen and interacted with from afar)?
@@ The Welsh tutor episode hit my the most when I saw how Charles reacted to how they interacted with their son, and also how they noticed his loneliness. His acting in the play and his speech was very telling of how he felt. I wonder if he chose to "break the cycle" with how he interacted with his children? I haven't followed the royal family much until watching this show and huge events (deaths and weddings). I thought about QEII too. Does it seem like she is detached because she is doing what was done to her as a child (schools, nannies, etc.) or is her role so consuming that she had to choose between focusing on the crown or a relationship with her children?
@@. I finally finished watching the season. The moment when Charles returned from Wales and his mum was so cold to him was heart wrenching. There was definitely a royal tradition of not raising your own children, but I’ve always pondered why Charles childhood and relationships with parents seems so much worse than Elizabeth’s. Maybe it’s because she wasn’t born as the heir apparent so her young life wasn’t prepping her to become queen, where Charles was, plus his dad could be an asshole and hers seemed very kind. From what I’ve always heard, Diana was the one who pushed to raise their boys differently but Charles didn’t really know any better. Maybe moments like he had in Wales made him want to go along with it. I’m sure the queen and Philip felt enormous pressure to raise Charles to live up to his title in a rapidly changing society, and the queen felt like she hadn’t been prepared properly so she may have overcompensated (not that I feel sorry for them; they both treated him poorly). I’m curious if Charles will abdicate to William.
@@ The Welsh tutor episode hit my the most when I saw how Charles reacted to how they interacted with their son, and also how they noticed his loneliness. His acting in the play and his speech was very telling of how he felt. I wonder if he chose to "break the cycle" with how he interacted with his children? I haven't followed the royal family much until watching this show and huge events (deaths and weddings). I thought about QEII too. Does it seem like she is detached because she is doing what was done to her as a child (schools, nannies, etc.) or is her role so consuming that she had to choose between focusing on the crown or a relationship with her children?
@@. I finally finished watching the season. The moment when Charles returned from Wales and his mum was so cold to him was heart wrenching. There was definitely a royal tradition of not raising your own children, but I’ve always pondered why Charles childhood and relationships with parents seems so much worse than Elizabeth’s. Maybe it’s because she wasn’t born as the heir apparent so her young life wasn’t prepping her to become queen, where Charles was, plus his dad could be an asshole and hers seemed very kind. From what I’ve always heard, Diana was the one who pushed to raise their boys differently but Charles didn’t really know any better. Maybe moments like he had in Wales made him want to go along with it. I’m sure the queen and Philip felt enormous pressure to raise Charles to live up to his title in a rapidly changing society, and the queen felt like she hadn’t been prepared properly so she may have overcompensated (not that I feel sorry for them; they both treated him poorly). I’m curious if Charles will abdicate to William.
@@ The Welsh tutor episode hit my the most when I saw how Charles reacted to how they interacted with their son, and also how they noticed his loneliness. His acting in the play and his speech was very telling of how he felt. I wonder if he chose to "break the cycle" with how he interacted with his children? I haven't followed the royal family much until watching this show and huge events (deaths and weddings). I thought about QEII too. Does it seem like she is detached because she is doing what was done to her as a child (schools, nannies, etc.) or is her role so consuming that she had to choose between focusing on the crown or a relationship with her children?
@@. I finally finished watching the season. The moment when Charles returned from Wales and his mum was so cold to him was heart wrenching. There was definitely a royal tradition of not raising your own children, but I’ve always pondered why Charles childhood and relationships with parents seems so much worse than Elizabeth’s. Maybe it’s because she wasn’t born as the heir apparent so her young life wasn’t prepping her to become queen, where Charles was, plus his dad could be an asshole and hers seemed very kind. From what I’ve always heard, Diana was the one who pushed to raise their boys differently but Charles didn’t really know any better. Maybe moments like he had in Wales made him want to go along with it. I’m sure the queen and Philip felt enormous pressure to raise Charles to live up to his title in a rapidly changing society, and the queen felt like she hadn’t been prepared properly so she may have overcompensated (not that I feel sorry for them; they both treated him poorly). I’m curious if Charles will abdicate to William.
He has no reason to abdicate. His entire life has been built around him preparing himself to do his duty for his country. He won’t reign for as long as his mother did, but there is no doubt in my mind that he will become king.
I’d bet he wouldn’t either, but I know there’s been lots of rumors about it in recent years.
I feel like these rumors come from people who simply feel Charles is old and boring and/or perhaps don't like Camilla and feel he should just hand it over to William. I don't put ANY merit on them what so ever.
A jewelry blog I follow has been reviewing the episodes, and points out all the instances where historical events are depicted out of order. And where what’s shown in the show is just plain incorrect: www.thecourtjeweller.com/search/label/jewels%20on%20film?m=0
I haven’t watched beyond Season 1 mainly because I’m not a drama fan. I’d rather watch a documentary.
Across its 10 episodes, the season holds Elizabeth at arm’s length, showing her going through the motions of her limited duties without interrogating her actions or excavating her feelings. She is sidelined for most of the installments, whether idly waiting for her sister, Margaret (Helena Bonham Carter), to pacify Lyndon B. Johnson (Clancy Brown) or chasing racehorses around the world while a rumored coup begins under her husband’s uncle, Lord Mountbatten (Charles Dance). When Prince Charles (Josh O’Connor) romances Camilla (Emerald Fennell), Elizabeth is not the one who meddles and rearranges the young couple’s love lives; Lord Mountbatten and the Queen Mother (Marion Bailey) are.
It’s an odd pivot for the Netflix drama created by Peter Morgan, who ushered in the modern subgenre of Elizabethan pop culture. (Along with The Crown, he wrote the film The Queen and the play The Audience, which inspired the series.) The first two seasons of The Crown showed the limitations of Elizabeth’s role, but at the same time emphasized her intelligence and her emotional burdens. She admonished prime ministers, held her own against detractors, and used her status to dazzle diplomats and manage the feelings of her husband and her sister. This balance made for a well-rounded, deeply satisfying drama. Even when the series examined others in the royal family, the episodes would still be about the way they affected the Queen.
The third season, though, seems afraid to sympathize with her or antagonize her, and so it treats her apathetically, at a remove. Yes, the sovereign should remain politically neutral while maintaining a posh, buttoned-up image—and Colman does a fine job of capturing Elizabeth’s steely resolve against interfering in any drama—but the show seems to have lost interest in her as a character.
I'm not the least bit surprised. The things that Margaret and Charles were going through in the late 60s and 70s were more interesting than anything the Queen was dealing with (with the exception of the coup). Get used to it, expect next season to be the Chuck & Di show.