Feeling any more sympathetic to Meghan Markal after Oprah interview?

It's only really the Monarch, due to her position as the head of state, that is prohibited by constitutional conventions from voicing an opinion on political matters.
Charles's opinions on some matters such as the environment are better known but once he becomes King he will have to avoid expressing those opinions.
The pressure to stay out of politics on the rest of the Royal Family comes from the Palace more than the constitution.

 

Have you been watching The Crown? Curious about your opinion of it. I found it mostly pretty good; though some of the episodes were clearly based on unfounded gossip, instead of actual events. Episodes like Aberfan were much better viewing than say an episode that implied The Duke went on a whoring spree early on in her reign.

 

Those are logical points. But LOVE seems to be the most illogical-emotion

 

No, I don't have Netflix.
There has been quite a lot of controversy over here about the fictional nature of some of the storylines. There were even questions asked in the House about some of the meetings between Thatcher and the Queen.
I'm not a big fan of the dramatization of history so I'll probably give it a miss.
It should probably have a disclaimer at the start of each episode so as to not mislead the viewers into believing it is a purely factual account.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown_(TV_series)#Critical_response

 

I agree with Harry's assessment. I doubt anyone watches historical fiction as non-fiction. We can verify events, but private thoughts & conversations are completely unknowable.

I think The Crown portrays QEII in a rather positive light, personally.

 

Having not seen a single episode I can't really comment on The Crown. All I have to go on is the reaction to it.
Braveheart makes my blood boil though.
Butchering history for the sake of entertainment offends me.

 

I feel The Crown is fictionalizing history; but is in no way, butchering it. The historical events are accurate. The dialogue around it is what is fictionalized.

 

I suppose the issue is dramatizing the reactions to those real events.
It's all a bit of a soap opera anyway though so why not make it an actual soap opera.

 

I love it!

I enjoyed The Tudors as well. The historical events were accurate. The fiction was fun, too. (Though the actor chosen to play Henry was way off, so I had to get past that.)

 

Yes....from what I understand , it has the soap opera feel to it. Personally.......I stay away fro that kind of stuff. Reality / nonfiction is dramatic enough........ and more interesting

 

Really? I don't find it anything like a soap opera.

It's a dramatization of actual events. Each season is 10 different events during the life of QE II; each season is approximately 10 years of her reign. Diana showed up last season.

 

LOL.......Oh , I agree, there is nothing like a soap opera. ........just not for YT. Heck that IV was soap opera enough for YT I do read PEOPLE and that gets pretty soapy too

 

Well that's the main thing. So long as people understand it is entertainment and not education.
You may learn about a number of true events in British history but you have to take the reaction of the royals and others to them with a pinch of salt.

I had this same discussion with Smitty when the 4th series came out.
He's a big fan, especially of the latest series because of the Thatcher years and the Falklands war. I had to remind him that it was heavily dramatized in places and that some of the people portrayed had been unhappy with the accuracy of conversations and reactions of their characters.

 

Well of course. Anyone who thinks some writing team has access to private historical conversations is just going to believe anything they want, anyway.

It's a perspective. I personally think whoever is writing the series is trying to portray QE II in a good light overall. They portray her as someone who puts the crown above all else and takes her duties very seriously. It could be bias, though, I've always had that opinion of her, pretty much.

 

That is pretty much how I see her too. I have often wondered how she "balanced" her priority for the crown/ duties.........with her family. ..particular when the family is the institution. Interesting & complex dynamics.

 

Also simple that she is trashing her in-laws. Apparently she is trying to cancel them.

 

She needs to stay in the spotlight, publicity is mother's milk to actors and she claims to be one of those.

 

Then all she had to do was to do the job she agreed to when she joined the family. She would have all the spotlights she could stand.

 

For Oprah, it's just all about the Benjamins. Even if she had to exploit an Archie to make them.

 

Female, mixed race, outspoken Hollywood liberal.
It's the perfect storm for RW media outrage.
Outweighs all previously held beliefs about freedom of speech, inherited wealth and putting your immediate family first.
Well done Meghan, you're turning conservatives into whinny liberals.
4d chess at it's best.

 

Too restricted, she's where she wants to be. Harry? Maybe not quite so much.

 

Sometimes that happens in some families and sometimes not. Meghan isn't really used to the Royal family way. Maybe she can't adjust to it.

 

Not a valid excuse.

 

I don't think Harry has any say in the matter. He is a wimp.