Saturday, 12 November 2022

“No King of Mine?”


I watched the first episodes of ‘The Crown’, the drama series on Netflix. I found it watchable, interesting in the exploration of motives, or rather scripted motives, of the key players in this expensive ’Reality Show’ version of the real Royal Family. 

Without revealing too much of any of the plot strands depicted; possibly the most revealing segment of the thinking behind the writers’ was depicted with the ill-named ‘second honeymoon’ on a billionaire’s yacht in the Mediterranean. On the ‘honeymoon’ with Diana, Charles and their two sons, were all of Charles’ friends, hangers-on and supporters. 

Depicted seated at a table set on the deck at the stern of the yacht, Charles was detailing ‘his’ ideas for the trip, which was composed of visits to various ancient Roman sites full of statuary and knocked down pillars, and smaller versions of Rome’s Colosseum: and Diana asks when would there be time for shopping, beaches, and just fun for their sons? 

The reaction of the heir to the Throne, as depicted in the Netflix drama, would probably have been reflected in reality: which was an accurate assessment of the difference between the two people at the head of this drama.

But, strangely, in this screen version of reality; as well as in the superb Oscar-winning film, The Queen, the reality of the Third member of that Royal Marriage is just hinted at, at least in the episodes viewed so far.  The woman to whom Charles really was devoted to for the best part of his life, the married woman, with whom the heir to the British Throne was extremely regularly committing adultery: she hardly ever appears, but is seemingly always there. 

He could have remained single until the cuckolded husband, Andrew Parker-Bowles, finally got fed up with Charlie’s leavings, and divorced the cow; but he was under more and more pressure to marry, and to produce the Heir, and the Spare! So he lied through his teeth, deceived that beautiful girl who became his wife, and continues his adulterous liaisons with Camilla throughout the whole of his sham marriage to Diana. 

I will watch the rest of this drama series with interest, but, knowing the reality of how that beautiful wife and mother were treated in real life; can never forget how she was treated by the Royal Family, because she just would not stay quiet because she learned how badly she had been deceived by her husband, she just would not accept that ‘that was the way things are’: 

I have more than a little sympathy for those people with the placards which read “No King of Mine!”

5 comments:

  1. Oh how typical of we men (I’ve, in a past now long gone, been as guilty of the same myself) to present the woman, despite the evidence, as some angelic innocent and perpetual victim (Hint: not all women are like you wives or daughters, and even they aren’t as perfect if you’re honest, as you pretend). (It took a few years in A&E seeing the reality of "domestic violence", and personal experience, before I woke up).

    I know how it has all been presented by the feminist media (that would be the media that universally portrays all men as either buffoons or evil, or both) but … maybe, just maybe he turned to the other woman (a long term friend) ‘because’ his wife was (let’s remain polite) so ‘different’. (and for the record it was known, common knowledge, ‘she’ was ‘sleeping around’, with more than one ‘individual’, long before he was).

    Remember, she married him knowing full well what he was like (this wasn’t some medieval arranged marriage in which she had no say) purely for the status and money involved. Pure as the driven snow? Pardon me whilst I spit.

    It’s oh so easy to portray the second honeymoon as a debacle of his causing, but seen another way would even you agree the ‘beach and shopping’ shows the true ‘mercenary, narcissistic, airhead’ nature of your ‘poor benighted heroine’? manipulating the narrative a bit there, you think?

    I actually met them both (in passing when I was gazetted a time or two) and … my personal opinion, he was/is a naive bumbling academic introvert, she ... was a nasty, poisonous, manipulative piece of work.

    Gell-Mann amnesia is real. Note that the self-same people who have lied, blatantly, to you about everything are the very people whose narrative you now believe completely.

    I wonder, if it wasn’t some over-romanticised ‘royal’ drama, and just two nobodies down the street, whether you’d view the story as just so cut and dried.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Remember, she married him knowing full well what he was like"

    Prove that statement.

    You can't. Nor can you prove much else in your diatribe. Using the term academic to describe Chuckie is laughable.

    If he can't keep his marriage vows then we should not take any oaths he has made or will make, seriously.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, the predictable 'holier than though' response. I just bet you, personally, have never erred in any way, shape or form, ever.

      'I' supposedly can't prove anything, whilst your entire 'opinion' is based on what? An irrelevant, and visceral hatred of 'royals' (bolstered by the reams of anti-royal, woke, press who have lied about everything, forever) I'll repeat the point, if they were just some couple down the road, you'd have a very different opinion now wouldn't you?

      It's almost as if you've never met a female or, more likely, choose to ignore what you know to maintain your deluded belief system.

      Oh, and what about 'her' vows?

      Away from the whole royal thing, he is (what the Americans would call) a dweeb, a nerd. She, was an average woman - you know the ones who cause >85% of divorces, then claim victimhood (for the reward and the 'sympathy' of cucks just like you)..

      Delete
  3. She's dead so her vows are immaterial now. His aren't and the UK are now stuck with Chuckie as their monarch and head of the CoE. Nice going for a self-proclaimed adulterer.

    Ad homs are the way we identify trolls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Troll is it? I’ve commented regularly here at OOL (and Ambush) for years, even having James request my posted responses to discus a number of times, and Julia actually using some of my ‘sayings’ herself (both of which were unexpected, but gratifying).

      Ad hominems? So I have a low opinion of someone other than the person ‘you’ were/are attacking. You might like to consider the alternate definition too, that would be ‘your’ “Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason”. Your feelings don’t trump facts, something you should have learnt by now.

      What apparently gets your goat is that I hold a different opinion (mine, unlike your own, actually based on something more than a press manufactured ‘story’), how very leftist of you.

      But don’t worry I wont be bothering reading or responding here again. Your minimal readership just shrunk, enjoy your echo chamber.

      Delete

Unburden yourself here: