User Reviews (138)

  • janiceferrero10 December 2017
    A Multi Dimensional Banquet
    What an extraordinary treat. It was like reading a truly engrossing book. I couldn't wait for the next chapter because even if I knew the story, the personal details enlarged and, somehow, penetrates the mystery that this, one of the most public families in the world, hide behind the surface. I found myself rewinding to see the scenes of Eileen Atkins as Queen Mary. She brought a humanity to the character that I never even imagined but that it makes total sense. John Lithgow is terrific as Winston Churchill. I had a powerful memory of Albert Finney as Churchill in "The Gathering Storm" but I guess most great actors will play their own version of the man. Next is Gary Oldman in "Darkest Hour". Clarie Foy is sheer perfection as the young Queen Elizabeth but it is Matt Smith that blew me away with his Prince Philip because I realized I never thought of Prince Philip other than as the imposing figure behind the Queen. Matt Smith explains that figure and gives him a complexity and a humanity that will make me look at Prince Philip in an entirely new light from now on. So, thank you. I'm starting Season 2, today.
  • Guy20264 November 2016
    Slick and well executed, the Crown is drama at its finest.
    The Crown boasts no action sequences or big movie stars, and yet it is one of the most expensive shows of all time. Why? Because of the sheer attention to detail. Aside from the fully historically accurate costumes and locations, the show is just gorgeous to look at. The lighting, the cinematography, and everything else visual about it is on point. It's quite apparent none of that money went to waste.

    The show doesn't just look gorgeous, though. It is also compelling, well written, and well performed. In fact, almost every element is perfectly executed, which means that no single one stands out above the rest, but rather they work in harmony. And that is the show's greatest success; the fact that it all comes together smoothly into a neat, binge-able, high quality package.

    Mind you, the reason I enjoy the Crown so much is that I knew what to expect when I went into it. This is NOT a fast-paced, action-packed, edge-of-your-seat experience. It is a character drama about the royal family. It runs at a slow pace. Yet it is gripping all the same.

    That's why it is so good to know that Netflix made such a large investment in this series; they're taking chances and funding original and unusual things in an era when Hollywood is afraid to do anything that isn't already an existing intellectual property. I hope that the Crown blows up like Stranger Things. I hope it gets all the attention it deserves.
  • debij-977755 November 2016
    A grand and epic story of a very young, brave and brilliant woman!
    I just watched the first two episodes and I already am in love with the story and characters! The acting is excellent as well as the directing, story line, costumes, sets, filming locations and everything else that has gone into the making of this series. It is well written and filmed and I am looking forward to seeing the remaining episodes. I have always been fascinated with history and this series takes you back in time. It has such powerful emotion and a lot of surprises which held my interest tremendously. So far, the episodes I saw went by quickly with me wanting to see more. If you are a history buff or interested in the Royal Family, don't miss this! It is a down to earth version of their lives and responsibilities. And so far, there are many things I did not know or appreciate. Definitely a learning experience and thank you for such a beautiful story! This is an addition to my previous post- I am now on episode 9 and if there aren't any awards for acting, I will be extremely surprised. John Lithgow's portrayal of Winston Churchill is award winning as well as Claire Foy playing the Queen. All of the acting is superb in my opinion and I don't want this series to end...
  • dsmithchesterfield4 November 2016
    Acting at its finest
    Where to start is very difficult when it comes to what I can only describe as an amazing feat of production and acting. The cast are absolutely outstanding and are nothing but professional.

    You can tell a lot of effort has been put into the research and accuracy of the story line. The attention to detail also has to be credited.

    I can't find a fault and believe me I've tried. Having watched previous biopics/Dramas regarding royalty I will have to put this at the Top and that is including The Queen which again I would rate at 10/10.

    In summery a must watch if you are looking for a great piece of production and a stimulating story line. I would recommend this to anyone.
  • LA Carlson11 November 2016
    A Visual Stunner
    Regardless of what you may think of the Royals Netflix has poured a ton of money into this exquisite production about the life of Queen Elizabeth. It is a show which requires fixed attention as things progress at a unhurried pace. The opening musical evolution is enchanting and never grows old. Actress Claire Foy is beautifully riveting in the role of Elizabeth; someone who wants to have a normal life and yet is made to feel her duty as Queen should be the highest priority. It has been suggested the Queen is warm, has a sense of humor, is compassionate and this portrayal conveys it. She is wise enough to realize she's going to have to forge her own way as those around her are stymied in their own limitations or ignorance. John Lithgow transforms into Winston Churchill and is equally stellar. Their scenes together are superb. If Peter Morgan's research is accurate I can fully appreciate how Princess Diana must have felt. The show is rounded out by a wonderful supporting cast. This show is my favorite Netflix production so far.
  • linnet10016 November 2016
    This is simply Outstanding
    Every so often a drama comes along that takes away your breath. Sometimes that's subjective, other times objective. Dramas such as The Jewel in the Crown, The West Wing, Game of Thrones, House of Cards, Downton Abbey, House M.D. have all stood at the pinnacle of television drama.

    The Crown is right up there at the very top. It is outstanding in every way: faultless. From brilliant dramatisation to acting to score to cinematography: everywhere you look it commands.

    Watch it. You won't regret it. You will remember one of those television 'moments' that come along all too rarely.
  • heloaalling6 November 2016
    Beautifully made series
    To be very honest, when a friend told me we should watch the crown, a series about Queen Elizabeth ll life, i was not excited, im normally not a very good person to start watching a new series. However, so glad i watched this. Me and my friend watched 3 episodes, and i watched the rest on my own, latter that day.

    The series is exciting, fast past, amazing cast, beautifully shot, beautiful costumes. Besides all that, The Crown , have made me look with another eyes to the royal family, specially Queen Elizabeth, to be honest i did not know much about her personal life . The series shows the struggle of the royal family, and make us realise they are all people in the end, with their problems and feelings.

    I truly hope they will make another season, to continue this extraordinary show. Thanks Netflix.
  • sadmanhasan30 November 2016
    A fantastic portrayal of British Royal history
    The Crown is one of the fascinating dramas I have watched in very recent of times. First off, the show itself is a bit slow paced but nevertheless, it generates enough amount of suspense over the episodes. The Crown may lack the twist and turning of events than many other historical dramas, but the flawless direction and impeccable acting of its actors do not allow its audiences get disappointed. Secondly, the grandeur of the show is something of a treat to the sore eyes. Netflix has not been so frugal in the making of the show and it has paid them off every penny. The costume and the furnishing of the show within are scintillating. Lastly, this show is a great history lesson for all the viewers, particularly the ones who are of younger generations. It is mostly based on true events, so that is indeed a stand-out fact of the show. Though there were some moments where it seemed a little bit exaggerated but considering its genre as a TV series, that is reasonable. The Crown has allowed its viewers to peek what lies behind the royal curtains and taught a significant truth that a royal born doesn't necessarily get to evade all the personal tribulations that all the other commoners go through. They share just as same values as the other citizens of the country.
  • kayabay15 November 2016
    A Truly Masterpiece! Royal as it must be!
    The Crown is almost one of the best period movies ( or better say, series of movies ) ever made. It defines the quality of historic period film making with every aspect. The casting is superior, the cinematography is outstanding, the thoughtfully written script just fixes you to the chair and you cannot stop yourself for several hours to watch it through. I personally watched it all twice to digest all the details prepared for the audience. I must admit The Crown easily made me a Netflix fan & a paid member after a quick glimpse at the trailer. A fortune is spent but worth every penny. Thanks to the producers, the amazing directors and the wonderful cast.
  • kristina6 November 2016
    British historical drama at its most superb
    Warning: Spoilers
    I dipped into the first episode of this and found myself losing an entire weekend binge-watching the whole series.

    A fantastic depiction of a young woman catapulted into one of the highest positions on earth and struggling to marry the detachment her position demands with her personal self.

    Quite apart from the superb acting, magnificent settings, costumes and demeanour, this works merely as a deeply personal story of Elizabeth, Philip, Margaret, Peter, Churchill and many more...all depicted with honesty and precision. The scene where Churchill is forced to come to terms with his great age and frailty had me in tears. I also ached for Margaret and Peter.

    It will be easy to dismiss this from a Republican standpoint, but for anyone else, it is mesmerizing.
  • Harun Karali4 November 2016
    The Crown: Stylish, Classy and Original
    Warning: Spoilers
    Taking place in the 20th century, 1947 to be precise. King George VI is coughing up blood and is drawing his last breath. Mean while Queen Elizabeth is to be wed to Philip Mountbatten. When she is blindsided by George's demise. She's left in awe, as she has no education to lead her people. As her ascension was not predicted to happen in the near future. Realizing the predicament she is in. She struggles to keep her people in line while trying to comprehend the overwhelming responsibilities she must bare. With the weight of her country on her shoulders she must knuckle down and take a step forward to embrace her influence. Produced by Peter Morgan, who is know for penning the overzealous "The Queen(2006)". You can tell that no expense was spared, as the series has an estimated budget of one hundred million pounds, the show enraptures you with it's glorious visuals and stupendous costumes.

    The actors, are strong in there respective fields, especially Jared Harris who delivers the performance of his career as King George VI. On top of all this, Hans Zimmer and Rupert Gregson-Williams scored the soundtrack. Which should tell you the talent that is behind this epic series. Netflix has truly outdone themselves.
  • The_late_Buddy_Ryan16 November 2016
    Your Netflix subscription dollars at work!
    Plot summary: A shy young woman, descended from a long line of hardworking German immigrants, doesn't feel quite ready to take over the family business.

    The first season, scripted by the brilliant Peter Morgan ("The Queen"), covers only the first few years of the young queen's reign, and this big canvas, like a painting by Breughel or Bosch (but with nicer furniture!), allows for a tight focus on some tiny but revealing details; I especially liked the episode in which ER II, who's only been taught French, deportment and the British constitution, uses her expert knowledge of the latter to outfox the palace HR department (it's complicated) and hires a tutor to teach her, among other things, how the H-bomb works.

    The cast is just about perfect, and Morgan's done an amazing job of bringing these remote, puppetlike figures (especially so for those of us who grew up during that era) to life in a convincing way. Over the course of ten episodes, we see Claire Foy's soft, expressive face transformed into an impassive mask of authority (perhaps the makeup artists deserve some credit here). Mike "Dr. Who" Smith is especially impressive as a slightly feral Prince Phillip, likewise Jared Harris as a menschy George VI, and John Lithgow (6′4˝) totally crushes it as a supersize Winston Churchill (5′6˝).

    It's all pretty great. Most of the drama consists of intense two-shot interactions in overdecorated rooms, but there's plenty of royal pageantry, plus excursions to Kenya and Australia (both played by South Africa, btw) and various primo huntin', shootin' and fishin' spots. On to season two! We're eager to see if Princess Margaret really had it off with Jagger during the 60s!
  • geoffcoo19 November 2016
    Don't let the truth get in the way of a story.
    This series looks good, is videography and sets are very good.

    Acting is OK too.

    What lets it down is that the scriptwriters thought nothing of being historically accurate. For instance official papers, released and available for public viewing, show that The Queen never tried to force her sister not to marry Peter Townsend. Indeed the papers show that an act of Parliament would be passed, if she wanted to marry him, that removed Margaret from the line of succession but left her with her royal titles etc. It was Margaret who decided not to marry Peter Townsend, after a visit to him in Belgium. But either lazy script-writing, or the desire to perpetuate a myth, gives entirely the wrong impression of what happened.

    There is enough within the long reign of The Queen that could easily be portrayed accurately and entertain us with a good story without the need to resort to tawdry misrepresentations.
  • TheLittleSongbird16 April 2018
    A crowning achievement
    Love historical dramas, and it fascinated me just as much to see one centred around (as of now) our longest reigning monarch, a title that for a long time was given to Queen Victoria. There was so much talent involved that my interest was sparked further, despite admittedly not being the biggest fan of Netflix.

    'The Crown' turned out to be a wonderful series, at its very best some of the best television seen in a while and in a completely different league to much of anything else Netflix has done (so much so that it had to be a check to see that it definitely came from Netflix). Season 1 was so well executed in every regard, while Season 2 boasted even richer material. Totally get the adoration, while sharing some viewers' misgivings about the inaccuracies and some biased and distorted characterisations (the Duke and Duchess of Windsor coming off worst). Vanessa Kirby for my tastes was a bit too annoying as Margaret as well.

    However, the great things far eclipse the not so good. When 'The Crown' was great, it was the very meaning of a crowning achievement.

    It couldn't have been any more classy and sumptuous visually. The photography and production and costume design are evocative and a sight to behold. The music for me wasn't too intrusive or low-key and was beautiful scoring on its own. The main theme is not easy to forget.

    Writing probes a lot of thought and intrigue, it is much more than soap-opera and doesn't feel too modern (not like 'Victoria'). Loved the intimacy and subtle tension of the storytelling in each episode, the deliberate pace in no way a hindrance, and the character chemistry scintillates. The characters are very compellingly written, with enough balance in characterisation to overshadow the instances of one-sidedness and most of them have more than one layer.

    Cannot find many qualms with the acting. Claire Foy is dignity and class personified and Matt Smith acts every bit as splendidly with lots of authority. One of the biggest standouts of the near-uniformly strong support (Kirby being the exception) is the powerhouse that is John Lithgow, so much so that one can look past misgivings of him not being quite right physically (being too tall for one by nearly a foot, Churchill was not a tall man).

    Overall, deserving of the acclaim it's garnered. Not quite perfect but really quite wonderful and something of an achievement. 9/10 Bethany Cox
  • brendastern6 November 2016
    Beautiful To Look At, Uneven Historically
    The Crown is certainly a beautiful drama. There was no expense spared in replicating some iconic scenes. But from the first episode onward, there are some significant historic inaccuracies that detract from the production.

    The most grievous is in the way the writers frame the roles of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. For one thing, it's clearly documented that she fled England before his abdication. She did not sit by his side while he gave the abdication speech. She was in France, sobbing her eyes out.

    And, she only met Queen Mary once, at a ball, and only for a moment. However, she took steps to heal the rift, and the Queen famously added a PS to a letter saying, "I send a kind message to your wife." By the 1950s, there was barely any contact between the Palace and the Windsors. They were off in Paris or in New York, and there were no circumstances under which he would have been an adviser to the Queen. This is all fabricated.

    Also, one of the writers must have it in for the Queen Mother, because her portrayal is nothing like the friendly, fun loving woman that she was. She's almost unrecognizable.

    My advice to anyone watching is to consider this as "inspired by" the life of the Queen, but by no means take it as fact.
  • Julie Welch6 November 2016
    Astonishing and Brilliant on All Levels
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is without a doubt one of the best series ever on television. So brilliantly conceived, produced, cast, directed and written that it's hard to find words to express my utter amazement. The episodes are well thought out and written with amazing detail to time and place, and crafted in such away to artfully but truthfully tell the viewer what she needs to know without becoming overly bogged down by details or excessive drama. Claire Foy makes a powerful impression as Elizabeth: from shy newlywed to deer-in-the-headlight after her father's unexpected death,and finally to cool and confident monarch committed to doing what she must, even at a personal cost. Matt Smith's performance as the often tactless, very plain speaking but always well meaning Prince Philip, the most forward thinking family member at the time, is terrific. But far and away, Jared Harris' understated George the VI will no doubt be considered legendary. He captures the essence of that King: a fragile, gentle soul who was thrust into a role he never wanted and for which he had no preparation, but somehow managing to do a fine job despite the odds. If the scene at the Sandringham Christmas party doesn't move you, you have no heart. So sit back and be transported to another time and place. You'll probably end up binge watching this masterpiece. I can't wait for Season 2. Kudos to Netflix for lavishly funding this production.
  • glenndca15 January 2017
    Pathetically Inaccurate Though Lavishly Produced
    Much like the 1990's film TITANIC...Hollywood has lavished high production values to THE CROWN but little else. Any connection to history is non-existent and quite alarming.

    Made up story lines...especially the portrayal of Winston Churchill and his relationship with Queen Elizabeth...and with his own sanity as portrayed simple rubbish. Churchill was a man of many quirks but he was no fool, had immense appreciation for the Royal Family and for both the Queen and her Father.

    There is no evidence Mr. Churchill ever belittled Queen Elizabeth or even would have thought of doing so...nor her toward him. So the whole premise of the first few episodes is simply idiotic...sort of a 'politically correct' rewriting of history from script writers who obviously no nothing about history.

    Sadly, NETFLIX, the producer of this nonsense offers an array of programming on its subscription service entitled: "The Truth About... " and then you can fill in the blanks about alleged documentaries on a host of subjects that bear little resemblance to the truth...but more of the opinions of politically motivated writers.

    If your goal is to brainwash a new generation of viewers...then THE CROWN would neatly fall into such a category. Sadly, TRUE HISTORY is actually far more interesting than the FAKE HISTORY presented here.

    Sure, no-one in this period of British history had a monopoly on virtue...but many had a firm grip on greatness and courageous action...and both Queen Elizabeth and Winston Churchill are among these.

    Maybe someday someone will give them their proper interpretation. You will not find it in this tripe masquerading behind amazing period shots and costumes.
  • p-seed-889-1884692 December 2016
    A travesty
    Is there anything more loathsome and irresponsible than a movie or TV series that turns history into a soap opera? How dare people reinterpret history as entertainment. Why, oh why do people see the need to twist history into melodrama in which the only "truth" we truly see is the writer's ego. This series is not about "The Crown", or Queen Elizabeth, it is about Peter Morgan. There is only one way to do justice to history and that is as a documentary. Yes, I know that may not be the blockbuster "spectacle" the masses want to see, but it is the truth. If you want to make costume dramas and visual feasts, do it on something like Downton Abbey where history is not part of the collateral damage. Superficially "The Crown" ticks off the main "historical" events, such they were. There was a Coronation. There was a scandal involving Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend. There was a great smog in London in 1952 in which thousands of people died. In that sense "The Crown" may indeed be "historically accurate". But to use these incidents as backdrops to paint totally hypothetical pictures of individuals, to literally make up dialogue people never spoke, to give them personalities that are pure speculation, to generate events that never happened, to blow out of all proportion events that did happen, simply to create the crises of each episode, is just unforgivable. If I wander down to my local library I will find a wall of books labelled "Biographies". In this wall I will find books that contain all that is known on a particular person. If dialogue is included it will be in quotes, and often have a reference, so the reader knows what was actually said. The author does not generally make up dialogue or create fiction just to spice it up a bit, or if they do it is quite clear it is the author's own views. This is what we call truth, and actually, as been noted many times, truth is often more interesting than fiction. If one were to try and publish a "book" version of this screenplay any prospective publisher would fall on the floor laughing. If perchance one was stupid enough to actually publish it it would end up in the "Fiction" section, filed under "P" for "Potboiler", just along from the Mills and Boons. Peter Morgan is evidently an extremely gifted person but seemingly an enigma. On the one hand he can write some truly breathtaking "dialog" when that dialog is impersonal, that is, it is expressing universal truths that really have nothing to do with the character. Then in the next breath we stoop to abysmal depths of ridiculousness/crassness – such as brave Prince Philip fighting off elephants, brainy Prince Philip telling his minions to put in a bigger fuse in his intercom system (who knew he was an electrical engineer?), and most heinously of all, inserting a ridiculous and entirely unnecessary character called Venitia Scott. Bath water coming under Winston Churchill's door? Give me a break. Mercifully this character gets hit by a bus fairly smartly – what a shame more of the cast did not share the same fate. If I can loosely paraphrase a famous quote from Winston Churchill (you will have to provide your own accents and cigars for this)...."Never in the course of human conflict, has so much money, been spent by so few, for so little good".
  • Amy Edwards12 November 2016
    Great Start
    I haven't still watched the entire first season of the new Netflix TV show release called 'The Crown' but it sure heads to a great start as much as I've seen of it.

    This saga about the British Royal Family during its first years can look austere from time to time but that's not what we should expect from this kind of historic show. What we should expect however is a great attention to details and a hint of authenticity throughout it. About those criteria, The Crown is fulfilling them to the perfection. The great attention to history is what keeps me hooked to this wonderful show.

    The performance of the cast is very sober from all the characters. I have felt that a lot of research has been made to match the cast performance as much to the original people they are incarnating. I'm particularly mesmerized by John Lithgow who is playing Winston Churchill. I have chills seeing this old man, who will always be remembered as the One who stood up to fascism during WW2 to finally triumph against it, trying to update himself to this new era using his intangible character to overcome the various challenges he's facing. I have tears when he's mourning his young secretary who got killed when she got ran over by a bus during the 1952 London Fog which claimed so many lives.

    In brief the Crown is a show to be seen. I have not still seen it entirely but I truly hope it will keep on.
  • SoCal29 December 2017
    Infuriating and Gorgeous
    Warning: Spoilers
    Fabulous production. Too bad the writers have lazily fallen back on tired clichés and stereotypes in portraying the main characters. I have read extensively about the monarchy, and if the writers of this series have also done so, it is not evident here.

    By all accounts, Queen Elizabeth and the Prince Philip are delightful, down-to-earth, good humored people, so completely without affectation that they once spoke of someone they had met as being "too posh for people like us."

    In that regard, the end of "The Marionettes" episode was particularly galling. The Queen Mother was not the arch, sour snob she is here. She was a bright and happy woman who understood her calling and gave all 100+ years to serving joyfully. (Serving joyfully is a concept apparently lost on the creators of this dreary exercise.)

    Instead, the writers are sympathetic to poor lost Margaret and the wretched Duke and Duchess of Windsor, self-absorbed characters who lived empty purposeless lives.
  • Mandyjam18 November 2017
    Unforgivabe misrepresentation of central characters
    Warning: Spoilers
    The Crown presents Her Majesty the Queen as imperious, rather than regal. She frequently looks like a snotty, po-faced upper-crust miss, spoilt beyond belief. In life, I don't think that anyone has EVER regarded the Queen in that manner. I suppose that playing a woman who was genuinely beautiful, genuinely regal and had a wonderful quality of deep serenity and composure about her is not an easy ask. But the composure that was present on her 21st birthday, when she made her memorable speech, pledging herself to a life of service for her people, and the extraordinary grace and courage with which she descended from the aeroplane after the death of her father, to greet the waiting dignitaries are the keys to the reality of Elizabeth.

    This story-teller has not gone for the actuality . He has looked for a dramatic story. He has attempted to "normalise" Queen Elizabeth, presumably by trying to imagine how a much less extraordinary young woman might have acted in similar circumstances.

    He has also tried to imagine how a person of a very different background to Prince Philip might act.

    Prince Philip was born a Prince. But his uncle, King of Geece, was put off the throne, the family fled and Philip's mother became a nun. Philip was schooled in Scotland where he would have been whipped by the masters or beaten up by the boys if he acted like a smarty. At 15 he entred the Navy, serving through World War II. In 1952 he was Commander of HMS Magpie.

    When Philip married Elizabeth, he did not visit foreign countries with the attitude of a freshman whose only experience of life is cheeking professors and chatting up girls in the canteen. Philip had already travelled the world, been into battle, seen men die and had led others into dangerous actions. Philip UNDERSTOOD the order of RANK. As midshipman he scrubbed the decks. He knew how the Commander of a ship behaves towards an Admiral of the Fleet. In other words, when Philip married Elizabeth, their was NO QUESTION as to whether he would bow his knee, and offer his allegiance. Paying that homage to his monarch was a given understanding from the moment that he started courting her.

    1. When this series shows Philip kneeling resentfully in front of the throne AT HER MOMENT OF MOST NEEDING HIM then this is worse than stupid; it is a cruel denial of all Philip's devotion. What right does the film-maker have to do this?

    Was Philip REALLY thinking of himself or was he looking at his beloved wife and wondering how he could possibly ease the huge burden of responsibility that landed on her little head with that 4 pound weight of crown?

    2. Philip is a military man. So here, in this amazingly stupid scene from the series, he is shown with an elderly Kenyan War Veteran, looking at his medals, saying: "Good God! I've got one of those, and one of those, and one of those!" Like a child comparing Pokemon. Then he looks at the fourth one, a cross and says "Good grief! Where did you steal that?"

    The wardrobe department researched Philip's medals. They are exactly right. BUT the scriptwriter and director have it wrong, and the actor looks like a total smug ass. WHY?

    The first three medals are ordinary service medals, with two indicating service in WWII and the third indicating service in the African Campaign. Philip would recognise the medals as easy as you recognise a Coca Cola logo. They would not provoke any verbal comment, beyond a slight acknowledgement from the higher ranking officer (Philip).

    The fourth medal is a different matter entirely. Every single military person including the Princess, would have noticed the cross on the maroon ribbon protruding from under the string of beads. It would have been more obvious than a blazing diamond in the sunset.

    That piece of dull metal is the Victoria Cross, the highest award "FOR VALOUR". Prince Philip, and all the others, would have looked at it in silence, because that is what you do, when you are confronted by a true hero. The idea that Philip, a Prince, and Naval Commander, would make fun of a man with a Victoria Cross is not just farcical, it is seriously insulting to Prince Philip. For anyone to write this sort of stuff without consideration of how a high-ranking naval officer might act, is reprehensible.

    I DETEST the fact that this same noble old Prince who has served his Monarch and the people of her Realm tireless, day after day, since the day he entered the Royal Navy at fifteen years of age, until his semi-retirement at 96, can be so misrepresented, at a time when he is so old, and too frail to lay a wreath on the cenotaph for his fallen comrades.

    Concerning the suggestion of "oral sex". Many sexual practices now considered "normal" only became so with the publication of books like Alex Comfort's "Joy of Sex" 1960. Previously, many people always had sex in missionary position, wore night clothes, never saw their partner's genitals and made love in the dark. They still managed to have fun! It is most unlikely that Pince Philip would keep his wife from an official function in order to perform fellatio.

    There is no justification for this scene. The people depicted are now nonogenarians. Both are in possession of their wits, and capable of being embarrassed, distressed and angered But they are NOT capable of making an open denial that they are being misrepresented, in the matter of whether they would desert a function to have sex. The writer has indulged his fantasies to an extent which is unfair to the two living persons who are involved. I find this production deeply shaming, and opportunistic.
  • kaddiea00110 December 2017
    Beautiful except for the portrayal of the Duke of Windsor
    It has lush set pieces and I feel like the music brings the user along on the emotional journey of the characters. However, the portrayal of the Duke of Windsor as a dedicated husband who was forced to give everything up for love is very one sided picture of one of twentieth century's most questionable characters.

    The show deliberately omits his and Wallis Simpson's unwavering dedication to Hitler, the Nazis, & that ideology, and I feel that - especially in this day and age - is grossly irresponsible by the Producers; especially, since this as well as Wallis's previous promiscuity (she was sleeping with the King before the divorce from the 2nd husband) were responsible for the refusal by TPTB to recognize even a morganatic marriage between her and King Edward VIII.

    At one point, the Duke and Duchess were under strong suspicion of passing U.K. secrets to the Nazis. A suspicion strong enough that both Sir Robert Vansittart and J Edgar Hoover where convinced of their complicity.

    Let's put aside for now the fact that they spent the majority of the 30s cavorting around Europe with the likes of Goebbels and Hitler, here is a quote from the people they proclaimed to be their best friends.

    "Diana Mosley, The Duchess of Windsor: A Memoir (1969) The Windsors agreed with me, and the Duchess was certainly politically sophisticated and knew exactly what she was doing and saying, that World War I had been a total failure, that it was a disaster the Austro-Hungarian Empire had been broken up, that the Versailles Treaty was grossly unfair, and that Germany should never have been encircled in the 1930s. If Hitler had been given a free hand to destroy Communism, and if he had been allowed to deport the Jews, if Britain and America had accepted them, there would have been no need for a holocaust. There was of course no room in Palestine for them. Hitler felt the Jews behaved abominably in Germany after World War I, and all he wanted to do was be rid of them. And one mustn't forget that anti-Semitism was endemic everywhere in Central Europe: the Poles hated them, the Czechs hated them, everyone did. Of course, my husband and the Windsors and I felt that we could not exonerate Hitler for being impatient and provoking World War II. With two egos like Churchill and Hitler, there was little chance for peace in the world. But still, if the right people had been in power in England, particularly Lloyd George, there could have been a negotiated peace."

    And I'm not even going to include the numerous insults she leveled at other 'races' or the multiple other occasions on which she either excused or approved of Nazi rhetoric.

    Yet, none of these important traits of the Duke & Duchess Windsor's personalities makes it into the show at all; traits that the rest of the Windsor family tried hard to avoid and disavow.

    I would love to give this show a 9 or a 10, but this is irresponsible storytelling. And if you're going to omit something this important, what else are you leaving out?
  • SoCal18 November 2016
    They got so much right but so much wrong
    Warning: Spoilers
    We've watched eight of the ten episodes, and the awful is gaining on the excellent. The production is sumptuous, but did anyone involved do any research on the Windsors? I don't recognize these people from the reading I've done, and I've read a lot.

    The Queen Mother is the worst. In real life, she was outgoing and enthusiastic, and understood that her extroverted personality was well-suited to her calling. She saw that she lifted people by her presence, and maintained a busy schedule almost to the end of her 100 years of life. Look at any photo of her. Her huge upturned hat brims were designed so people could see her beaming face. Read any of the notes she sent to friends and you'll realize that she would have been a hoot to hang out with. The actress playing her looks as if she were sucking lemons before each take.

    The Queen is a sourpuss, too, and way too tightly wound. I have known people who have spent time with her and the Prince, and they've described them as good-humored, warm, and down-to-earth.

    Most egregious was putting the dreadful Duke and Duchess of Windsor in such a heroic light. The writers skipped over their visiting Nazi Germany, willing pawns of Hitler's PR scheme. The Duke lied to his brother, the new king, about being broke, squeezing a big payoff out of the government. Having the Duke narrate the sacred moments of Elizabeth's coronation was disgusting.

    Really a shame. Five stars for the production, five deducted for character assassination.
  • speaktomenow15 November 2016
    As slow as pouring cold molasses
    Are you people crazy? What on earth is appealing about this show? My god is it slow! So incredibly slow. I watched 2 eps and seriously how are people giving this 9/10?

    This is a show about over entitled utterly superficial people who just happened to be born into the lap of luxury. John Lithgow sounds nothing like Churchill, Claire Foy is like a supermodel compared to the real Elizabeth and Matt Smith just reeks of smug.

    The acting is so drawn out and laboured. Every. Line. Is. So. Stretched. Out.

    I'm sorry but this is mystifying to me that it's getting such good reviews. Save yourself the trouble and skip this entire event. Dry, dusty, dull.

    Bad acting, boring writing and terrible subject matter. Makes me wish Australia would get its act together and become a republic already and cast aside these vacuous rich idiots.
  • rg11 December 2016
    Find something else to watch this weekend
    Skip this series if you have any regard for the truth.

    Too bad the writer and producer, Peter Morgan, is so very intent on defaming the Royal Family and nearly everyone else involved in British society at the time. Most notably its males.

    The result is that otherwise stellar qualities of cast and crew are squandered, and Hollywood is yet again made to look like the clumsy propaganda arm of the political left. And paying viewers its long- suffering dupes.

    A role it has relished since at least the 1960s and shows no signs of disavowing.
An error has occured. Please try again.