She should be the Queen right now. I trust her, I do not trust Charles, the whole institution must come down now that Charles is King. We all know who he is. He's a snake

I think she resembles her father more.

Well said.

Yea I agree she was daddy’s girl and looks like him I just wish she was queen instead of King Charles

@@LesPaul2006 she resembles Philip more but her loyalty , is like her mother , duty over personal ambition

Mic drop!

@@Grazilla52 Whilst wrongly attributing an uncharacteristic eloquence and fluency , to an imagined conversation based on ? IMO

Only if you factor out elections. She doesn't seem to know she's a constitutional monarch.

Reminds me of my current life, which is why I keep my trap shut

Yeah, while she sits at home and having an army of servants tend to her every whim these "elected quitters" were leading the country, meeting opposition and doing real work. Naturally its work that you lose your health over.

Best comment

The Windsors Send Their Regards 😎

The Multiverse crossover series we need

all while she lectures Cersei's hand in his hospital bed

Qyburn too. Although he was on a hospital bed by the look of it. Karma's a bitch, Qy.

She had a lifelong commitment to her duty to the crown

@I am Fighterman That's life though, isn't it.

My first thought was "while she is young, Charles' age" as King Charles's current age.

The Queen wasn't immature or spoiled or selfish. But not sure about Charles the Adulterer??

Charles, as shown here, is an immature man. He thinks and acts 15. (The show has a plot to move along and he may not be protrayed accurately.

and here is why i go so confused ^^ why on earth would he want to be king ^^

@@kevinwaag9976 because he made the crown his whole personality and life. he has been working to be fit his whole life yet he is drenching his chance to be worthy just for immorality.

He is a king now....

@@kevinwaag9976 because this is who he was born to be. His birthright. Unfortunately, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. I do sympathize with him. He did not have an easy life. Nor a heart reserved able to sacrifice self for country and duty.

Yes!!!!! Charles was so selfish and immature.

Crushing!

When I was younger I was once got told by my mate, when I was just complaining and complaining. It was life changing and I’m still so grateful to hear that.

Hello.Which season and episode is that?

Exactly. Even those who are powerful, often times end up finding themselves with no one who would hear them. Some may think that is shocking, but often the more power you hold, the lonelier you get, because the top of the mountain can only fit so very little...

That was the only unlikable moment of the Queen in the entire series

Deleted scene from the first draft of the script: " ... Because I have a beating heart." "Are you implying I DON'T, you self-pitying little twit?" [WHACK]

Who exactly you're talking about

@@internal_glory3568 Charles said that in the scene, and that's what I imagine the Queen's response would be--

@@internal_glory3568 the Queen, when Charles turned defensive and said at least he had character (insinuating she didn’t), so she crushed him

I think it's a two way thing- she never really showed much affection to Charles- not in the way she did with the other kids.

no lol

Are you quoting Trudeau?

@@lucylu184 how so?

Olivia Colman ain't dead yet buddy..

The world could use less monarchs and burgeois.

Seventy years and still going up

She's dead.

❤

Pretty much the entirety of season 3-4

seriously, he has such a victim mentality.

Lmao ikr like the world doesn’t revolve around you

Exactly, I think the palace didn't approve of the crown because most of the attitudes and characters are almost accurately of the real life royal family. Look how they treated Diana and now Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, they treat Harry as if he his being controlled by his wife. I am a royalist and I believe in the monarchy but I don't unquestionably defend the Royal Family. I thought their treatment of Meghan was horrifying. Also yes i do think a big part of their treatment of Meghan was because of her face for being half black.i thought they would act like the enlightened non racist British people they claim to be but instead they acted like every racist white family in America when someone of their family dates a member of their race. You have no idea how many times I got shit for just dating black women and to me I don't care about their skin color, I love personality more than gender and skin color. Now back to Charles I remember during the 1990s he made such a fuss over not having a voice that I like the rest of the royalists got sick of his voice. Now that he is King we just don't care what he has to say anymore especially because of his affair with Camilla and no I will never recognize Camilla as Queen and I will not bow to her or call her your majesty. To me she is a cheating whore who couldn't stand being compared to Diana who is the rightful Queen. I was hoping Charles would die before Queen Elizabeth and let the throne pass to Prince William but sadly we have to put with this entitled white privileged wimp on the throne at least for a short reign.

Rot!!@@jonmunoz2772

Lord Moutbatten.

@@wendykinnear9151 no

He was Lord Altrincham but I believe he gave up the title.

Yes, his name was Lord Altrincham, later John Grigg

@Lais Grossman Lord Altricham.

Maybe but Phillip have that smirk and dark humor about him I think charles dance is more suitable to those strong no nonsense leadership role like sir Mountbatten or Tywin Lannister.

How do you feel about Chucky and Camzilla taking over soon??

@@jeffwalsh6015 it won't be for all that long a time, Charles seems ill or something, and he is 73 already. Maybe 10 years on the throne until William takes over?

The. Let his reign be brief. He is too old to change his meddling habits just because of a new hat. And a meddling King is to nobodies advantage

RIP

This aged well.

Pity so much of The Crown was untrue😱

@@susanlockyer1192 Ugh! Hollywood!

All the way from the Sophie days. ❤

The time is now, and it's orange.

lol as if democracy truly exists when power is in the hands of a few. And even if we would accept the UK as a democracy it is an indirect one at best.

Just like a cycle, sadly. As she has gone through wwii and saw it herself, and it is beyond revolting seeing the masses being easily fooled or willingly so, when they could do better with the right person or people as well as with the knowledge and level-headedness for such.

Yes, everyone noticed that, that was the point.

what do you mean?

@@joel2116 Elizabeth said the same lines to her grandmother in season 1

I didn’t though I saw the similarity - well spotted

It's what's known as a "full circle" moment.

That was a brutal scene 😂

very, very well said, Rix

She was a good monarch but far from coming close to the divine. She prevented Margaret from marrying the love of her life. She was a distant mother to Charles and was partly why he sought a mum in Camilla and is such an insecure king. She wasn’t kind to Princess Diana-dismissed her and treated her as if she were unstable. She lacked empathy and emotion with her family. I admire her commitment to duty, her stoicism (only to an extent), her selflessness in many ways, her ability to suffer in silence, her emotional intelligence and her strength, but I see the whole person with both qualities and flaws. She most certainly wasn’t close to being deity. That’s completely inaccurate and history reveals that about any earthly monarch. But yes, she reigned with dignity and a stoutness of heart that we’re unparalleled in the British monarchy. Thankfully, the day is coming where Jesus will return and we’ll then know what a divine monarch’s ruling will be like.

Wow bravo, extremely well said.

Charles doesn't have the strength nor the morals to be king. If he wanted Camilla, he would've fought for her, much like how Franz Joseph I of Austria refused to marry anyone else but Sissi. He lacks Anne's strength, Andrew's confidence, and Edward's wit. Even with Camilla, he only tries to enjoy life and doesn't think of anything for the good of the country.

Perhaps, given Charles' age, the period between Elizabeth and William will be short.

I don't like him either but being born into that can't be easy or fun.

I think Charles will be a decent king if by the time he gets there he learned that there's only so modern a monarch can be.

Such hypocrisy we see in this analysis. If the family had let him marry who he desired,life would have been less chaotic hopefully. But we have social mores only letting him be aggressor never the receiving end of poor decision .

Game of Thrones fans are so cringe.

​@@philbecker4676 well, to be fair, many people haven't really seen Charles Dance in anything other than game of thrones playing Tywin Lannister, same way plenty of people have never seen Clair foy in anything other than the crown, or have only seen that one hobbit as pippin. I don't see how it's particularly cringe that someone references a previous(and dare I say far more iconic role) role of Charles Dance. While I can see how coming across variants of these references is tiring, it still fits. Charles Dance is playing a different character but physically speaking he's a dead ringer for Tywin Lannister, just with less glaring.

Yes dramatization. But every bit of her discussion even with her husband in casual chatting in living room been watched by someone on guard. A butler or a lady in waiting.producers reached out to everyone to draw a time line regarding spotlight events.. dialogues aren't obviously exactly the same but it is 90% about the same matter and same goes for her decision makings

Maybe you too should consider the queens advice.

Oh, and you assume YOUR voice is one of the special ones worth hearing? Funny, that.

If you think social media is "ruining society", might I suggest you log off a bit and go outside perhaps? Maybe it'll give you a second to ponder on the fact that you seem to think that your voice is worth more, since you yourself posted your unwanted opinion on social media.

@@alice45-fgd-456drt I don’t think my voice is worth more. Way to make yourself look stupid and inept. Not sure why you and the others can’t just respond to the argument but then again that’s another pathology plaguing society.

If everyone's voice is not entitled to be heard, then no one person's is.

We have one here in India too since the last two decades, who fails to read the writing on the wall

what do you mean without the burden of duty? I don't understand this take which I see a lot. Bc he couldn't make a loveless marriage to Diana work? Or something else?

We MAY come to see that. I really hope not.

He was just a kid then. Nonebifvus are mature at that age.

he has been a tireless worker, and has raised and distributed hundreds of millions of pounds for charity and for training young people for useful careers....look up The Princes' Trust, for one....

She’s like you ffr

No doubt she grew into badssery as she got older and more experienced

He's not even qualified for the role of Prince of Wales. And if Charles becomes King, the Prince of Wales title goes to Prince William, the Duke of Edingburgh title goes to Prince Edward, Prince Harry and Megan keep their Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles, but they will be given more titles. When Charles becomes King he will choose a regal name, he will become Charles IV, Camilla becomes Queen Consort.

@@MsWiccanpriestess -- If he sticks with the name Charles, he will be King Charles III. There has been only two before. Perhaps, just perhaps, he could honor his father and become King Philip I. That might endear him to some people.

Charles is now king

@@olliedwards8069 Does that mean he is qualified?

@@TonyWud Well, he was the heir for 70 years, Elizabeth became Queen when she was just 25, Charles is 73.

actually, the Monarch has the right to review and comment and advise about all legislation in Parliament, and to meet with the PM weekly to be consulted on all important public matters, and to give the PM advice....but the Monarch never PUBLICLY discusses these laws or polices....only in private....do not forget, that no legislation becomes a LAW until the Monarch signs it...this is all private, and we have no way to know how many times Liz or her father, or Edward VII told the PM "I will sign this only if you change x.y. and z''.....it also helps if we remember that the entire British military and police swear an oath to OBEY and be LOYAL TO the Queen or KING....NOT an oath to obey Parliament

@@essessessesq It seems you're still living in the 19th century.

@@rishabhbasu9544 Not at all, what I stated is the LAW....please try and refute it with FACTS, rather than childish schoolyard personal attacks ad hominem....plus, the 19th century was pretty good, compared to the 20th and 21st centuries, which have been full of the most violence, war, and death and destruction ever seen in the entire history of humanity....more innocent people have been killed, by brutal mechanized war and violence since 1914. than were killed in the preceding 8000 years of recorded history....that is what "progress" does....all the "progress" has been in science and material things, but the higher and spiritual side of mankind has been in a full retrograde DECLINE since 1914....have a great day!

@@essessessesq I have two words for you : cabinet minutes. Every law introduced by a minister in Parliament is first passed by Cabinet. The Sovereign would only get a copy of this after that. Any law promulgated since the 1920s has no unaccounted-for changes (as you suggest might have been insisted on by the Sovereign) in its final version, only those proposed by the civil service in drafts or those agreed to by Parliament. This is verifiable. The Sovereign is bound to give his assent to every piece of legislation and executive order proposed by Government by convention (which is so universally practiced it might as well be the law) since the 20th century. He may provide suggestions to the PM in the private audiences, but Government need not act on it. Though we say that the monarch has the right to be consulted by Government, ironically enough in reality it is the opposite. The Sovereign must act on all Government advice. That is why the UK is a constitutional monarchy, and not an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or Brunei.

@@rishabhbasu9544 I comprehend your point, BUT it is a misstatement of law to stqte that the monarch "MUST" sign a passed bill. As your comment admitted, this is a mere "convention." It goes back to 1707, the last time Queen Anne refused to sign And yet, as recently as the Suez crisis of 1956, Queen Liz selected her own prime minister during the chaos...And as recently as 1937, Winston Churchill advised his longtime friend Edward VIII to "DEFY" the Cabinet and the press Lords, and marry Mrs. Simpson...Churchill told the King "do not forget that the Royal Navy, Army, and Air Force all take a sworn oath to obey and be loyal to you. They take no such oath to obey Parliament." But David [his real first name] probably did not really want to King, and declined Winston's advice to put up a fight....OR, he chose to not ignite a battle that might possibly extinguish the 1200 year old monarchy....and in that sense, his decision was self-less.

Yes they are lines in a tv adaption

We are talking about how he was maybe 30 years ago Almost half his life time. Hopefully he has matured and mellowed a bit by now.

@@lilymarinovic1644 I dont talked about that... But okay😅

i think that was part 1

he visited Germany the same as many government officials did...there was no war then....i have seen NO proof that he approved of the Nazis' evil deeds, or that he even knew of them...he served very well as Governor of the Bahamas during WW2 and he fought hard against the Establishment there to improve conditions for the Black working class

@@essessessesq I'm talking about the tv show, in which he did approve of the nazis.

@@davideiceman but the Crown TV show is full of FICTION....let's try some actual history....Winston Churchill remained a devoted friend of David aka Edward VII for the rest of Winston's life, until 1965....if David was a Nazi supporter Churchill would have known it....and surely would NOT have remained his close friend...a lot of prominent people met with Hitler before WW2 before and awareness of atrocities....And there are photos of Bush and James Baker and other eminent statesmen with SADDAM in the 1980s!...that does not mean they endorse his later acts.

That's when she decided she'll live forever.

@@tanakkusai I'm dieing

Charles to me comes off as a self indulgent, self centered spoiled man child, who has too much privilege and entitlement. He doesn't realize how lucky he is to be in the position that he is in there are so many young men who wish they could govern a country.

If you follow the Crown's version of events, had the royal family simply listened to Margaret in the beginning and not meddled in Charles love life the whole damn tragic saga could have been avoided...

@@nicholasbroun985 Yes, dramatically speaking, that through line just highlights how unaware the British Royals are to their own behavior to be an ounce introspective about things. I also think it was manipulative for Charles to use his status to not have Camilla say no to him to a degree.

Oh get over the Charles thing, he's cool, his brother Andrew is the real monster.

@@philbecker4676 Andrew's a pedophile and Charles was a serial cheater. At least the youngest has a steady marriage. It's not like his older brothers' left positive examples.

That's the whole paradox of it. The Queen was trying to remain "impartial" (as her usual self) hence just ignoring the problem, despite the obvious bias in the room: the whole royal family had influenced the very making of that marriage ...

It mustn't be easy. However, most of the rest of us are also not welcomed for our opinions at work (unless we are in upper management). I'd rather cry into my lack of individuality permitted in my job, when my job permits me untold wealth, fame, once-in-a-lifetime experiences on the regular and a life of luxury beyond most peoples' wildest dreams.

Also, profoundly disagree about your excuses for Charles and the way he treated Diana. He was in his 30s when he married her. Not a young boy. The Queen had the strength of character at a much younger age (AND she was a girl) to refuse her parents' choice of suitor and go for Phillip, who neither her parents nor the Royal Court liked or wanted. Don't tell me Charles didn't have the strength of character to do the same. He absolutely did. He was simply lazy and married Diana without really knowing her and without properly thinking it through. He wasn't "forced" into anything. Once he realised he did not love her, he proceeded to have 2 children with her and treated her appaulingly. Absolutely no excuses for him. Hate such sycophantic behaviour. If they're going to live a life the rest of us would dream of and don't have the stresses and strains (like putting food on the table) that most of the populace have, they should at least behave well. The Queen did that. Charles didn't. Don't be a sycophant.

@@sregan5415 How am I being a sycophant? I am neither British, nor a Charles lover, nor a Diana hater. You are comparing two different people (the Queen and Charles), which is not relevant. They come from the same background, yes, but they are not the same person. Some women have more strength and some men have less. We don’t know how Diana treated Charles, either. She cheated on him, too, but nobody ever mentions that. And don’t start telling me that he cheated on her first so why shouldn’t she do the same, etc. It is not acceptable in the marriage in which they were both pretty much forced into, because there is some evidence (letters and so on) that show both of them were reluctant before the actual wedding. Diana most likely knew about Camilla, as well, and still married him. As I said, BOTH parties are responsible for the breakdown of their marriage. I am NOT saying that Charles handled the situation well, but it is what it is. Leave the man alone, for god’s sake. It’s been 30 years.

@S Regan money does not buy happiness, however, I agree with the rest you have mentioned. Diana had no fault or responsibility for his own misery and of the RF.

Already the old brat had a run-in with an inkstand and some pens, so I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope.

Too late....first week as King and his temper is on display.

I'd be cross if I had waited so long for the throne & they couldn't even find him a decent pen to sign such important documents@@ronaldli4187

If people would let Diana rest in peace & let Charles & Camilla get on with the job

LUCKYYYY

I can relate a bit. I’ve often tried to find myself by dressing hip, disobeying house rules, and slurring at my sisters’ mean comments. Still I get told to be someone I don’t wanna be anymore

It really rams home the fact that this show is based on actual people and events. Sometimes, I forget that because the script is so good. However, if the queen did say that, then she was stone cold right to complain that she presided over a confederacy of elected quitters. I wonder how her first meeting with Liz Truss REALLY went...

Well no he is already disliked because of the Diana thing. Plus he is old. Elizabeth came to the throne as a young woman and the public loves youth. Plus he is more of a homebody than a public figure type. I don't think he is as bad as some media outlets and members of the public make him out to be and he does a lot of work for maintaining historical buildings and other charities. But he's just not lovable. We need to face it that with improved medical care and increasing lifespans, it will be a long time before we have a young monarch again unless there is some unfortunate event.

Oh I KNOW he won't be able to come close to her level. Not even a bit...

Omgah ty for this comment, I was going crazy trying to figure out where I'd seen him.

Yep... "and yet ... I will tell you anyway!"