HBO Documentary ‘The Princess’ Reveals
The Ugly Truth About King Charles III
The Federalist,
by
Michael Clark
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
9/25/2022 8:14:00 PM
Since her death in 1997, Lady Diana Spencer, the former princess of Wales has been portrayed in dozens of feature films and TV shows and it took the death of her former mother-in-law, Elizabeth II, 25 years later to displace her as the most beloved deceased member of the British Royal Family.
Or maybe not.
Unlike all other royal consorts, Diana — not by choice or design — eventually became more popular than the blood royal to which she was married. When picked by then Prince Charles (or more likely his family’s advisers) to be his bride, Diana was a shy and reserved elementary school assistant leery of the press who mercilessly
Reply 1 - Posted by:
earlybird 9/25/2022 8:15:31 PM (No. 1287741)
FTA:
As we soon find out in the recent HBO documentary “The Princess,” Diana was not chosen for her royal lineage, but rather because of the perception by the Windsors that she could be molded and coerced to play a supporting role to Charles and fulfill the need to produce an heir or two. That’s it.
It was also the first time in over 300 years that the heir to the throne would be married to a native Briton.
16 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
earlybird 9/25/2022 8:21:54 PM (No. 1287746)
This is not the usual documentary.
With “The Princess,” Perkins has done something few documentary filmmakers ever achieve: He’s created a work of art that is thoroughly lacking in bias. Far too many directors working within this genre (on both the left and the right), whether intentional or not, wedge their opinions into the narrative resulting not in enlightenment, but rather propaganda.
Perkins is a silent, non-judgmental observer here. He doesn’t have to add anything; he merely lets the ugly words, actions, and deeds of Charles speak for themselves.
17 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
udanja99 9/25/2022 8:29:22 PM (No. 1287749)
When Harry was born, I remember reading that Charles was disappointed because he wanted a daughter and he blamed Diana for giving him another son. The idiot had no idea that the sex of a child is determined by the sperm not the egg.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry hasn’t found out about his father’s disappointment and that is part of why he’s such a mess.
31 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
sanspeur 9/25/2022 8:42:04 PM (No. 1287752)
#3 , not to mention the question of Hazmat’s parentage ..A tryst in the stable ? Hewitt ? The overdone protocol, underdone significant adult leadership will soon be the mark of this man “who wanted to be a feminine hygiene product “ .If he entitles the supposed children of the mendocino markles his approval will really tank .
21 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Northcross 9/25/2022 8:45:43 PM (No. 1287756)
Looks to me like an excellent time to do away completely with the monarchy.
16 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
jalo1951 9/25/2022 9:06:50 PM (No. 1287762)
I am not a royal watcher (the time between the Queen's death, and the over coverage, and her burial, was way to long) and Diana really didn't do much for me. But I think her appeal, compared to the "royals", is she appeared to be human. She was not the stiff upper lip, steel rod up their nether region, pampered elite. If Edward had not abdicated none of these people would be important. Just distant semi royal relatives of whomever was on the throne. Even if Charles can keep his mouth shut all the BS he has spouted over these past decades is out there. I'm sure he will miss the greenie weenies worshiping him and his insane ideas. Should have married Camilla and lived his life.
26 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
oldmagnolia 9/25/2022 9:12:39 PM (No. 1287765)
Oh please. Since when an HBO documentary is telling the truth. I'm not defending anyone here but I have friends in the UK. The Queen Mother cooked the goose with Diana's grandmother, Lady Fermoy a good friend of hers, to push Charles to marry Diana. The Spencers didn't miss the opportunity to have a future king in their family tree and sold her to the wolves. Diana was naive, very young and probably went along with it. Charles didn't have a choice as it was his "duty" as heir. As we all know things didn't work out. Both were at fault. Charles because he wanted the love of his life, and Diana because he was looking for love. Diana, in her own words, told everyone that she was the first one to have affairs. It was and it will always be a sad story. Diana would still be alive today if she was taking care of her sons versus yachting in the Mediterranean Sea with the lover du jour, let alone go out in a car with a drunk driver and no seat belt. But that is all history now. What I want to know is who is Harry's father. We probably would never know. Diana died 25 years ago. It is time to put the soap opera to rest.
51 people like this.
The new king is a self absorbed, immature and selfish jerk who has zero class. Any man who brings his equally selfish mistress to his wedding and makes sure his bride to be sees the woman as she walks down the aisle in front of millions of people worldwide has no right to be king. He couldn't even give Diana that one special day every Bride deserves OP.
Diana said it herself. He is not fit to be king. If he couldn't even keep and honor his wedding vows, how on earth are the UK/Commonwealth citizens supposed to believe the vow he will take at his coronation? Not wise to mock God when you make vows in front of Him at your wedding or your coronation.
23 people like this.
She was a kept woman who was killed by a drunk driver.
16 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
zephyrgirl 9/25/2022 10:02:27 PM (No. 1287795)
I wouldn't give you a warm bucket of spit for either Charles or Diana. They're both rather dim. He's spoiled, selfish and pretentious, and she was a hysteric narcissist. Both spent too much time on their various sex partners and not enough on their sons. The marriage failed because they were totally unsuited for each other. It happens, get over it.
17 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Ozwestie 9/25/2022 11:25:07 PM (No. 1287847)
What a load of frog poop.
9 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
lakerman1 9/26/2022 12:36:23 AM (No. 1287887)
I was stationed in England - RAF Brize Norton in 1957, and RAF Sculthorpe, 1960-1961.
And I spent a fair amount of time talking with, and listening to commoners, in pubs, dance halls, and the like.
The commoners have imbedded in their psyches a deep affection for royalty. I never fully understood it, and I doubt any American could. Royalty was diminished or displaced in Europe, except for England.
Finally, I recommend that people watch Lucy Worsley, British historian and curator of the Tower of London. She does suject matter progrms on PBS, and I confess that I love her. She is cute as a bug, and knowledgeable about British royalty, among other things. And she doesn't sugar coat anything.
16 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
5 handicap 9/26/2022 6:53:58 AM (No. 1287976)
Michael Clark belongs on CNN! What a garbage article...Typical Hollywood Movie reviewer!
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Faithfully 9/27/2022 7:50:32 PM (No. 1289486)
Diana's did wonders for the popularity of the Crown but she was naive. Aristocrats have always been corridor creepers. Charles' infidelity could have been overlooked were he not head of the CofE. A beloved monarch, such as EII brings much to the country and Commonwealth. Who knows; we'll see.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
…And caused her death. Those of us who were grownups when this happened watched it live and were aware that she was a virgin who was to produce “an heir and a spare”. Did they check her teeth or any other personal attributes? I’d not be surprised. She got a bad rap. Charles is a weakling who was undeserving of her and was worse than a cruel cad.