I’ve seen all three, thanks, and agree with your recommendations.
As to the original House of Cards, in particular, I remember Sir Ian Richardson as Francis Urquhart being a much more arch, gleeful and fun villain than Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood, who was usually cold and grumpy, which is why I prefer the British original. However, it does indeed refer to Thatcher - in the very first scene, no less: "House of Cards" TV Intro - YouTube
Buy, hey, “charming” is part of any prince’s job description.
And even one’s actual name.
Ah, you are right, in my memory, the nod to the parting PM was vague and not named explicitly. Of course the rest is fiction.
The American HOC is really three different shows. The first one, the two seasons up until Underwood becomes President, is excellent.
Am I the only one who is disappointed in the fact that the best episodes of the entire show have been the ones that deviated the most from history? I can’t be the only one who goes to the fact check articles after watching each episode.
Which episodes are those?
Well I just finished the episode about the cousins who were institutionalized. They existed but the narrative of the episode with Margaret discovering them was totally made up.
The Fagin episode was used to show dissatisfaction with Thatcher but the conversation between him and the queen did not happen.
The queen never met with all her children to figure out which one was her favorite. Some of the accounts I’ve read say that Edward is actually the one closest to her not Andrew as it said in the episode.
Probably my favorite episode of the entire show was the one about Princess Alice. The newspaper reporter didn’t exist and the article that saved the monarchy made for a good moment in the show but it never happened.
I’m trying to remember back further. One that sticks out was the fog episode with Churchill. The 5 day smog was a crisis but it never threatened to bring down the government. Churchill didn’t have a pretty young assistant killed in a bus accident to inspire him to write a speech. She was a 100% made up character.
This is of course not a documentary. It’s a fiction show that uses historical events and people as a base. I’m trying my best to not form opinions of the real people off of the fiction.
Oh, I enjoyed it immensely (first two series anyway), but just feel the UK version tops it. It’s the characterisation of the lead - Frank Underwood is quite a crass, abrasive hustler. Francis Urquhart is more of an old establishment figure, firmly assured of his role to lead - I found it strange they made Frank Underwood a Democrat - Urquhart, if he was in the US, would be GOP through and through. His veneer is more restrained and refined, which makes his pure evil all the more delicious.
You might think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.
I wince whenever I hear someone say they hate/love one of the royal family because of something they saw on The Crown. That’s like being angry with your spouse because of something they did in your dreams.
… this has happened to me, btw. 
You most certainly are not. Some others -
Prince Philip was never suspected of being involved in the Profumo affair, especially not as someone actually in a photograph.
The show depicted Margaret Thatcher’s son going missing at the same time as Argentina moved against the Falkland islands, with the very strong implication that she was so preoccupied with her son’s safety she passed up any thoughts of a diplomatic solution. In reality, he was found over 2 months before anything occurred in the Falklands.
I’ve never cared for Charles that much. While I realize this is fictionalized, s3 softened that up a bit. Of course s4 makes him as big a prick as ever.
While Diana gets some sympathy points for Charles being such a prick, I’m frankly shocked at how usympathetic they are making her overall. They all but called her a dumb whore. This must be enraging Diana superfans.
Also, I find Anderson’s portrayal of Thatcher frankly laughable. Like SNL skit laughable.
I found the first episode she was in to be pretty bad. She was like a cartoon character. I thought she did a better job after that. Not award worthy but not bad.
As for Diana I think they are certainly making her to be better than him. It’s strongly implied that he is continuing a physical affair throughout the marriage even though that appears to not be true in real life. Camilla was still in his circle of friends but Diana was the one who cheated first with her bodyguard. The affair with Camilla started after that was revealed. Implying that Charles is sleeping with Camilla the entire time makes Diana much more sympathetic.
According to my Dad’s contacts who worked for Charles, that’s pretty much exactly what he was doing. Maybe not immediately after the marriage, but certainly before she had her affair.
Yes, I had always understood that he remained very close to Camilla after his wedding with Diana, concealing it from his wife, and resumed a sexual relationship with her well before Diana began her affairs.
Bravo.
That’s not what I have been reading from “insiders.” Diana had her first of several affairs starting in 1985. Charles started sleeping with Camilla in 1986. I can’t possibly know the truth but this is from people who earn a living writing biographies.
Well… at the height of the tabloid feeding frenzy about any and every possible sexual scandal that summer (you had to be there to believe just how manic it seemed to be), one of them (the Mirror, I believe) ran a classic front page “Prince Philip: Rumours Denied” headline, which is the tabloid equivalent of a tap on the side of the nose and “Just saying…” And for years before that the continental gossip magazines had no end of stories, which no-one took particularly seriously, about every time he and the Queen were touring separately being cover for some sort of “rift”, hints of hanky-panky with French showgirls and who knows what else. (And FWIW, IIRC, the “headless man” in the Argyll divorce case later turned out to be someone else entirely).
If the show is close the accurate about Charles’ emotional involvement, with both Diana and Camilla, I don’t think the sex matters that much. There have been tons of powerful men throughout history (and currently) who cheat on their wives sexually, but retain a decent relationship with their wife. The show strongly suggests that Prince Phillip cheated on Queen Elizabeth. But their relationship is portrayed as mostly strong.
Heck, I have polyamorous friends who keep a calendar of when their husband is sleeping with who, but who love their husbands and describe their marriage as good.
(oops, gotta run, more later.)