Edward is made to look heroic here. He is the product of his choices. Yes, he married the woman he loved, but he probably would have sold England down the river to the Nazis Here there are some magnificent performances, but the facts aren't really presented. The Queen is torn but she stays true to herself. Charles and Camilla are presented for the first time, explaining a few things to me. Anne continues to be a breath of fresh air.
19 Reviews
This episode totally ignores what was revealed in season 2 episode 6 about the Duke ...
Ziggy196520 January 2020
... that he was a Nazi sympathizer. Sure his family did not want Wally Simpson since the Royals are very concerned about their bloodlines, especially to those royals who will produce an heir. But can you imagine how as a Nazi sympathizer, what kind of a king he would have been during WWII? However, in reality the House of Windsor did come from Germany. Check it out on Wikipedia.
Time stands still for no one.
dsmoore28 July 2020
The most important aspect of visual storytelling is the writing and this one does not disappoint, albeit a brief episode. All the characters have become so well developed over the course of three seasons that it becomes emotional to see them change and move on. Nothing remains static in life and this long form story telling underscores this fact and this episode demonstrates this principle.
Yet another excellent episode
FrankWButterfield30 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I really did love Claire Foy in the first two seasons, but, with this episode, I can now really appreciate the breadth of Olivia Colman's performance. Every now and then, she really shows the complexity of Queen Elizabeth's position as a sovereign without direct power who was forced into her lifelong job earlier than she, or anyone, expected.
Josh O'Connor, as Prince Charles, is really growing on me, as well. His performance is perfectly understated until it isn't. We got a hint of that in Episode 6 and, in one of my favorite scenes of this entire series, we get it in a much bigger way in this episode.
As for the Duke of Windsor, another reviewer claims he was not resented by the Establishment as he claims to be in this episode. However, if you go find the Kenneth Harris interview of the Duke and Duchess which was filmed in October of 1969, you'll see he did, in fact, make the claims expressed in this episode. Whether he was right, or not, is beside the point. He believed (or pretended to believe) that he was bringing a new idea of what it meant to be the sovereign and that was one of the reasons he abdicated. I don't think Peter Morgan is making any sort of claim that the Duke was correct. But it is what he said to many people and, as you can see, on film. My only quibble with how that was handled here is the Duke using a phrase which, I believe, is actually attributable to Princess Diana-about the "men in grey" of Buckingham Palace.
Josh O'Connor, as Prince Charles, is really growing on me, as well. His performance is perfectly understated until it isn't. We got a hint of that in Episode 6 and, in one of my favorite scenes of this entire series, we get it in a much bigger way in this episode.
As for the Duke of Windsor, another reviewer claims he was not resented by the Establishment as he claims to be in this episode. However, if you go find the Kenneth Harris interview of the Duke and Duchess which was filmed in October of 1969, you'll see he did, in fact, make the claims expressed in this episode. Whether he was right, or not, is beside the point. He believed (or pretended to believe) that he was bringing a new idea of what it meant to be the sovereign and that was one of the reasons he abdicated. I don't think Peter Morgan is making any sort of claim that the Duke was correct. But it is what he said to many people and, as you can see, on film. My only quibble with how that was handled here is the Duke using a phrase which, I believe, is actually attributable to Princess Diana-about the "men in grey" of Buckingham Palace.
Outstanding
smartinezmd14 December 2019
Besides "Aberfan" this episode was the best from Season 3. Poignant and insightful. Extremely well-acted. I was in awe of the last scene. Geraldine Chaplin who played Wallis Simpson this third season rocked it. Artfully done. Derek Jacobi as the Duke of Windsor...need I say more? He makes fine acting look like it's easier than riding a bicycle. I am pleased to see Prince Charles role being so well filled out. An endearing, empathetic and insightful character. Josh O'Connor owns the role more firmly with each passing episode. When I saw him in The Durrells, I sensed that he could do so much better given the right role. Beautifully done.
Some viewers didn't understood this episode
bertavillanueva-photo6 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I see some viewers understand the last words of this episode as a thought of the writers of the series, but they're clearly Charles' thoughs, hence the Queen's expression when she reads them. I loved this episode, it let me understood more about Charles and his place in the Crown (real and fictional).
Amazing episode!..And Derek Jacobi is a real treasure of British Acting.
nassimhilal-121 April 2020
I loved this episode, powerful, emotional and superb acting from all involved but even more so from Derek Jacobi as the Duke of Windsor. If this was a movie, he would surely deserve an Oscar for his role here. And this episode felt like great cinema too. The writing is just masterful and all the elements of this episode make it a very special moment in this third season of "the crown".
Derek Jacobi is awesome!!
peiraths24 April 2020
Edward was a bad example.
Starfilmsgold19 February 2022
Prince Edward was a bad example to a very green Prince Charles. He abdicated and abandoned his family for the love of an unsuitable woman. Prince Charles found it easy to confide in his granduncle as they clearly shared the same grumble, they both lived in the shadows of a powerful woman - Her Majesty the Queen.
Prince Charles had a beautiful wife, Diana, whom he should have been proud of. Instead, he was jealous and ran back to Camilla. Camilla Parker Bowles when young, had Bond girl looks. Her picture's on Pin Interest, she was hotter looking than the Netflix Camilla. Can see why Prince Charles fell for her. Diana had the fairy tale Cinderella looks. In fairy tales, there was no paparazzi chasing her to death.
(No spoiler intended. Everyone over the age of 30, knows this fairy tale had no happy ending).
Prince Charles had a beautiful wife, Diana, whom he should have been proud of. Instead, he was jealous and ran back to Camilla. Camilla Parker Bowles when young, had Bond girl looks. Her picture's on Pin Interest, she was hotter looking than the Netflix Camilla. Can see why Prince Charles fell for her. Diana had the fairy tale Cinderella looks. In fairy tales, there was no paparazzi chasing her to death.
(No spoiler intended. Everyone over the age of 30, knows this fairy tale had no happy ending).
Dangling by a thread
TheLittleSongbird23 April 2022
Actually, contrary to some others, really liked a lot of Season 3 and Olivia Colman grew on me (Helena Bonham Carter took longer to accept). "Aberfan" being one of the high points. Absolutely loved what was done with Prince Charles in "Tywysog Cymru", where he was a very well fleshed out character. The Duke of Windsor was a very interesting character in Seasons 1 and 2, "Vergangenheit" being notably insightful for his character development.
"Dangling Man" sadly was a disappointment. It was amazing at how much better Season 3 became after a slow start, but "Dangling Man" sees the season and 'The Crown' go backwards in quality. While "Olding" was very flawed, with a lot of change not easy to accept, "Dangling Man" for me was the weaker episode. Don't have anything to fault the performances for, but the way one character is written in particular brings it down. Not a terrible episode by all means, just nowhere near the brilliance that 'The Crown' showed many times throughout its run.
There are things in "Dangling Man" done very well. The production values are as classy and handsome as usual with a real sense of period. The music has presence while not being intrusive and knows when to tone down without being too low-key. There are parts that are thoughtful and sensitive, especially when Charles and Duke of Windsor are together.
What particularly makes "Dangling Man" is the majestic performances of Josh O'Connor (only his second episode as the primary focus and he has settled the quickest out of all the new main cast members, along with Charles Dance as Mountbatten) and of a deeply felt and nuanced Derek Jacobi. Together they are magic. Geraldine Chaplin is very good too. Charles is developed very realistically here and he comes over as a real person and not a caricature.
Having said all of that, the episode did feel a bit too over-deliberate with some of the storytelling being on the over-stretched side. It does feel a little soapy at times in the dialogue, which doesn't always flow in the same way it usually does.
Moreover, "Dangling Man" doesn't have the same amount of poignancy, harrowing quality or tension that an episode like "Aberfan" had. Most problematic is the way Duke of Windsor is written, rather one-dimensional (rather than the complex character he was in the previous two seasons) and too sympathetic in a way that contradicts how he was written before, especially "Vergangenheit". Compared to that and here, it was like viewing two different Duke of Windsors.
Overall, worth a look but not one of the must watches of 'The Crown'. 6/10.
"Dangling Man" sadly was a disappointment. It was amazing at how much better Season 3 became after a slow start, but "Dangling Man" sees the season and 'The Crown' go backwards in quality. While "Olding" was very flawed, with a lot of change not easy to accept, "Dangling Man" for me was the weaker episode. Don't have anything to fault the performances for, but the way one character is written in particular brings it down. Not a terrible episode by all means, just nowhere near the brilliance that 'The Crown' showed many times throughout its run.
There are things in "Dangling Man" done very well. The production values are as classy and handsome as usual with a real sense of period. The music has presence while not being intrusive and knows when to tone down without being too low-key. There are parts that are thoughtful and sensitive, especially when Charles and Duke of Windsor are together.
What particularly makes "Dangling Man" is the majestic performances of Josh O'Connor (only his second episode as the primary focus and he has settled the quickest out of all the new main cast members, along with Charles Dance as Mountbatten) and of a deeply felt and nuanced Derek Jacobi. Together they are magic. Geraldine Chaplin is very good too. Charles is developed very realistically here and he comes over as a real person and not a caricature.
Having said all of that, the episode did feel a bit too over-deliberate with some of the storytelling being on the over-stretched side. It does feel a little soapy at times in the dialogue, which doesn't always flow in the same way it usually does.
Moreover, "Dangling Man" doesn't have the same amount of poignancy, harrowing quality or tension that an episode like "Aberfan" had. Most problematic is the way Duke of Windsor is written, rather one-dimensional (rather than the complex character he was in the previous two seasons) and too sympathetic in a way that contradicts how he was written before, especially "Vergangenheit". Compared to that and here, it was like viewing two different Duke of Windsors.
Overall, worth a look but not one of the must watches of 'The Crown'. 6/10.
Marvellous
valdemir-fernandes22 April 2020
Dangling Man
bobcobb3011 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
There was an interesting subject matter at hand in this episode, but unfortunately the episode did not do the best job covering it. Until that final scene with Edward there wasn't much to praise in the acting department.
More about Duke David
dierregi19 November 2020
Although I agree about the Duke of Windsor, ex-king Edward VIII having been a pathetic figure, I think his romanticisation went a bit too far in The Crown and in this episode.
Obviously, not much fun or irony is to be found around a dying man, and the whole episode is sombre and dismal. However, two questions are never faced in the series and - obviously - even less in this episode.
Would the Duke have made for a good king? Probably not, considering he colluded with the Nazis. Was his passion for Simpson so great as to condone everything? Again, probably not. There is an almost pathological aspect in his relentless clinging to Simpson, that even she found difficult to cope with. More than a love story, it probably was a glorified personality disorder.
Finally, even disgraced people may have some lessons to teach, but I honestly did not see any coming form the Duke of Windsor.
Obviously, not much fun or irony is to be found around a dying man, and the whole episode is sombre and dismal. However, two questions are never faced in the series and - obviously - even less in this episode.
Would the Duke have made for a good king? Probably not, considering he colluded with the Nazis. Was his passion for Simpson so great as to condone everything? Again, probably not. There is an almost pathological aspect in his relentless clinging to Simpson, that even she found difficult to cope with. More than a love story, it probably was a glorified personality disorder.
Finally, even disgraced people may have some lessons to teach, but I honestly did not see any coming form the Duke of Windsor.
Pardon?
W011y4m520 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
It's quite staggering for "The Crown" to not only attempt to rewrite history - portraying The Duke of Windsor as a "flawed, misunderstood character who was ostracised for simply loving his wife" - but also rewrite the show's lore / logic itself, completely revising the Netflix series' own acknowledgement of the man's past - which was literally depicted in all its heinousness in the very previous season.
How is that in any way coherent when the portrayal is a blatant contradiction of not only the facts, but its individually established mythology?
His death wasn't a loss & it's offensive to his victims - the innocents killed by the Nazi party he supported - to portray it as one.
How is that in any way coherent when the portrayal is a blatant contradiction of not only the facts, but its individually established mythology?
His death wasn't a loss & it's offensive to his victims - the innocents killed by the Nazi party he supported - to portray it as one.
Fictional Mish-Mash
crumpytv1 January 2021
So not content with air-brushing history, the writers saw fit to rewrite their own dialogue from the previous series. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were both quite different characters from that portrayed in series 2.
It is just an illustration of how flawed this series is with regards the facts.
This episode is another example of taking the bare bones of facts and fleshing it out with unsubstantiated dialogue and events.
What a load of rubbish
ecarlson-593-12046123 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The Duke of Windsor was NOT pressed to abdicate because he was a misunderstood visionary resented by the Establishment. Not was there any possibility that he would have been a great king. He would have been a disaster, especially during WW2. This episode's effort to make him look tragic and misunderstood is repellent. And if Prince Charles really did/does identify with the Duke, which I have trouble believing, then God help the UK.
Changes!
tmccheyne27 March 2021
Even the Duke of Windsor had to change!
This is becoming ridiculous ...the time lines we can forgive but to make some look older or younger is stupid and a slap I. The face for viewers !
Not well done with choices/selections. Nothing against their acting...just wrong for the parts.
This is becoming ridiculous ...the time lines we can forgive but to make some look older or younger is stupid and a slap I. The face for viewers !
Not well done with choices/selections. Nothing against their acting...just wrong for the parts.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
