I was today years old when I realized that Charles Dance was never once nominated for an Emmy for playing Tywin Lannister on Game of Thrones. HOW? How did I miss that? Granted, Peter Dinklage usually had the acting nominations locked up on that show, but Dance did outstanding work on GoT. Well, this year, he got an Emmy acting nomination for his work on The Crown. Dance played Lord Mountbatten in Seasons 3 and 4, and obviously, Mountbatten’s assassination is featured heavily in the start of the fourth season. He spoke to Page Six about what an Emmy nomination means to him at this stage of his career, and he pontificates a bit about what Lord Mountbatten would have thought about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex exiting the royal family.
What Lord Louis Mountbatten would think of the Sussexit: “I think he would be in despair about it. Because you know, Mountbatten was a traditionalist, he was very proud of the monarchy, very proud of his royal line. And he was of that generation that accepted that there was a way to behave. ‘This is the way to behave.’ He was almost the last of his kind, really.”
His Emmy nomination: “It’s nice to be looked over, better than being overlooked. I’ve been doing this job for about 45 years now. And you know, it’s just nice to be recognized for doing a job well, which I hope is the case. But other than that, I don’t think any of us should let any of these awards go to our heads. Does that make any sense?”
On the criticism that Peter Morgan plays fast & loose with history: “What [screenwriter] Peter Morgan has done is to write it in his own inimitable way. He’s documenting the life of a woman in an institution that is rapidly changing in an empire; that from the time she took the throne was in decline. And a lot of that is very well-documented. Peter, with the research that he has and from that the opinions he feels able to have, can write what are essentially fictional scenes within the kind of documentary nature of the series. But you know, nobody set out to make a documentary.”
It’s more fun to play a villain: “You tend to get much better lines. Unless the good guy is funny as well. You can be good and funny and that’s great — but most of the time, really good well-written villains tend to make you laugh through their audacity. They are able to say things and do things that a lot of people, perhaps secretly in their darker moments, wish they could say and do.”
I don’t think Charles Dance is trying to shade the Sussexes or trash them or anything. He was clearly asked what his “character” or the real Mountbatten would have thought about all of this. And he was probably right, although it’s one of those “what would Diana think about Sussexit” questions, where if those people were still alive, everything would be so different across the board. While I think Mountbatten would have absolutely encouraged Charles and Diana to wed, he would have strong feelings about their marriage turmoil and he would have gotten involved too. And on and on. But yes, I would be curious what Mountbatten-in-his-prime would have thought, and what a Prince Philip-in-his-prime would have thought.
Photos courtesy of Netflix.
Yes, I’m sure he would have been horrified.
Let’s not look too closely at Lord Mountbatten’s own behavior, which apparently has just been accepted/brushed off in the greater scheme of things.
“And he was of that generation that accepted that there was a way to behave. ‘This is the way to behave.’”
I guess that Dance thinks that Mountbatten’s pedophelia was commonly accepted as a “way to behave” then, and no one batted an eye at his behavior.
What a great bunch of people those aristos are!
Listen, I will always have time for Tywin Lannister. But Mountbatten was a kiddie fiddler, so you will forgive me if I put no stock on his opinions.
Second.
Yes, absolutely right.
A fair enough answer to a purely theoretical question.
Whatev.
They blew their wad casting him as Mountbatten. He was BORN to play Phillip! 😊
Exactly my thought when Season 5 & 6 casting was brought up yesterday! He would have been absolutely perfect as an older Prince Philip – Jonathan Pryce is one fine actor who I’m sure will be tremendous, but come on, Charles Dance’s resemblance to Philip is uncanny
Thank you! I couldn’t imagine why they cast such an obvious “Philip” in a role of a man that most people, outside of royal watching circles, don’t even know. They could have cast anyone to play Mountbatten.
Never thought of this but OMG you are exactly right. Charles Dance would have been a PERFECT Phillip for Seasons 5 and 6.
Omg he really would! And he was totally robbed of at least a him for GOT.
I had been hoping that they’d cast him as an older Philip AFTER his turn as Mountbatten and make some prominent joke in his first scene in the new season about how much he has grown to look like his beloved uncle in his old age.
“A way to behave.”That’s rich, do tell
Wasn’t Lord Mountbatten a pedophile? A better question is what would he have thought of Andrew.
Exactly.
These people are surrounded by abusers, Sir Laurens van der Post was Charles “spiritual advisor” and William’s godfather and it was revealed when he was in his late forties he fathered a child with a 14 year old girl he was supposed to be chaperoning on a trip from South Africa to the UK. Jimmy Saville another friend to the royals, that bishop Charles defended, Mountbatten and now Andrew, wtaf is wrong with these people?
@Zapp Brannigan: I know it’s a rhetorical question, but it’s their unchecked access to both obscene wealth and influence. They’re high on their own importance and bored out of their minds.
Because they see their privilege as a burden, they feel like they *deserve* to do whatever they want as recompense for being “forced” into a life of service. They resent having to pander to those they see as being beneath them – i.e. anyone other than themselves – in order to keep all of that pretty money and recognition.
The world owes them, don’t you know? What’s the bodily autonomy of a child compared to the divinity of royal blood (or being royal blood-adjacent)? God chose them, so everything they do is just and right by nature of it being them that does it.
Bored out of their minds and wealthy does not automatically lead to horribly abuse children causing them shame and trauma that can last a lifetime. Those people chose those particular corrosion crimes. They could have chosen to take up skydiving or BASE jumping or race car driving if they needed an adrenaline kick, or taken up with as many willing partners as they pleased if they were going for some other kind of hormone rush. And if they were simply looking to pass they time, learned a third language or done a few 2000 piece jigsaw puzzles.
But no, they chose the thing that was utterly cruel and incredibly harmful to children.
There’s a way to behave? Stuff it Louie!
I’m not saying they choose to abuse children because they’re bored, obviously not every member of the idle rich is a child abuser. But with this group? A key component is that because to go along with too much money and influence they also have too much time on their hands.
The lack of responsibilities of daily life that the rest of us have – work, laundry, cooking, the millions of things that have to happen when someone has kids – leaves them with more time to indulge their every whim, which they take as their right to do as they wish because they’re so very special and important.
Why do they do any of self-serving things they do? Opportunity. They’re able to spend all of their time thinking of ways to please themselves because they have employees to take care of the dull things that makes up the bulk of human existence for people like you and I and to clean up after them when they makes messes, both literally and figuratively.
Why do so many of them abuse children? The answer lies in the same direction: they have no capacity for empathy because that would require them to believe that other people are worth as much as they are which is exactly the opposite of the power structure into which they’re born, the same system that teaches them their desires – the desires they have all of the time in the whole to devote themselves to – are paramount.
There’s a saying that the poor and middle-class are subject to work, but the rich are dominated by their own superiority-driven, ever-changing, never-satisfied rules. That is another reason why their “pleasures” are so extreme–down deep, they know their lives are meaningless and restricted.
@deering24: You’re far more concise than I am. Lol.
Seriously, though, I’m sure that’s true for some, but for a few it’s probably an escalation of behavior. Instead of graduating from marijuana to pills to heroin they go from torturing the help to preying on children, with all manner of depravities in between. Anything to help them regain the comforting equilibrium of superiority once more. After all, what’s more taboo than what these men have done?
Honestly, now that I think of it, I’m surprised there hasn’t been a royal serial killer in one of the many monarchies yet. (. . . Yikes. I think I’ve just frightened myself.)
He and his wife were both VERY sexually fast and loose, and Mountbatten did have a predilection for young boys and girls. His character was definitely white-washed for The Crown, but I understand there are lines you can’t cross and his character was there to support the notion that Charles was being urged not only by Mountbatten but others to marry Diana, which was the focus of that part of the series.
Has anyone seen him in the old Masterpiece Theatre version of Paul Scott’s “Jewel in the Crown”? He was magnificent in it.
@Jaded totally agree Charles Dance was fantastic in The Jewel in the Crown from 1984. The entire cast was great but he was a stand out.
He was so great in Jewel in the Crown. It was a magnificent mini series full of great performances. Seeing him much older always is slightly shocking.
That was a fantastic series, The Jewel in the Crown. Not a weak link among the cast. Charles Dance was also terrific in White Mischief, a movie about upper class Brits in East Africa. Anyone else see that?
dillettante–White Mischief was excellent. One acid portrait of the uselessness, cruelty, and decadence that colonialism and the vaunted “Empiah” collapsed into. (And it was a great explanation of why the later Kenyan/ Mau Mau uprising against the British was so brutal.) I’ll always remember how the “servants” were always shown with contemptuous, grim looks on their faces when dealing with their sodden “masters.”
@dilettante – loved White Mischief. I’m so glad he got a well-deserved and long overdue Emmy nom.
It’s a fair point. I mean Harry married a half black woman. Mountbatten only abused little boys. *Sarcasm button on*
And this is why the monarchy has GOT to go. This people are lowdown, evil, greedy and corrupt.
Yeah, I get that he was talking about Mountbatten’s feelings. But it’s always good to remember that Mountbatten also wanted Charles to marry his granddaughter.
He is probably correct about what Mountbatten would have thought but that’s like caring about what Prince Andrew’s thoughts are on Sussexit.
Of course Mountbatten would have been in despair. I don’t think he would have been able to comprehend anyone willingly walking away from the prestige and money and privilege of being a royal.
I thought charles dance was excellent in the Crown and excellent in GoT. I’m not really familiar with him outside those two shows but he really was good in both roles.
I also think his answer about the Crown was really dead on – about creating fictional scenes in the context of what is almost a documentary but not quite. the point isnt whether the queen and charles had X conversation about his marriage. the point is did Charles marry diana and then treat her badly? yes, yes he did.
Just started reading the autobiography Daughter of Empire by Mountbatten’s daughter Pamela Hicks. Not that far in, but so far, contains all the tropes of aristocratic life – children born, then mostly raised by nannies as parents often absent, etc. From early on, the Mountbattens had an “open” marriage, apparently driven initially by Louis’ wife Edwinna, but accepted by her husband. When Pamela and her sister Patricia were children, each parent had a significant (opposite sex) outside partner, both of whom were seemingly very happily incorporated into their family life; it sounds like the girls got more attention from their mother’s lover “Bunny” than they did from either parent. (Note also that at the end of her life, Edwinna was deeply involved in a relationship with Nehru, which may or may not have been platonic.)
Charles was 30 when Mountbatten was killed, and he must have grown up hearing all of these stories from his cousins and uncle. Makes you wonder if Charles possibly thought he and Diana and Camilla were going to follow a similar “happy families” model. Ugh.
Meanwhile, Louis Mountbatten’s great grandson, current heir to the Earl title, whose father walked out on his marriage (to Penny Knatchbull, Prince Philip’s ‘close friend’) to be with his lover in the Bahamas, and who himself has an extensive earlier history of drug abuse, just married the fourth in a string of fiances, a French woman described as having been a “mermaid actress”.
But sure, it’s Harry’s marriage to Meghan that’s been the big problem.
Brilliant observations, windyriver. Spot on.
Ooh thanks for the info, I’ll add that book to my list. It sounds interesting.
I definitely think that Charles thought his marriage was going to be like those of the older people, or even those of his peers – like Camilla’s marriage was by all accounts relatively happy and functional even with the affairs etc. It was just accepted. Charles’ mistake was assuming that Diana played by the same rule book and not discussing expectations or ANYTHING before they got married.
Yeah, that was an interesting book. I follow India Hicks on Instagram, who is daughter to Pamela Mountbatten and features her a lot in her Instagram.
@Windyriver. Pamela Hicks book sounds interesting. Her father was flat broke when he married Edwina who was an heiress. His title had been downgraded during WWI from Prince Louis of Battenberg to Lord Louis Mountbatten and his father Prince Louis Sr had lost any fortune he had due to assets in Russia & Germany/Hesse. So through marriage Lord Mountbatten obtained money & property while Edwina got a title and entree to royal connections. Louis’s best man was the Prince of Wales, later Duke of Windsor. For someone whose grandparents (prince Alexander of Hesse and countess julie) marriage was ‘morganatic’, lord Louis did very well for himself & his family.
@Tigerlily, so interesting to hear these details from people that know much more than I do!
I’ve only read the first few chapters so far, but there are small details about family life that are very telling, particularly re: @terra’s comment above that abusers like Mountbatten “have no capacity for empathy”. Pamela says mother Edwina and her sister were generally kept apart from their parents; that when their mother was dying of consumption, they were misled about what was going on, sent away to a cousin, and despite Edwina begging to, never saw their mother again. Their father remarried a Cruella type stepmother, who replaced the governess they loved with another who also kept them even more strictly out of the way. Pamela’s nanny and sister Patricia’s governess didn’t get along, so those girls only saw each other at teatime. Plus, Pamela’s nanny was very possessive, jealous of time Mountbatten spent with her, and as mother Edwina was as well, he had to stop the ritual of bedtime stories that then five-year-old Pamela loved.
Hicks reports all of this in a charming, fairly lighthearted manner, but man, how deeply dysfunctional are the way these families raised their children (throw in too, negative experiences had with equally problematic staff at various schools). To be clear, I’m not saying this is any excuse whatsoever for choices, and they are choices, that Mountbatten or any of his ilk made and make – but with these kinds of dysfunctional (and even traumatic) upbringings, one begins to see why many of these people failed to develop empathy for and understanding of the feelings of others.
@windyriver And Bunny Phillips later married Georgina Wehrner. She was the niece of Earl Mountbatten’s sister in law Nada Milford Haven. They were the parents of the Duchesses of Abercorn and Westminster, both linked to Philip. She was also one of the Queen’s best friends. She’s known as Lady Kennard because she remarried after Phillips’s death. And her father’s cousin, Janet Bryce, married Mountbatten’s nephew David Mountbatten, marquess of Milford Haven who was Philip’s best man at his wedding. Meanwhile the Duke of Abercorn was first cousin to Diana’s father Earl Spencer. It’s all very incestuous.
@Courtney B – appreciate the info! Incestuous is an understatement. Was reading some of the book this am and had actually started to Google where Bunny Phillips ended up but got sidetracked by the CB articles, and Becks1’s comment, “did Charles marry Diana and then treat her badly?” suddenly made me wonder what picture of marriage Charles had formed from Mountbatten’s experiences.
It’s hard enough to follow the family relationships in the book. Pamela was born in 1929, but the people she mentions still in her life as a child were part of the complicated nexus of interconnected nobility descended from the many children of Victoria and Albert, and it’s a fascinating period of time. She refers to her Grandmamma, who paid a lot of attention to them as children – I believe this would be Princess Victoria, granddaughter of TQ, whose sisters Alix and Elisabeth (Empress and Grand Duchess respectively) married into Russian nobility and were murdered during the revolution.
Princess Victoria, I believe, was once the Marchioness of Milford Haven, a title that makes me laugh as it sounds made up, out of some romance novel. Was thinking about it the other day when people were coming up with silly titles on one of the CB articles; I’ve spent a lot of time in Maine, could I be the Marchioness of Vinalhaven?
And I’m sure Prince Nonce ‘s behavior would be par for the course!🙄
It just irks me that, kinda from the side line, they’re asking Charles Dance about his opinion on the Sussexit. Or at least they’re hoping he’ll give it. Luckily he’s smart enough not to fall for the trap.
Mountbatten was a disgrace. He was responsible for the loss of countless allied lives during WW2 and took that same cavalier attitude to India, resulting in loss of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives during partition.
The last viceroy of India was all about social climbing and arranging marriages so he wouldn’t have been a fan of Harry and Meghan from the beginning. I don’t think his views would be any different than the current inept ‘gold standard’ courtiers. But the man is long dead so I will say he might have had good will toward them.
Get back on the sh!tter Tywin Lannister and shut up! You know nothing.
I did a DEEP DIVE about Lord Mountbatten….that led me to quantifying what I ALREADY thought….that the royal family don’t mind providing cover for high ranking pedophiles…seriously…it’s disgusting & deplorable….
Charles Dance needs to keep his mouth shut regarding this.
And anyone is expected to care wtf Lord Mountbatten would have thought about anything because why exactly…? These people SEVERELY overestimate their importance.
Maybe Mountbatten would be pleased with the young royal progeny running around inside Palace walls today. And, maybe he would have cautioned Andrew to be more discreet and put his procurers on retainer.
Ahhh Lord Mountbatten who used to holiday in Ireland and who allegedly had private schooled young Protestant students driven into his castle late into de evening. Disgusting individual. Apparently the Royal family where warned about the security of his old boat which was later bombed but went unnoticed.
Mountbatten would be appalled by the Middletons marrying in, nevermind being racist about Meghan.
And yes, he was a pedophile which doesn’t seem to bother the Windsors because they’re still naming royal children after him.
I mean, these remarks were considerably nicer than a lot of what others had to say, right? He seems pretty understanding, but he also has a good grasp of how things function in that environment. He’s absolutely right. Mountbatten was a traditionalist. The last of his kind, the last little bridge between two different worlds. He was the link between the continental German royalty the British royals were so closely related to. He was the link between Queen Victoria’s generation and Queen Elizabeth’s generation. He was the link between the colonial and the post-colonial worlds–quite literally, I might add.
He knew how things worked back then, but I don’t think he was the sort of man to be ignorant of how things worked in the modern world either. But what he would have held onto steadfastly would have been the hierarchy and status attached to being a part of the aristocracy, and a member of the royal family. He was a man who schemed and maneuvered and pushed his family and himself into the heart of the British Royal Family. He was someone who was very proud of the trappings and titles and the status, and he conducted himself accordingly, at least on the public sphere. He never held back from performing his duty, as he would have thought of it, bc it was through his duty that he attained his status, and his status in that pecking order meant everything.
So in that way, he wouldn’t have understood what Harry and Meghan were doing, but he would have been no different to literally any one else in Britain in that regard. They think this is just how things are. You don’t just give it up. Look at how Kate and her family clawed their way up. To the rest of us who simply don’t live in that environment, we don’t get it. It makes no sense why you would give up your identity for something so shallow and hollow. But for them, their identity and self-worth is a small price to pay for what they get in return. The history of the Mountbatten family starts from a morganatic marriage, and it ends with them marrying into the pinnacle of royalty all through Europe. That was always what they were going for. Why would Mountbatten care about anything outside of that too?
Mountbatten the pedophile’s opinion should count for less than zero. I hope that story gets dug up in the US media during the commentary on the Maxwell trial. Too many people are unaware of just how many sexual predators have had close relationships with Prince Charles. It’s not just his brother and the relationship with Epstein.