Trillian

Noooooo! If they bring her back from the dead yet again, I am so out.

I think that the writers wrote themselves into a corner when they decided that Randall The Great couldn’t possibly have sprung from the loins of two people with serious substance abuse and/or mental health issues living in the abject poverty that so often, tragically, accompanies those problems. Laurel’s story made sense when she was a junkie who died in or shortly after childbirth. It would have made sense if she had survived childbirth but was too doped out to care about her kid and/or too poor to have the resources to fight for him. But those would make her look bad. And William would look bad if he knew she was alive so they have her only seeming to die of an overdose. And they couldn’t make the Womb that produced Randall look bad by using during her pregnancy, so they wrote the implausible post-partum relapse. And they couldn’t have her look bad by not seeking out her baby, so they had to send her to prison for five years across the country (because everyone knows that police, hospitals and jails didn’t start keeping written records until 1990?). And she couldn’t have been born into poverty herself - because Randall obviously comes from upper-class stock - but then they had to cook up the story of her hiding in plain sight from her family while punishing herself eternally with unrequited love for the hot married fishmonger. In real life, sometimes successful people are born to total screw-ups, as well as vice versa. Spinning off this fairytale as they did just doesn’t work for me.

It might not only have been stronger (I hate the whole storyline, so I’m not sure anything could redeem it for me) but it would have made more sense. Only on tv can a person who was not involved in events recount them second-hand in perfect chronological order with perfect recall of names and dates. I couldn’t tell my own husband’s life story with as much detail as Hai did Laurel’s. Can’t you just picture Hai sitting there while Laurel went over and over the story until Hai committed it to memory like some Homeric bard?

Viewer warning: any resemblance to Stephen King‘s masterpiece “The Stand” is purely coincidental.

Oh my God! You must be related to Randall! Obviously a long-lost niece.

I just can’t with the Laurel storyline, which now appears destined to go on ad nauseum. I can get being curious about the woman who gave birth to him, but that look of wonder and of finally finding himself made me want to slap him. No, Randall, you are not going to see the places your mother loved. Rebecca is your mother. Remember?

Shows how closely I was watching! Thanks

It was far more plausible in the original that there was still an old wind-up record player around somewhere. This was just appeared out of nowhere. And I kept thinking: wrong song. Sigh.

I seriously need to rewatch and somehow pretend that I haven’t read the book (several times) or seen the original (several times). As it is, I wasn’t sure that someone new to the story would truly get what was going on. Maybe? What is this story without the growing horror? And it’s really hard to wrap my mind around The Stand without Don’t Fear the Reaper. How do you remake perfection?

I remember it. I also remember rumours that Sophie was just a beard. Edward was in theatre - what more proof was needed? Nothing clever to add in response other than to assure you that you’re not hallucinating memories. Unless we both are.

Ok, it’s The Tattler, but the poll cited was from the Times: “According to a survey of 1,023 people by FocalData published in The Sunday Times this weekend, more than a third of people said that their opinion of Prince Charles had improved during this series, while 42 per cent said their view of the Royal Family had not changed at all. Only 23 per cent said that their view had worsened - 18 per cent by 'a bit' and 5 per cent by 'a lot'. “ https://www.tatler.com/article/a-third-of-viewers-say-the-crown-made-them-think-better-of-the-royal-family?utm_medium=applenews&utm_source=applenews (Sorry, I couldn’t get a non-AppleNews link”) before going back to work.)

Privilege extends to the client’s name and the fact of the retainer so, no. As in all legal rules, there are exceptions but the exceptions to this one are very - very very - rare.

Yup. They tried to get around the ethical issue by having her give that little soliloquy to herself about how she doesn’t actually “know” it was the murder weapon so she technically wasn’t obliged to turn it in. The way we taught In law school to deal with this scenario is that the lawyer who has the weapon hires a lawyer herself and gives the weapon to the second lawyer who then turns it over to the police, saying only “my client who will remain nameless gave this to me”. If the original lawyer said that to the police, it would be obvious who the client was, so the second lawyer acts as a buffer to try to preserve confidentiality and to salvage some of the defence. Well, I am a trial lawyer, and I agree. The only reason I could think of for calling it a Declaration Against Interest (which it clearly isn’t) is totally lazy writing. If this were a show about the law, they could’ve had interesting submissions on why the statement wasn’t hearsay at all. But I’ve seen law students and even more experienced lawyers struggle with the idea that it isn’t hearsay if it’s not being offered for the truth of the content of the statement, so I guess they didn’t want to have to try to explain that to a lay audience when it wasn’t the point of the scene. But, that was so sloppy - the legal technical advisor, whom I’m sure they ignored, must be absolutely mortified.

I considered where to post this - in many ways it belongs in s4,ep10, but it contains the shocking spoiler of Diana’s death so I’m doing it here. I am not a monarchist, but, as a citizen of a certain age of a Commonwealth nation, I understand it. I never had any sympathy for the Queen or her parasitic family until Diana died and there was a shocking public outcry for HMQ to ignore so many long-standing conventions in honour of someone who had spent years trying to destroy the very institution to which the Queen had dedicated her life (to paraphrase Tony Blair in The Queen). I think this season touched on that in a beautifully subtle way and may have set it up for future seasons‘ themes. Those who fight The Crown do so at their peril. Thatcher takes on the Queen, and the Crown survives while she goes down to political defeat. Various family members struggle to find their own place but ultimately give in to the Crown as “the oxygen we breathe”. And Diana took on the Crown and may have won the affection of the public but... at her funeral, after all the grandstanding and Elton John’s bastardization of his beautiful ode to Marilyn Monroe, and Earl Spencer publicly slamming the BRF, the final hymn was ... “God Save the Queen”. The Crown always wins. It’s a fascinating theme.

I actually thought the scene with HMQ and Thatcher was rather touching. Two women who had been, if not adversaries as such, in power-struggle one-upmanship relationship for years. After one is defeated and publicly humiliated, the other reaches out with a gesture that says “We may have fought, and I may not have liked you, but I respect you”. I didn’t see it as condescending, especially as the Queen pinned the medal (which conveniently perfectly matched Thatcher’s suit) on her herself. I thought Gillian Anderson was at least trying to play it as Thatcher’s being overwhelmed by the gesture, but didn’t know what to say or do except to retreat (sans box) before she broke down, something which both women would’ve seen as sentimental nonsense. Just my take, of course, but that’s what I saw.

I actually don’t see the British easily becoming a republic. But, if they do, I think it will be because of a strong republican sentiment and not because of feelings about the person of the monarch. Anti-monarchists dislike the monarchy regardless of the monarch. Monarchists aren’t much likely to overturn their entire system of government And their beloved institution because they don’t like the king or his wife. They might call for him to step aside in favour of his son, but there is no constitutional mechanism to force him to do so. Given Charles’ age, it’s more likely, I think, that the people who dislike him will grumble, but accept that he’s unlikely to reign for long. At any rate, I’m not sure Charles and Camilla are as disliked as they were in the years after Diana’s death. Camilla was originally roasted over the coals (as were Anne, and, originally, Kate) but she’s kept her head down, “worked” (as far as what the Royals do can be called work) hard, acted modestly and charitably. On my occasional forays into the British press, I don’t see the same vitriol thrown at her as in the past. I’m also am tired of St Diana. It’s hard not to believe that, if she had lived, the cracks in the saintly appearance would’ve appeared. Charles was too much of a gentleman (or wanted to appear so) to publicly fight back with the truth about the mother of his children. She was such a media seeker she may well have ended up doing it herself had she been given enough time.

True, but I was assuming that, by the time he is of marriageable age, he’d be in the sixth, or possibly even fifth, slot. And he should be able to wear whatever fun hat he wants.

I hadn’t heard that, but it makes sense. Signed , a fellow history wonk

I don’t disagree, but this is not a normal family dynamic. The Sovereign apparently has legal custody over his/her children and grandchildren. Archie is a free agent for now, so to speak, because he’s a great grandchild. According to British law, though, unless he’s knocked down the line of succession by more kids or (eventually) grandchildren of William’s, he needs the Sovereign’s permission to marry. The British public pays a lot of money to keep this family in the style to which they are accustomed (yes, apparently it is less than £1 person, not counting extra costs like security for special events, but it’s collectively a lot). In exchange, they are expected to comport themselves with dignity, open hospitals and the like, show their newborn parasites - I mean children - to the public who pays their room and board. It’s a bit of a fun exercise to read the British press (and comments, of course!) over Megxit. So many of the comments were about “you want to go? Go, then, but pay us back the money we spent on you”. Even here in Canada, when H & M were pretending that living here was their goal rather than Hollywood. Some people thought it was charming, but there was a concomitant public outcry of “we’re not paying for their security. You want to be private citizens? Then support yourself”.

Title geek here. Grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line are granted the title of HRH Prince(ss). Anne’s children, obviously, aren’t male line descendants, so her kids didn’t get that automatically. Exceptions can be made, of course: HM extended the HRH Prince(ss) to George, Charlotte and Louis, even though they wouldn’t normally qualify until she died and they became either the grandchildren of King Charles III or the children of King William III (depending on whether Charles manages to outlive his mom). Harry & Meghan reportedly declined a similar accommodation for Archie, although he will automatically (barring any change in the rules) become HRH Prince Archie if Charles makes it to the throne. Anne did decline an offer to make Mark Philips a peer (Earl is common - that’s what Margaret’s first husband got) something that would have given her children courtesy titles but not HRH. Edward and Sophie’s kids are technically HRC Prince(ss) but, by their parents wish, don’t use that and go by their lesser titles as (merely) children of an Earl.

And on top of that, they were Americans. Americans do not bow/curtesy to foreign royalty. Subjects do so as a sign of fealty. Miss Manners says so and Miss Manners knows all such things. A friend of mine met the Duke of Edinburgh years ago as a representative of a Canadian charity HRH decided to grace with his presence. Before the event, a protocol officer briefed my friend thoroughly, from how to address the exalted one, how not to speak unless spoken to, not to extend his hand first, how to bow (Canadians, unlike Americans, are expected to do so) etc etc etc.. This was for a short cocktail party. No way on earth would the British PM not have the benefit of a protocol officer, either in the PMO or HM’s, to let her know what was expected from a whole weekend.

I think these are important observations. A date with the Heir Apparent isn’t a date: it’s a job interview and that job is Queen Consort. It’s a f*cked up notion, but those were the rules (and still are, although publicly modified for the modern audience which prefers to believe in the fairy tale). No one will ever know if Diana really did not know this, although I personally question whether the daughter of the Spencer family really didn’t get that. She ticked the boxes, she got the job and then decided she didn’t like the job. My sympathy is rather limited accordingly.

One of the clearest memories I have of Thatcher was an attempt to “feminize” her by filming her carrying out traditional female chores. The one video that came back to me when I saw her ironing in this episode, was her helpful tips on how to hem a skirt. “Rrrroll” the hem and don’t iron it down in case you want to adjust the hem later. It’s good advice, and I think of it every time I hem a garment, even though I don’t share her politics. But thank God female leaders (mainly) no longer feel obliged to prove their ovaries this way.

This post made me really think about how ridiculous those paramedics were. They were caring for a woman who had obviously just given birth (although with a remarkable lack of blood, especially for a home birth. But whatever). Some man is standing there holding a newborn baby, something which should have reinforced the opinion of trained medical professionals that she had just given birth to this particular baby. But they let him just walk off with the baby. I know the show tried to hand wave it as their being busy trying to revive her, but how did they know he wasn’t kidnapping her child? This was 1980 - not 1780 - they would have had to file a report about having tended to a woman who had just given birth and whose baby was taken away by some guy who claimed to be her boyfriend. Probably also called the police to find the baby. And then made the link to the baby left at the fire station. The reason the talk of death records made me think this is that Randall would have needed a birth certificate. In my Canadian jurisdiction, an application for a birth certificate for a non-hospital birth is accompanied by an affidavit of the paramedic, saying “this woman appeared to have just given birth and this Newborn baby was in the room and therefore I have reason to believe this baby was born to this woman on this date”. It made sense that no one would’ve filled out such paperwork if Randall had just been left anonymously at the fire station, but the presence of paramedics attending to his mother makes the whole scenario, well, implausible at best. I am way overthinking this. But now it’s going to bug me as this subplot unfolds. ETA: I posted this. Before I read @doodlebug ‘s post about investigating the abandoned baby. Agree wholeheartedly.

I hear you, and I don’t disagree. But TIU is not “about” these heavy issues. If it were, it would be a different show. I don’t mind shows about heavy issues: The Affair was about the heavy topic of Infidelity and I enjoyed that. It’s just not what I want from This is Us. I’m hoping the focus of the show doesn’t change going forward