madam magpie

But why bother treating her like an equal or a partner when you can toss out threats to puff up your male ego?

This is going to be super interesting. Thus far, Elizabeth has come across as incredibly sympathetic on this show. A lot of that has to do with Claire Foy. But I’ve also seen several other documentaries and read articles about her, and about how the palace handled Diana’s death, and I do think that it’s a very complex, tricky story to tell. There’s A LOT to unpack, and in many ways Elizabeth and Charles were horrible to Diana. It’s a disagreement I have with my mom a lot. She has zero sympathy for Charles and to this day sees him as a terrible person. On the other hand, I feel some sympathy for him, given that Camilla was clearly always the person he wanted and theirs is a relationship that has lasted decades. I also feel for Elizabeth because she’s often forced into an impossible position. I think Charles was shafted in the way we’ve seen Margaret be during these two seasons. But he was also terrible to his very young wife, and the family mistreated her. How the show can tell that story without demonizing either side, I don’t know. And without Claire Foy as Elizabeth, I’m not sure the character can remain sympathetic during that period. Maybe the show won’t try to do that. Maybe it’ll just slam the Queen. I’m super interested to see how it plays out, though. I’m also hoping we get to see Elizabeth and Margaret Thatcher.

Oh yeah! Falwell did found the university. That’s true. I do always mix up which one of them did/said what obnoxious thing. That said, Franklin Graham is also associated with Liberty University, and I read somewhere that the school recently joined forces with some Billy Graham organization to offer certain classes. To be fair, Billy Graham was pro integration, and like I said, Elizabeth being taken with him shows tolerance and egalitarianism on her part. That would’ve been super frowned upon in good Anglican circles. However, Graham absolutely is both an evangelist and an evangelical. And he was also the first (or at least first most famous) to make the “never alone with any woman but his wife” rule a thing. And he said something about “real women” being meant to be wives and mothers rather than pesky feminists. And weren’t there rumors of antisemitism? So...I’m pretty comfortable on the disdain train with Queen Mum, even if we are there for different reasons. ETA: I should clarify too that, as I understand it, it’s evangelicalism that’s associated with lower classes and would be frowned upon by upper class religions like Anglicans. An evangelist is just a preacher, I think, though the two often go together. Billy Graham also became famous on radio and TV starting in the 1940s and ‘50s, and he was (I think) the first to bring evangelicalism to a mass audience via those new media outlets. So to Queen Mum he’d have been a low-brow showman as well. He had a lot going against him in her opinion, I’d imagine.

Evangelism has always been considered low-brow. It’s the religion of poor southern people. Queen Mum is a member of the Church of England...high-brow. She looks down on Graham because he’s an American and an evangelical: ie, emotional, uncouth, lower class, etc. That Elizabeth was taken with him speaks to acceptance and egalitarianism on her part. I found that whole bit hilarious, but I also can’t stand Billy Graham or his son or their university or evangelism and all its hypocritical intolerance.

Right, but my point is that it sounds like she has a real job, not that she’s just working for the gallery so they can say they have a royal on the payroll. Whether she’s good at the job or a good worker, I have no idea. Even William and Harry had real jobs at one point: William did search and rescue, and Harry was in the military. No doubt, their family and position brought them attention and authority they hadn’t earned the regular way, but they did have real jobs, not just figure-head type positions.

I don’t know about Beatrice, but I read an article that said Eugenie worked at an art gallery. She’s 26 or something and already in an associate director (or just director?) role. But I think it’s a real job!

This is what I understood too, and I really dislike him for it. He’s basically lording over Elizabeth in any way he can because he’s so pathetic and sexist that he can’t treat her like an equal. One thing about this show is how awful it’s made Phillip look. I always thought he was the kinder, gentler royal. But if the portrayal on this show is true, he’s nothing but a whiny, weak asshole. I don’t feel bad for this character at all. I’ve felt bad for Charles for a long time, though. The way he behaved with Diana was horrible, but by all accounts, he adores his sons, treated them well, and has had a loving relationship with them. Seeing the poor kid here was so sad. One nitpicky thing: What year is this episode? It has to be at least 1963, right, because Kennedy died in the last episode? That means Charles would be at least 15. The kid playing looked no more than 12.

Amen to that! I love this! Add me to the camp who laughed when Tommy moved the toy soldier back. You could just see him struggling not to lose it after the queen MESSED UP HIS MODEL. This was a great episode, the best of the series, I think. Claire Foy really is fantastic in this, isn’t she? She says so much with just small expressions and those great eyes.

Me too. It shows a real thoughtfulness, perceptiveness, and deep intelligence, even as Claire Foy always plays Elizabeth as self-conscious about her lack of education. She really is almost always the smartest person in the room, particularly because of that willingness to listen and reconsider. I was surprised that Jackie was so unprepared to meet the queen and acted so gauche (as my mother would say). Wasn’t she supposed to have been pretty classy? She was born into money and grew up in the high society world. I don’t believe she didn’t know how to behave. And she was supposed to be high?? Nah. I also don’t buy JFK as a crass douchebag. A high-brow douchebag, sure, but this guy acted like he’d fallen into money and never been to a fancy gathering before. And I’ve NEVER heard that JFK was abusive because Jackie was beloved in Paris. That story became super famous and charming. That said, it was fun to see Jodie Balfour as Jackie. I loved her in Bomb Girls and hadn’t known what she’d been up to since.

I always watch with the closed captioning on...just in case.

This episode was very sad, not funny at all. I hope Letty and Javier aren’t separated for too long. I like them together.

This is what I thought too...maybe she and the ex were working together.

Loved the show...it’s gorgepus, like everyone says. But I agree that it seemed to be wrapped up really suddenly. I thought the shoot-out was cool, but couldn’t figure out why Alice and Maggie didn’t shoot Frank while he just sat there on his horse right out in the open. Well, I get it for plot reasons, but not for story reasons. We never found out what Roy’s brother’s job was, did we? He made a comment in the letter that said he had a job Roy wouldn’t believe, but then we never found out what it was. Or did I miss that? I kept expecting something shady to come up with the preacher, but I guess he was just a preacher? The actors were all so fantastic, every one of them. Plus, I was a huge fan of Downtown Abbey and Lady Mary was my favorite character, so I really enjoyed Michelle Dockery in this. I thought she was great as Alice, maybe the best character I’ve seen her play.

This was probably my favorite episode so far. Really great stuff. Holland Taylor and Mr. Sheffield were fantastic. I felt terrible for Letty in this episode. We really got to see why she struggles as she does. And whew. Poor Jacob. The bit about Estelle being a good mother, though? What?? I’m guessing we aren’t supposed to take Holland Taylor as a reliable narrator.

I thought this episode was hilarious. “It’s a sign” still has me laughing. And the Rihana song at the end was perfect.