S03.E03: Aberfan

[SusanwatchingTV]

On 11/18/2019 at 8:54 AM, swanpride said:

7 hours ago, swanpride said:

This London School explosion...wow...I wondered why I never heard of this one until I read about the relatives of the victims being so unwilling to talk about it. I completely get it.

Yes, it was awful and a lot of people couldn't talk about it. Some in my family still talk about it, but it was a very small town in deep east Texas and it was the 1930s. WWII came along right after and overshadowed everything else.  There are a few books about it.

I had not heard of Aberfan before, but it definitely was a powerful episode and beautifully done. I thought of the London School disaster immediately when I saw the foreshadowing. It breaks my heart. 

i can see what people are saying when they point out that the show made it seem as if the queen’s emotion was more important than anything else, but to me that’s what the whole show is about, so I guess it didn’t really bother me.

Edited November 29, 2019 by SusanwatchingTV

[Aliferously]

I would think it's perfectly ok to not have the Queen show up the day after a disaster because a) safety reasons and b) what would be expected she do there? Stand around while people are digging out their dead children? Help them dig them out?

It's not she couldn't be bothered, but perhaps etiquette practicalities didn't allow for any more then what she did.

I thought the tear at the end was somewhat overwrought. I kept thinking "a lonely tear slowly drips down your cheek" said in a dramatic tone. 

I was astonished that the people of Aberfan were so calm. I'd be in hysterics and never recover, let alone be capable of facing a monarch. 

[roamyn]

On 11/18/2019 at 9:54 AM, swanpride said:

Even the Sandy Hook massacre "only" killed 20 children. Aberfan killed over 100. There was certainly not one single member in the community which didn't lose at least one child from their close family.

It's not my intention to play any of those shootings down, they were all terrible, and one person dying (never mind a child) is one too much. But the scale of what happened in Aberfan is quite unique. There have been catastrophes in which over 100 people died, but I can't think of a case in which specifically over 100 children died. It's like the village lost a whole generation in one single day.

Ash Wednesday, 1908.

The Village of Collinwood (now Cleveland), Ohio lost 173 children, 2 teachers, and 1 rescuer, in the USAs worst school fire.  Every door on one block had a black ribbon on it, they say.  Some families lost all their children. 

The memorial gardens are still there, on the footprint of the school foundation.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/3092/collinwood_school_fire_memorial

Edited November 30, 2019 by roamyn

[formerlyfreedom]

Let’s please take discussion of other non-Aberfan tragedies to the Small Talk topic, and keep posts here mostly about the episode. Thank you.

[Roseanna]

12 hours ago, Aliferously said:

I would think it's perfectly ok to not have the Queen show up the day after a disaster because a) safety reasons and b) what would be expected she do there? Stand around while people are digging out their dead children? Help them dig them out?

It's not she couldn't be bothered, but perhaps etiquette practicalities didn't allow for any more then what she did.

I thought the tear at the end was somewhat overwrought. I kept thinking "a lonely tear slowly drips down your cheek" said in a dramatic tone. 

I was astonished that the people of Aberfan were so calm. I'd be in hysterics and never recover, let alone be capable of facing a monarch. 

One can't know beforehand how one reacts in a situation that one can't even imagine. Some people are numb. And it's also a question of cultural tradition. The British were supposed  to have "stiff upper lip" and "keep calm and carry on".

But I agree with you that a few people would have been such a state that they just after losing their loved one(s) would be able to meet the monarch or president or prime minister - and anyway, how could he or she help them? Meeting them is more for the media.

If anybody could help, then their relatives, friends, priest,  or nowadays professional or voluntary helpers who are taught for disasters.   

It's different with the general public. Their shock could be helped by the monarch, president or prime minister. 

[Crs97]

I knew Aberfan was a mining accident that killed children, but I didn’t know details.  That was just heartbreaking.

I don’t know how I felt about the rest of it.  I don’t usually cry at important times, and someone telling me I should cry is the best way to dry my tear ducts.  But empathy is totally different, and listening to them list all the things she would do in Aberfan, including meeting with families, and then say she’d be done in 2.5 hours chilled my blood a little. 

Frankly, I somewhat assumed she wouldn’t cry in that final scene and was a little surprised when the tear fell.  Then we read the interview of a witness who said she was definitely crying at the scene, and I hate that the show made its central point such a false narrative.

I wish they had given more information about the families and the aftermath of the tragedy.

[dubbel zout]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

The British were supposed  to have "stiff upper lip" and "keep calm and carry on".

Ah, but these were the Welsh. Remember someone told her it wouldn't be amiss to show some emotion because of that?

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Ah, but these were the Welsh. Remember someone told her it wouldn't be amiss to show some emotion because of that?

Yes, and that made it twice hard. Showing emotion was against Elizabeth's character and upbringing but also against the English norms. Which her parents didn't follow if they really wept when visiting in the hospital during the war.  

[Umbelina]

Again, the show tried to make it all about SHOWING emotions, but Elizabeth as depicted HAD no emotions about that tragedy, she was only concerned about herself.

We saw her alone several times, so it was a massive fail for me, either acting, directing, or writing, unless the intention this season is to make QEII a nasty piece of work, which it very well may be.

[Roseanna]

10 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Again, the show tried to make it all about SHOWING emotions, but Elizabeth as depicted HAD no emotions about that tragedy, she was only concerned about herself.

We saw her alone several times, so it was a massive fail for me, either acting, directing, or writing, unless the intention this season is to make QEII a nasty piece of work, which it very well may be.

Having emotions and showing emotions and showing empathy are three different things.

A person can have emotions but be unwilling or unable to show them. Showing emotions can be genuine or artful. Showing empathy is not showing one's own emotions but an ability to be in touch with the other's emotions.

Therefore, it didn't matter a bit if Elizabeth had emotions or not, still less if she cried in private. Her public role demanded that she showed emotions according to what the Welsh people waited for. That she did, although late, although it was against her character and upbringing. With Prime Minister she was "only concerned with herself" because valueing honesty she was shamed of acting. That's rather to her credit as politicians do it all the time. 

Spoiler

Elizabeth had learned the most important thing: she reprimander Prime Minister Heath for not caring for miners and being too rigid during the strike. That is, she acted although she had to do it in private because of her constitutial limits. And acting is more important than emotions.  

[MV713]

On 11/18/2019 at 3:08 PM, PRgal said:

Question:  Does anyone know if QEII REALLY wore colour when she visited Aberfan?  Or was it creative licence to make her stand out?

I saw pictures on line and yes that outfit was almost exactly identical.

[dubbel zout]

The costuming is probably the most authentic and accurate thing in the series. The designer and team nail it.

[CeeBeeGee]

On 11/17/2019 at 2:04 PM, swanpride said:

That was a hard episode to watch. I knew nothing about the disaster, but when I saw the children, the rain als the huge mountain or whatever behind the school, I just knew what would happen. All the children singing the night before...that was extremely effective.

I also love that the episode didn't really end on this tear, but on all those children playing in the playground with the long shadow, hinting to the adults they never got to be.

On 11/17/2019 at 9:59 PM, WatchrTina said:

Somehow I knew about Aberfan.  I can't think why (I'm American and was only 5 years old when it happened) but I speculate that there must have been news stories about it online on the 50th anniversary in 2016.  So I knew what was coming a soon as the episode started.  But seeing it dramatized . . . and especially seeing the fruitless efforts to save the children in the school . . . well, that's a whole other level of horror vs. just reading about it.

That mountain, looming darkly like Leviathon in the background was terrifying. Imagine being that teacher, standing at the window watching doom approach, the people digging through coal with their hands--GOD. Absolutely wrenching.

Yes, the closing credits were very effective.

On 11/18/2019 at 12:11 AM, ProudMary said:

The extended manner in which it was written that Wilson had tried to convince the Queen that she, herself should go to Aberfan and the many days until she finally decided to make the trip was reminiscent of 

  Hide contents

the scenes in The Queen, also written by Peter Morgan, when Tony Blair tried for several days to convince Elizabeth that she needed to come back to London after Diana's death to interact with her devastated subjects.

Very reminiscent of The Queen.

Rewatching: the teflon quality of the NCB, the utter refusal to accept responsibility--GOD. That stiff little board of institutional men is lucky they weren't lynched on the spot.

The bodies in the chapel remind me of the Hartford Circus Fire, in Connecticut in--'44, I think?

I enjoyed the exchange between Margaret and Antony. He was Welsh (or part-) and, well, a human being, so of course this affected him. I think I remember Margaret went on the record about how horrible this was.

I lift mine eyes up unto the hills, whence cometh my help...

Edited December 6, 2019 by CeeBeeGee
Rewatching

[FozzyBear]

On 11/18/2019 at 10:01 AM, Pallas said:

My guess is that Elizabeth observed a distinction between war zones and natural disasters. The monarch is the titular leader of the military; during the battle of Britain, bombings on native soil were acts of aggression by a belligerent foreign power. The Windsors could appear among the people -- "a little touch of Harry in the night" -- in the Crown's traditional role: to boost morale among the home front and the troops. 

But natural disasters are also known as acts of God, or Providence. There was probably no precedent for rallying the people against acts of God, and no traditional role to be followed. Which would explain why Elizabeth asked Wilson, twice, "To do what, exactly?"

  Reveal spoiler

That, and because this question obviously fascinates Peter Morgan: does the Crown -- does this Queen, in particular -- have a duty to serve as Her Empathy?  Is that what the people want from her? 

I agree that the royal family vowed public moral during wartime as something that fit in their duties. They tried to be the living embodiment of Keep Calm and Carry On. And i would have to look this up, but I think the royal family visited the bomb sites after, not during the rescue efforts. I would not be at all surprised if the Crown visited sites like this accident well after everything was said and done in memorial (like the Queen would have showed up a month or so later) and the show downplayed that to focus on the tension (that is a very real problem Queen Elizabeth faced) about public perceptions of how leaders should connect to the people changing rapidly in the late 20th century.

[Black Knight]

On 11/19/2019 at 12:04 PM, Umbelina said:

I don't understand, and I doubt I ever will, why the Queen didn't at least react privately.  When she's told about the disaster, she simply talks protocol.  After meeting some of the families who have lost their children, she fakes a tear.  Then she obsesses about HERSELF and inability to cry on command.

At no point does she show anything that even resembles someone who gives one damn about these victims.  Why didn't they add a conversation with Philip about how horrible it was, for example, or sad, or just a scene when she looks at her own small kids, Edward and Anthony, and have the tears come then?

On the plane, it just seemed like her reason for tears was to prove to herself she COULD cry, but it was prompted by a recorded hymn, not one of the townspeople singing, but just a canned hymn.

I just watched the episode today.

To your first paragraph - when she's told of the disaster, she lets out a small gasp. And she doesn't bring up protocol out of the blue. First they review the statement she'll issue, and then she's asked if her plane can be used to fly the Prime Minister to Wales, to which she immediately agrees. Then he mentions the possibility of her going herself, and only then does she bring up protocol. It's not like she heard the news of the tragedy and immediately responded with something about protocol.

To your second paragraph - when she meets with the Prime Minister the first time, she's listening with complete attention and interest to his exposition of the situation, and then asks if more victims might be found. That's not uncaring.

To your third paragraph - she did ask for a recording of the townspeople singing. Even though that obviously hadn't been obtained for her yet at the end of the episode, I think it actually shows more empathy that she was able to tear up listening to the professional choir. Getting emotional listening to victims singing (or looking at your own children) is easy. Unlike Philip, she didn't need the additional pathos. Listening to the words of the hymn, the music, knowing that the townspeople had responded to the tragedy by singing - that was enough.

I did see her as visibly affected by the tragedy throughout the episode, processing it. It's just done subtly, through tiny facial expressions and the look in her eyes. She's not the type who's going to cry, she's not the type who's going to make big facial expressions, and she's not the type who's going to make what to her seems like pointless talk stating the obvious: "Oh yes, it's so terrible." Some people do find an emotional release in talking that way, but others don't.

And all you can really do with someone who has lost someone is say, "I'm sorry," as she did. Those families lost their children. Nothing the Queen said was going to comfort them, and because she isn't egotistical, she knew that very well.

I think back to her diary, where she simply writes for the day, "Aberfan." That's her to the core. She writes one simple, loaded word that carries in it, for her, everything about the situation. She doesn't need to fill up a page with details - when she reads back in the diary, it all will come to her in seeing the name of the town. And that entire day for her is the tragedy in Aberfan - nothing else that happened that day mattered a bit to her. If she didn't care about Aberfan, she would have written about the other things she did that day. So she's not unemotional or uncaring inside, she's simply minimalist with her expression. But she found herself in a situation where some people wanted something showy.

I don't think speaking for a minute to the Prime Minister about not being someone who cries qualifies as obsessing about herself. It was a natural topic to touch on, since in this episode she had to deal with a situation in which the usual rules were thrown out: Normally who she is as a person and what the role of queen demands of her are entirely complementary: outward stoicism, rigid adherence to tradition and protocol. It's why she's a better queen than Margaret would have been (and makes the placement of this episode right after Margaretology a great juxtaposition). But in this situation, suddenly there was a dichotomy between her personal self and professional responsibilities, instead of them being complementary. Margaret knows all about what that's like, but Elizabeth is unused to it. And she wants to be a good queen; she wants to do her duty. So it's natural for her to talk with the PM about how and why she had fallen short in this situation. It was as much a professional assessment as a personal assessment - shown by his responding by going into a monologue about the things you have to do to be a leader. Some self-examination was warranted, and that's not the same thing as obsession.

[Umbelina]

@Black Knight

We just disagree.  I have no problem at all with the Queen being stoic and professional with her staff and in public.  

However, we saw her in many solitary moments during this episode, and there were opportunities for several other ways to show that she actually cared about any of the suffering her government had callously caused.  As I said, the young kids playing outside the window, or during a conversation with Margaret or Tony.

"The Queen can't cry" was idiotic.  We've SEEN her cry before, and in reading eye witness memories from people in Aberfan, this ridiculous construct of the episode being centered around the Queen's lack of tears is not only false, insulting, and incredibly self centered?  It's bullshit as well.  The stories of the people from Aberfan, written long before this episode, talk about her tearing up with them and showing great care and concern.

The writers made a choice here, and it was the wrong choice.   To center the episode on whether or not the Queen could cry?  Seriously?  Horrifying choice in my opinion.  Also obviously they have decided to change the queen's personality completely from the other seasons.

In addition, they, according to Colman, specifically gave her an earpiece playing nonsense so she would NOT be emotional in any scene.

I feel this was a writing/directing choice to make her cold and hard, and so they could have their "big moment" of tears on that plane, and I hate it.

Foy was allowed to show nuance in the Queen, outwardly cold and dignified, inwardly human, caring, and a whole person.  Apparently Colman wasn't, or couldn't manage the subtle ways Foy deftly handled to let us know what was going on inside that outwardly proper shell.

I've posted more about this "new, hard, cold" Queen in the Season 3 thread, but the choices in this episode, while particularly annoying to me, continue throughout the season, and the question is WHY.  I gave my guesses in the other thread.

Either way, bravo to this episode EXCEPT for the Queen's part, and of course, for not going on a bit with the causes of this disaster, as they did in other seasons' episodes at least as an afterword.  (The British Fog for example)

Edited January 9, 2020 by Umbelina

[limecoke]

Quote

t was nice that they mentioned that Elizabeth "visited that town more than any other royal" in later years, but dang, how often and for WHAT possible reason would another royal visit it at all?  They don't even want to go to Wales.

She went to Aberfan to dedicate the new junior school.  She also returned on the 50th anniversary of the tragedy.  

YouTube has a couple of good documentaries about Aberfan.  The tips were eventually removed, thanks to men in the town who wouldn't take no for an answer from the Coal Board and got the job done.  How they did it is explained in one of the documentaries.  I highly recommend "Surviving Aberfan."  It was produced for the 50th anniversary and features survivors and parents of lost children.  According to many people who were actually there, the Queen was visibly moved and shed real tears.  I don't know why the show decided to make such a big deal about her lack of emotion but it made for a good "one tear" scene at the end.  Fictional, but well done balderdash.

I cut the woman some slack.  She wasn't raised to be hyper-emotional as people expect today.  I'm a pretty stoic person on the outside but am capable of deep feelings and emotions...I just don't "bleed" in public. 

Edited January 25, 2020 by limecoke

[PeterPirate]

I think one positive aspect of the "the Queen can't cry" plot device was the replaying of the singing by the Welsh choir.  It was truly mesmerizing.  

The bit about the teacher standing as the coal slag bore down on him reminded me of the scene from Titanic where the captain stood on the bridge waiting for the water to flood in.  Also, the scripture passage from this episode was the same as the one being recited in that movie.  

[Por356c]

Does anyone know what the passages were that the Pastor was reading during the dismal scene of the children's coffins. 

[RedbirdNelly]

On 11/17/2019 at 8:59 PM, WatchrTina said:

Somehow I knew about Aberfan.  I can't think why (I'm American and was only 5 years old when it happened) but I speculate that there must have been news stories about it online on the 50th anniversary in 2016.  So I knew what was coming a soon as the episode started.  But seeing it dramatized . . . and especially seeing the fruitless efforts to save the children in the school . . . well, that's a whole other level of horror vs. just reading about it.

 

agree on the above. I must have read about it for the anniversary because the start of the episode immediately rang bells for me. The scene of the parents digging with their hands just got to me.  And the shadows with the children playing. . and knowing so many died.

[ddawn23]

On 1/30/2020 at 4:07 PM, Por356c said:

Does anyone know what the passages were that the Pastor was reading during the dismal scene of the children's coffins. 

It was a disjointed mishmash of Revelation 21:4, Isaiah 41:10, Isaiah 40:11, Zechariah 8:5, Malachi 3:17, Revelation 7:1, and Revelation 14:13. All KJV, of course. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by ddawn23

[Camera One]

On 1/9/2020 at 11:02 AM, Umbelina said:

The writers made a choice here, and it was the wrong choice.   To center the episode on whether or not the Queen could cry?  Seriously?  Horrifying choice in my opinion.  Also obviously they have decided to change the queen's personality completely from the other seasons.

Foy was allowed to show nuance in the Queen, outwardly cold and dignified, inwardly human, caring, and a whole person.  Apparently Colman wasn't, or couldn't manage the subtle ways Foy deftly handled to let us know what was going on inside that outwardly proper shell.

I've posted more about this "new, hard, cold" Queen in the Season 3 thread, but the choices in this episode, while particularly annoying to me, continue throughout the season, and the question is WHY.  I gave my guesses in the other thread.

That's what I was thinking when I watched this episode.  Maybe I should have waited a year before starting Season 3, because I am finding it very difficult to reconcile this older queen with the younger queen of the first two seasons, who seem like two different people.   It's almost like she was taken over by a robot.  I was distracted every time in the episode they filmed the queen from the back, since one could almost imagine it wasn't this new actress playing her.  

I did not know about this sad event and that's one of the reasons why I appreciate historical fiction in that I learn something new.

[GaT]

I'm watching today's episode of The Repair Shop, & a woman brought in her father's fireman's helmet & she talked a little about how he was one of the firemen who were at Aberfan & they showed a couple of photos of the destruction.

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Truly wonderful introduction to daily life in that town and school.  In a very brief time, Morgan depicted a proud, and even hopeful, people.  Bravo.

The evil of politics was on full display, as well.  And we the people get all worked up every once in awhile when we are reminded that this is the system we choose.  The summoned sitdown with Wilson was a brilliant exposition of the winks and nods of false expectations which largely serve to deflect blame - as the village of Aberfan needed to do in order to cope with such a horrendous tragedy.

The horrifying moment as the wall of surry was about to overtake the school brought me back to the tidal/rogue wave scene in The Poseidon Adventure.  The schoolmaster was playing the role of a crewman on the bridge, recognizing the fate that was dead ahead.  What an awful feeling I experienced when watching these.  I genuinely cannot imagine what that would be like in real life.

I note that Martin is playing a more and more significant role in each passing ep.  Adeane's exasperation when Charteris entered to tell the Queen of the tragedy was a bit overdone, imo.  Yet, the natural tensions were well foreshadowed when Lascelles took his retirement.  I look forward to more.

[PeterPirate]

The real Queen Elizabeth grieved for those poor souls.  

(I do appreciate this show.  But it's possible to enjoy a show while pointing out its flaws.)

Edited September 9, 2022 by PeterPirate

[Roseanna]

On 9/9/2022 at 8:54 PM, PeterPirate said:

The real Queen Elizabeth grieved for those poor souls.  

Yes, the historian Ted Powell writes in The Queen published by BBC that those who were present irl saw her shed tears. And the real reason she didn't go at once was that she was afraid that her presence could have disturbed the rescuer work (just as she said in the show).