S04.E07: The Hereditary Principle

[Minivanessa]

2 hours ago, foxfreakinmulder said:

Who were those people that Margaret went to visit with the pool? They looked familiar but I don't remember.

 

2 hours ago, bijoux said:

She met Roddy, her young lover, at their house party last season. And I think they were later shown taking care of her Mustique property. 

They were Colin Tennant, 3rd Baron Glenconner, and his wife Anne. I'm editing this to take the rest of what I want to say over to the Beyond the Episode topic.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Jeeves

[lavenderblue]

Way beside the point, but I was bothered by the time discrepancy in this episode. We're told it's Edward's 21st birthday, which was in March 1985, but also that Diana is pregnant again, and Harry was born in September 1984. So is it 1984 or 1985 in show time? I didn't really see a major narrative need to fudge this, aside from Diana's pregnancy being used as a lead-in to Charles's raising the therapy idea.

This is nitpicky but I'm a year younger than Harry so this particular date issue stood out to me, lol.

 

[emmawoodhouse]

34 minutes ago, lavenderblue said:

Way beside the point, but I was bothered by the time discrepancy in this episode. We're told it's Edward's 21st birthday, which was in March 1985, but also that Diana is pregnant again, and Harry was born in September 1984. So is it 1984 or 1985 in show time? I didn't really see a major narrative need to fudge this, aside from Diana's pregnancy being used as a lead-in to Charles's raising the therapy idea.

This is nitpicky but I'm a year younger than Harry so this particular date issue stood out to me, lol.

 

I'm about the same age as Edward, so I also caught the discrepancy. I haven't watched subsequent episodes to know when they take place, but this could have taken place in '85 since we don't know when (or if) Margaret actually discovered her cousins. 

[Clanstarling]

 

On 11/17/2020 at 9:39 AM, tennisgurl said:

They cant blame everything on the abdication!

Apparently they can. It's a good scapegoat for every unsavory decision they make.

On 11/18/2020 at 7:28 AM, benteen said:

So 7 episodes in, this is the episode they decide to give Helena Bonham Carter?  I just find myself frustrated with how little they use her and how many of the Margaret episodes are so repetitive.  Margaret wants more to do, only for her power to be taken away from her by the Queen, who feels sorry for her but can't do anything for her. 

If I understood it correctly, technically it wasn't the Queen who took away her power, but the fact that now that Edward was 21, she was bumped down the list as an official representative of the Crown (?). In much the same way it wasn't the Queen who denied her marriage to Townsend.

On 11/20/2020 at 7:26 PM, SeanC said:

There isn't any particular reason to think the Palace was involved in any of this, in the real world.  A lot of the time people today have a tendency to try to assess the past in terms of singular or conspiratorial motivations when it was a general societal practice; see also, from around this same time period, the way that Joe and Rose Kennedy vanished their mentally-disabled daughter Roesmary from public view with similar obfuscation about her whereabouts for a few decades (though that case has the additional icky factor of Rosemary's disability being the result of her parents trying to "cure" her with a lobotomy).  If you could afford it, shuffling such relations out of sight and out of mind was the done thing.

I was thinking about the Kennedy family and Rosemary during the reveal.

11 hours ago, lavenderblue said:

Way beside the point, but I was bothered by the time discrepancy in this episode. We're told it's Edward's 21st birthday, which was in March 1985, but also that Diana is pregnant again, and Harry was born in September 1984. So is it 1984 or 1985 in show time? I didn't really see a major narrative need to fudge this, aside from Diana's pregnancy being used as a lead-in to Charles's raising the therapy idea.

This is nitpicky but I'm a year younger than Harry so this particular date issue stood out to me, lol.

 

I'm not sure there was a time discrepancy, though I do forget when Charles said Diana was pregnant, so I may have missed it. Margaret had the lung surgery, and then there was a bit of a time jump when she was recovered and asking for more duties.

Okay, a little research, Margaret had the lung surgery in January of 85. And I can't find the scene where Diana's pregnancy is mentioned. So yes, the time discrepancy is pretty major. But it's not like they haven't done that before, even in this season.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Clanstarling

[dubbel zout]

10 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

If I understood it correctly, technically it wasn't the Queen who took away her power, but the fact that now that Edward was 21, she was bumped down the list as an official representative of the Crown (?).

This is correct. The children of the sovereign outrank the siblings of the sovereign.

[bijoux]

30 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

 

Apparently they can. It's a good scapegoat for every unsavory decision they make.

If I understood it correctly, technically it wasn't the Queen who took away her power, but the fact that now that Edward was 21, she was bumped down the list as an official representative of the Crown (?). In much the same way it wasn't the Queen who denied her marriage to Townsend.

I was thinking about the Kennedy family and Rosemary during the reveal.

I'm not sure there was a time discrepancy, though I do forget when Charles said Diana was pregnant, so I may have missed it. Margaret had the lung surgery, and then there was a bit of a time jump when she was recovered and asking for more duties.

Okay, a little research, Margaret had the lung surgery in January of 85. And I can't find the scene where Diana's pregnancy is mentioned. So yes, the time discrepancy is pretty major. But it's not like they haven't done that before, even in this season.

Charles mentions it when he goes to Mustique to visit Margaret where she's recovering if I recall correctly.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, Clanstarling said:

If I understood it correctly, technically it wasn't the Queen who took away her power, but the fact that now that Edward was 21, she was bumped down the list as an official representative of the Crown (?)

Martin Charteris mentions the Regency Act of 1937.  Kind of interesting information.  

[tvrox]

All this talk of "Friends of Dorothy" and no mention of the AIDS crisis happening at that time? I hope that's on a future episode. 

[MaggieG]

Judging from the comments this might be an unpopular opinion, but this episode did not redeem me to Margaret at all. I just showed me that once again she loves complaining about how horrible her family is, but she will always throw her royal weight around. Making sure the therapist addressed her as Ma'am and complaining that she had to go to her, why couldn't the therapist come to me? I also have never cared for the Queen Mum and agree that not everything can be blamed on the abdication. The cousins probably would have been sent away regardless of who became King. And did Margaret ever go spend time with her cousins, volunteer at that hospital, organize any sort of mental health initiatives? No, she probably continued complaining about her family and how unfair she was being treated. No love lost between Margaret and I 😜

I still love HBC though. 

I can't believe the one cousin lived until 2014, she must have been in her eighties or nineties.

[AZChristian]

31 minutes ago, MaggieG said:

I can't believe the one cousin lived until 2014, she must have been in her eighties or nineties.

She was 88 when she died.

The sisters were committed in 1941, several years after George VI became king.  As big as the Brits are on royal genealogy, it should have been obvious that the gene that caused their mental disease did not affect George VI or his descendants.  Yes, they probably were - and would have been - put away regardless of their connection to the royal family.  But I can't get past the fact that the only money given to the hospital by the insanely rich RF was as part of their annual charity contributions - in this case, 125 pounds per year.  At that time (1941), it would have been like giving $166. 

It angers and grieves me that the Queen Mother did nothing and - apparently - said nothing to her family.  She was too busy drinking gin, being curtsied to, and playing "Ibble Dibble" to show even a modicum of compassion to these women whose blood flowed through her veins.

I do want to correct something related to a picture I posted earlier in this thread.  When Nerissa died in 1986, that plastic marker WAS the only marker on her grave.  Then, in 2011 (25 years later!), there was a TV documentary about the sisters, and a gravestone was finally placed there by the royal family.  I have not been able to find a picture of the new headstone . . . not even on findagrave.com.

[TaurusRose]

On 11/17/2020 at 8:39 AM, Helena Dax said:

Wow, I didn't know this story. Putting the sisters away is bad enough, (though pretty normal at the time) but pretending they're dead?? I'm shocked. 

I wonder if the British Royal Family have really gone softer since then. It certainly looks like it, but who knows what happens behind closed doors.  

Loved Margaret calling that guy "Lurch" lol

This was new information for me, too.  Then again, I only keep up with a few royals, and I don't really scrutinize them either.  That said, I don't think the BRF has gone softer.  They still seem to be a pretty tough bunch.

On 11/17/2020 at 8:28 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

 I was laughing at Philip during Edwards birthday party.  Royals,  they're just like us, having one drink too many and spilling the beans about how their kids were conceived.  

I swear TM is killing it as Philip this year.  LOL

On 11/21/2020 at 10:45 AM, dubbel zout said:

I loved Dazzle's entrance, snaking in to David Bowie's "Let's Dance." It looked as if the actors were having a blast with it, too.

(And again I wonder what the music budget is. Bowie likely doesn't come cheap.)

Okay Dazzle was played by Tom Burke who appeared on my radar when he played Athos in The Musketeers.  It was nice seeing him again.  I think he is handsome in an unconventional way.  And Bowie!  "Let's Dance" was one of my favorite jams back in the day.  It still makes me move my feet when I hear it. 

Edited November 27, 2020 by taurusrose

[Cheezwiz]

31 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

Okay Dazzle was played by Tom Burke who appeared on my radar when he played Athos in The Musketeers.  It was nice seeing him again.  I think he is handsome in an unconventional way.  And Bowie!  "Let's Dance" was one of my favorite jams back in the day.  It still makes me move my fee when I hear it. 

I really enjoyed his performance too - he was totally convincing as an upper-crust social butterfly party boy type. He is unusual looking in an interesting way. I looked him up on IMDB, and apparently he's going to be playing Orson Welles in an upcoming biobic of screenwriter Joseph Mankeewicz. A good likeness I think! He's also in a film called The Souvenir, which I've heard good things about and keep meaning to see.

[Renee in CA]

On 11/20/2020 at 9:08 AM, iluvobx said:

I couldn't figure out why it started in the asylum and on those 2 women.  I was puzzled until the Dr. said I know about the twins.  The light bulb went off.  I was shocked.  Just unreal how they were treated but that was the way back then but to basically deny their existence and lie about it.  Only to try to safe face?  My opinion of the Queen Mum has really changed.

This has been my favorite episode of this season.

I am sure that Margaret did spend time with all of them, she came back with a lot of knowledge of who each one was.  The episode showed her with them (or did I imagine that.)

If you believe Wikipedia, no one from the Royal family ever visited them. Not even Margaret.

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, taurusrose said:

I swear TM is killing it as Philip this year. 

There were times when Charles sounded exactly like Philip, and I thought they had looped TM's voice over Josh O'Connor.  

[chocolatine]

On 11/16/2020 at 5:30 PM, JudyObscure said:

I was so hoping Margaret, who wanted some worth while work to do, would start visiting her cousins regularly.  They would have been so thrilled to have her come to their birthday parties "in person" and not just through photos and TV.

Yes, I was really disappointed that she didn't do anything for them after throwing such a tantrum about it. She went right back to Mustique and her partying ways. I guess the fact that she wasn't partying with her usual enthusiasm was supposed to make me feel bad for her, but it didn't.

There was one subtle detail that I loved: after Martin Charteris told Margaret about the Regency Act, she asked him several times to leave the room, but he didn't budge until the Queen gave him a tiny nod. Not even the employees of the Crown take orders from Margaret.

[buttersister]

On 11/22/2020 at 10:25 AM, Clanstarling said:

I was thinking about the Kennedy family and Rosemary during the reveal.

Me as well. But also that she likely never had a plastic headstone. These people. Was glad to see that was finally rectified. Wonder whose idea it was?

HBC is doing a great job, but geez, it's no wonder Elizabeth didn't trust her to stick with any job she got. I'm outraged that my cousins, who reportedly know who I am, are locked away in a place where they can get visitors. Not me. But I'm outraged! 

The Queen Mum was clearly bitter to the end about how her life was ruined by her brother-in-law. But that was a long, pampered ruined life she lived.And at least her daughter kept in touch.

[Paloma]

On 11/16/2020 at 11:00 PM, Umbelina said:

I would have liked to know sooner why we were in a Mental hospital I think.  It would have had more impact on me to realize the connection while watching those scenes.  It takes knowing who they are, and watching again to get the full impact of the story.

I kept saying to my husband, "Why do they keep cutting back and forth to the hospital? What do these people have to do with the story?" I even worried that the real developmentally disabled people in the scenes were being exploited by the film-makers in order to make a contrast between their lives and those of the royals. Of course, it was intended to make a contrast, but it would have made more sense and maybe seemed less exploitative if we knew the underlying reason sooner.

On 11/17/2020 at 10:23 AM, WatchrTina said:

I recently binge-re-watched an entire TV series that had a huge central secret that is not revealed until the very end of the first season (I won't say which one because, spoilers).  I can still recall how blown away I was the first time through when that secret was revealed.  On the second time through I kept looking for hints and, sure enough, they WERE there. Some were even things I had complained about on the first viewing because they struck me as inconsistencies in the plot.  

Oh, no, now it is going to drive me crazy trying to figure out which show this is. Can you send me a PM with the name? (obviously without spoilers)

On 11/17/2020 at 12:49 PM, JudyObscure said:

Thanks for calling it a group home, some have referred to it as an "insane asylum" and I didn't see  that at all.  In fact the nurses seemed particularly kind and everyone seemed happy together as though they had created a family of their own. 

The staff did seem kind, but my husband pointed out (even before we knew how this part of the story connected to the royals) that male and female patients slept in a room together with beds next to each other. Makes it easier for the staff to care for them, but also deprives the patients of privacy and does not protect them from sexual abuse or violence. Although the show depicted all the patients as childlike and cooperative, developmentally disabled people in teen or adult bodies can still have urges that they may act on inappropriately without even knowing it is wrong.

At least the staff could have put females in one room and males in another, but maybe they needed more funding than 125 pounds a year for each patient to do that.

On 11/17/2020 at 9:29 PM, Peace 47 said:

That is, while it I agree that a show like this shining a light on a little known dark chapter like this does have value, I found myself wondering why they were wedging this particular story into Margaret’s depression storyline because it didn’t feel organic.  The therapist nudging Margaret in the direction of looking into the situation of the institutionalized relatives was weird because it plunged Margaret into this spiral of worry that she was also genetically destined to “go mad,” when at the next session, the therapist was like, “Lol, psych!  They have a genetic condition that has absolutely nothing to do with your depression!  And even though I’m the one who brought them up to you randomly when I was pushing and pushing you about other mentally ill relatives, I then did further research while I made you worry needlessly for a week, and it turns out their problems are not yours!”  That interaction seemed very false to me.

Yes, that was weird and, if true, very irresponsible of the therapist to bring it up. Even (or especially) if she didn't know all the details of the condition of the cousins, you don't suggest a family history of mental illness to a patient on a first visit--especially if that patient presents as depressed. It's one thing to ask a patient if there is any history of depression or other mental illness in their family, it's quite another to suggest a possible connection between the patient's symptoms and some vague condition of cousins.

[AZChristian]

6 hours ago, buttersister said:

The Queen Mum was clearly bitter to the end about how her life was ruined by her brother-in-law. But that was a long, pampered ruined life she lived.And at least her daughter kept in touch.

According to Wikipedia, the Queen Mum had set her cap for "David" (Edward VIII), but he wasn't interested in her, so she moved on to George.  She didn't resent the change that being queen made in her life.  She resented that people were still talking about David and Wallis and stole some of HER thunder as queen.

[Minivanessa]

25 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

She didn't resent the change that being queen made in her life.  She resented that people were still talking about David and Wallis and stole some of HER thunder as queen.

I think she was a very steadying and important influence on her husband throughout his life, and critically important to his ability to rule as King. I'm not saying he didn't have a mind of his own, but he had the burden of that awful stutter which he worked so hard to overcome, and what I would call a "high strung" temperament. She helped give him confidence and was invaluable. I've heard on a documentary that Hitler considered her "the most dangerous woman in Europe" during WWII; she was a great PR asset to The Firm. And, to give her credit, IMO she was brave, and patriotic, and did her royal bit for the country during the war. 

I don't doubt that she HATED any continued public attention to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor; she knew the man's failings all too well and lived out the impact of them on her own family. 

She was reluctant to give up the limelight when she was widowed so young (age 51, with what turned out to be half her life left to live). And she certainly cast a long shadow. I've read that pretty much until the Queen Mum died, HM's constant refrain was "What will Mummy think of this?" and "We mustn't upset Mummy." Which I'm sure influenced more things than we will ever know. 

I'd give her good marks for how she conducted the first half of her life and I have little admiration for the rest of it. Textbook example of rich royal high-living parasite. But, cheerful and smiling. Hey, who wouldn't be cheerful and smiling on a constant diet that included the word's finest champagne? 

[PeterPirate]

I gotta say, I have no attachment to Margaret in particular.  At the same, I think Vanessa Kirby and Helena Bonham Carter and the rest of the cast did an excellent job in telling the story of woman who lived a tumultuous and tormented life.  And at the end of the day, I think the best thing that can be said about Margaret is she was played by two super-hot hotties in The Crown.  

Edited November 25, 2020 by PeterPirate

[Scarlett45]

17 hours ago, Paloma said:

The staff did seem kind, but my husband pointed out (even before we knew how this part of the story connected to the royals) that male and female patients slept in a room together with beds next to each other. Makes it easier for the staff to care for them, but also deprives the patients of privacy and does not protect them from sexual abuse or violence. Although the show depicted all the patients as childlike and cooperative, developmentally disabled people in teen or adult bodies can still have urges that they may act on inappropriately without even knowing it is wrong.

At least the staff could have put females in one room and males in another, but maybe they needed more funding than 125 pounds a year for each patient to do that.

IRL the male and female patients wouldn't have been housed in the same room- even in an "average" institution for mentally disabled people, preventing pregnancy and even consensual sexual activity between residents would've been one of the reasons.

Likely it was done that way on the show because they didnt have enough cast of female persons with visible mental disabilities to get the point across so they had men in the scene as well.

This doesn't surprise me that Margaret was only concerned about HERSELF not making the cousins' lives better or the place they lived more comfortable etc, some of you all may know that I am a Sib (sibling of someone with a disability), please tell me the last time (not counting this pandemic) someone wanted to visit my sister* who wasn't paid to be her caregiver......People with severe mental disabilities are often forgotten, even by their family members. Often people fall into two camps, the caregiver or someone who asks "how is so and so?"

And I get it, people are concerned with themselves, most people (most not all) are not interested in expending time and attention on people who cannot add anything to their own lives (emotionally, physically or financially). Of course they dont want them to be abused/neglected/starved etc but have no interest in spending time with a "tall toddler" who just wants to watch Disney+ all the time, cannot have a conversation or show interest in THEM.......

Keeping this about The Crown, Margaret could have sent more funds to the establishment to make the cousins lives (and the other residents) better and raise awareness to support families in that situation- but she was a pretty self centered person. Im sure she had plenty of people to visit in her social time that didn't include cousins she had never met. There is also still a lot of shame and discomfort around mentally disabled people in 2020, much less 1980 something.

*who has never lived anywhere but a home situation and was constantly around when we were growing up, so they certainly know who she is.

On 11/23/2020 at 9:36 AM, MaggieG said:

I can't believe the one cousin lived until 2014, she must have been in her eighties or nineties.

Leads me to believe she was being decently cared for- the caregivers were keeping her clean, making sure she was eating and drinking water, not abusing her. Which is a comfort.

While its much harder for people for people with severe mental disabilities to live that long (for a variety of factors, abuse, neglect, inability to receive types of preventative care etc), if you have NO MENTAL STRESS what so ever its not impossible. Also not everyone with severe mental disabilities has other health problems. My sister is rare in the disability space to be as disabled as she is (mental age 18months -2yrs) but she has NO physical health problems. NONE. No syndromes or chromosomal abnormalities or anything like that, if she doesnt die of depression after Mom dies I could see her making it into her 80s, so long as Disney+ is still around :). 

[bijoux]

9 hours ago, buttersister said:

 

HBC is doing a great job, but geez, it's no wonder Elizabeth didn't trust her to stick with any job she got. I'm outraged that my cousins, who reportedly know who I am, are locked away in a place where they can get visitors. Not me. But I'm outraged! 

While Elizabeth had cause to be weary and past examples of Margaret's less than stellar work ethic, I don't think this time it had anything to do with Margaret. It was simply the case of duties that Margaret would have been once given now going to Andrew by virtue of him reaching adulthood. 

[dubbel zout]

Edward is the one who bumped her out this time, not Andrew.

[Minivanessa]

3 minutes ago, bijoux said:

While Elizabeth had cause to be weary and past examples of Margaret's less than stellar work ethic, I don't think this time it had anything to do with Margaret. It was simply the case of duties that Margaret would have been once given now going to Andrew Edward by virtue of him reaching adulthood. 

Yes, the duties and status were conferred under a law passed by Parliament, the Regency Act of 1937. As has been noted, in this episode it was Edward's adulthood that bumped Margaret out of the status of Counsellor of State although I'm not sure the episode made clear that it was an act of Parliament behind it. It wasn't a matter within the Queen's discretion. 

[dubbel zout]

Ironically, Margaret can blame this on the Abdication, LOL.

[bijoux]

2 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Edward is the one who bumped her out this time, not Andrew.

Thanks, I obviously wasn't paying enough attention. 

[dubbel zout]

Well, Andrew bumped her out when he turned 21, too, so you're not too far off!

[Umbelina]

7 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I gotta say, I have no attachment to Margaret in particular.  At the same, I think Vanessa Kirby and Helena Bonham Carter and the rest of the cast did an excellent job in telling the story of woman who lived a tumultuous and tormented life.  And at the end of the day, I think the best thing that can be said about Margaret is she was played by two super-hot hotties in The Crown.  

Both actresses have done a great job of portraying Margaret, both her pathos and her ego issues.

I just remember my mom adored her, but then again, The Rat Pack was very popular at the same time, so celebs misbehaving, or "living their lives" was something she liked at that time.

My mother was one who felt Elizabeth robbed her of her true love though.

6 hours ago, bijoux said:

While Elizabeth had cause to be weary and past examples of Margaret's less than stellar work ethic, I don't think this time it had anything to do with Margaret. It was simply the case of duties that Margaret would have been once given now going to Andrew by virtue of him reaching adulthood. 

I wonder what that meant though?  I mean, in real terms.  Would that mean Margaret would no longer be compensated?  Or is it just a lack of prestige not being a "senior royal" or what?

Not allowed to "stand in for the Queen" even informally?  I'm just not sure what it all means in practical terms, or if there was a way around it for Elizabeth, to give Margaret some public role?

6 hours ago, Jeeves said:

Yes, the duties and status were conferred under a law passed by Parliament, the Regency Act of 1937. As has been noted, in this episode it was Edward's adulthood that bumped Margaret out of the status of Counsellor of State although I'm not sure the episode made clear that it was an act of Parliament behind it. It wasn't a matter within the Queen's discretion. 

Are there other options the queen would have to keep Margaret in the limelight occasionally?  

[WatchrTina]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

Are there other options the queen would have to keep Margaret in the limelight occasionally?  

There were (and are) plenty of things that royals can do to be useful even when they are not an official "Counselor of State."   For example the Duke of Kent (a.k.a. Prince Edward, the Queen's cousin) is the president of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (Wimbledon) and awards the prize to the winner each year.  I'm sure other "second-tier" royals have similar roles as royal patrons to numerous charities and arts organizations.  But I can also understand  how Margaret -- a princess "of the blood" -- the daughter of a king and only sibling of the queen -- a woman who gave up the man she loved rather than give up her position as a royal -- would find it a cruel slap in the face to see her own prestige diminished just because her nephew hit his 21st birthday.

That being said, by the time this happened I have no idea how often Margaret was out in the public "princesssing" (i.e., cutting ribbons and receiving curtseys.)  She may have been offended by her change in status (especially if it came with a cut in funding) but she may have also have been secretly relieved that she could now run off to Mustique whenever she wanted (and she may well have been doing that already.)  I suspect that Princess Margaret remained very much in the public eye and there were plenty who were willing to fawn over her in return for a bit of reflected royal glamour long after she ceased to be a "Counselor of State."

Edited November 26, 2020 by WatchrTina

[merylinkid]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I'm just not sure what it all means in practical terms, or if there was a way around it for Elizabeth, to give Margaret some public role?

there was a way.   Heavens the GLOUCESTERS and KENTS perform ocassional royal duties.   Just because she was no longer an official Counselor of State, didn't mean there was nothing she could do.   the Queen just found another convenient excuse to keep Margaret from getting involved in something the Queen knows she won't carry through.   She made THAT quite clear when she said "This is the way it is.   We have to live with it."   She could have still put her on the Privy Council.   Some positions are within the Queen's right of appointment.

This was clearly Helena Bonham Carter's emmy reel episode.   She gets one a season.   But gosh was it uneven.   When she was ranting at the Queen Mum on the beach (I agree what WAS that thing on her head), I saw HBC emoting not Margaret being upset.   Just ... her mannerism changed.   It wasn't Margaret's manner as played through the season.   HBC really stepped out of the role there.

Dazzle really doesn't know how to counsel someone.   Not a good sign for someone aiming for the Priesthood.   Oh just leave the Royal Family and become Catholic.    Dude, even in private moments she made you call her Ma'am.   She was NOT giving up the Royal title and the perks no matter how unhappy she was.   

[Capricasix]

There’s a good column in the Guardian today about the treatment of developmentally disabled people. Note: in the UK, developmental disability (DD) is known as learning disability, and conditions such as ADHD without the DD component are known as learning difficulties.

As an aside, my two sons are autistic; my 19yo is also developmentally disabled, and my 15yo is mildly intellectually disabled.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/26/the-crown-learning-disability-storyline-painful-lack-of-progress

[Roseanna]

On 11/25/2020 at 6:03 PM, Scarlett45 said:

And I get it, people are concerned with themselves, most people (most not all) are not interested in expending time and attention on people who cannot add anything to their own lives (emotionally, physically or financially). Of course they dont want them to be abused/neglected/starved etc but have no interest in spending time with a "tall toddler" who just wants to watch Disney+ all the time, cannot have a conversation or show interest in THEM.......

Keeping this about The Crown, Margaret could have sent more funds to the establishment to make the cousins lives (and the other residents) better and raise awareness to support families in that situation- but she was a pretty self centered person. Im sure she had plenty of people to visit in her social time that didn't include cousins she had never met. There is also still a lot of shame and discomfort around mentally disabled people in 2020, much less 1980 something.

I think we could compare Margaret with Eunice Kennedy Shriver who, instead of pitying herself for being secondary as a woman compared with her brothers, began to champion for mentally disabled because of the lobotomy made to her sister Rosemary and personally ordered a summer camp for such children in her home.

But Margaret was set in her ways.

[qtpye]

On 11/17/2020 at 10:03 PM, rozen said:

I guess I'm the odd one out, this episode only made me disdain Margaret more. Her outrage was 100% driven by her own narcissistic worries about her diminishing standing in the family and awareness of her own mortality. She didn't do anything for them, didn't even go in to meet them, just threw a tantrum at her mother before returning to boozing her life away. I laughed at her demanding more work and thought Elizabeth should have handed Margaret some nonglamorous jobs with commoners and watch her balk. 

 

On 11/18/2020 at 2:03 AM, swanpride said:

I thought the episode was boring. I mean, the plus is that it was actually about some history I didn't know about, so kudos to that. But for one, I was already over Magaret's constant self-pity last season, and two, the whole episodes just played out very uneven.  

 

On 11/23/2020 at 10:36 AM, MaggieG said:

Judging from the comments this might be an unpopular opinion, but this episode did not redeem me to Margaret at all. I just showed me that once again she loves complaining about how horrible her family is, but she will always throw her royal weight around. Making sure the therapist addressed her as Ma'am and complaining that she had to go to her, why couldn't the therapist come to me? I also have never cared for the Queen Mum and agree that not everything can be blamed on the abdication. The cousins probably would have been sent away regardless of who became King. And did Margaret ever go spend time with her cousins, volunteer at that hospital, organize any sort of mental health initiatives? No, she probably continued complaining about her family and how unfair she was being treated. No love lost between Margaret and I 😜

I still love HBC though. 

I can't believe the one cousin lived until 2014, she must have been in her eighties or nineties.

 

On 11/23/2020 at 11:25 AM, AZChristian said:

She was 88 when she died.

The sisters were committed in 1941, several years after George VI became king.  As big as the Brits are on royal genealogy, it should have been obvious that the gene that caused their mental disease did not affect George VI or his descendants.  Yes, they probably were - and would have been - put away regardless of their connection to the royal family.  But I can't get past the fact that the only money given to the hospital by the insanely rich RF was as part of their annual charity contributions - in this case, 125 pounds per year.  At that time (1941), it would have been like giving $166. 

It angers and grieves me that the Queen Mother did nothing and - apparently - said nothing to her family.  She was too busy drinking gin, being curtsied to, and playing "Ibble Dibble" to show even a modicum of compassion to these women whose blood flowed through her veins.

I do want to correct something related to a picture I posted earlier in this thread.  When Nerissa died in 1986, that plastic marker WAS the only marker on her grave.  Then, in 2011 (25 years later!), there was a TV documentary about the sisters, and a gravestone was finally placed there by the royal family.  I have not been able to find a picture of the new headstone . . . not even on findagrave.com.

Those poor women.

I get tired that no one ever seems to call out Margaret for all her stupid crap...instead they all seem to coddle her. I think she just loves to wallow in her misery but enjoys a life style of ultimate luxury.

I really do not understand what her father found so endearing about her. She is not charming and the only reason anyone seems to tolerate her is that she is a Princess of England.

Why did the queen not just tell her that Margaret has not been a responsible enough to earn any more responsibilities? She could have started universities, charities and done much good in the world. Instead, she chose to be a wastrel and now has no meaning in her life ….boo hoo.

Here, she loved railing about the mistreatment but at the end did nothing...did not even visit her cousins. Hated that one of these preciouses episodes was wasted on Margaret. 

I did feel horrible for those cousins.

I also hate that we had one more episode of Margaret wallowing but still nothing on Ann.  Margaret is boring and never changes.

Edited November 26, 2020 by qtpye

[swanpride]

Yeah, I am going against the grain and say that this was my least favourite episode of the season. It was interesting in introducing something I didn't know about, but I was already over Margaret's self-pity one season ago, I really didn't need more of it. Especially considering that what Anne does with her life is way more interesting.

[Scarlett45]

17 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I think we could compare Margaret with Eunice Kennedy Shriver who, instead of pitying herself for being secondary as a woman compared with her brothers, began to champion for mentally disabled because of the lobotomy made to her sister Rosemary and personally ordered a summer camp for such children in her home.

But Margaret was set in her ways.

Yes I absolutely agree with you!!

But it was about Margaret being lied to, and what other family members did, when she was NO BETTER and didnt do anything to remedy the situation. I would've had more respect for her outrage if she decided to make that home a patronage and increase the standard of living for the residents. I am not suggesting their caregivers were doing a bad job, but running a home like that takes tons of money and resources- more is always a good thing.

[chaifan]

I thought this was a great Helena Bonham Carter episode, but not a great Margaret episode, and, to be honest, a totally unnecessary Crown episode.  It was interesting, and I'm guessing the vast majority of American viewers had no knowledge of the scandal of the cousins.  (I certainly didn't.)  But for a series that gives us 10 episodes a year, and in a season that spans 11 years, I really don't know why they devoted an entire episode to this topic.  Especially since Margaret's involvement in this "discovery" seems to be totally fictional.  I've read several articles about this, and none can confirm she had anything to do with the cousins' "discovery".   Again, this was a great episode for HBC, really probably her best scenes in 2 seasons, and I like that the show is spending time on her.  But couldn't the writers have found an actual historical event to base a Margaret-centric episode around?

 

[swanpride]

Yeah, they could have covered this, but I think it would have been better if it had been in combination with another plot. For example, they could have had is in the Family episode.

Edited November 29, 2020 by swanpride

[Badger]

Philip also had a cousin with severe learning difficulties.  She was the daughter of his uncle George who was the 2nd Marquess of Milford Haven.  She was also put away in hospitals.  Her name was Lady Tatiana Elizabeth Mountbatten.

According to Lady Colin Campbell, who has written several books about the royals, the Bowes-Lyon cousins plus the other three who were institutionalized, had Huntington's Chorea.

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by Badger
addition to original post

[WatchrTina]

On my third viewing of this episode (hey, we're locked down, why not?) I noticed something interesting that I DON'T think is a coincidence.  Take a look at the outfit Margaret is wearing in her final conversation with Dazzle.  Doesn't it resemble a microscopic view of blood, what with the dark red background and those white-rimmed floaty things that sort of resemble white blood cells?  I don't think that was an accident. Clever, clever costumer!

[kwnyc]

As mentioned above, and in the episode, there were some royals who had various disabilities (the ones who got hemophilia through Queen Victoria) and Prince John, who was their father's younger brother; there's a wonderful Masterpiece Theater series about him called The Lost Prince. He's thought to have had epilepsy and was perhaps autistic/developmentally disabled.

[andromeda331]

Tired of Margaret's pity party. She never ends up doing anything. She could do stuff. But she doesn't and she won't. I don't mind Elizabeth's hesitation because Margaret's messed up before. Maybe she could prove she could do stuff by actually doing things. She claims to be so annoyed by her title and life, but as Dazzle pointed out she could walk away from it. But she won't. She gets too much satisfaction from her position and reminding everyone else of her position. Its hard to feel sorry for her when we never see her do anything. 

I did love her telling her mother not everything could be blamed on the abdication. That really is Queen Mum's go to excuse. As much as I liked learning about the cousins' and Margaret's outrage in the end she does nothing. She didn't visit them in real life, and didn't visit them in the episode. She didn't arrange for money or gifts for them or asylum. Which makes it all fall flat. None of them ever visited them? That's really terrible of them. 

I'm glad she sought therapy, and it was nice to hear Charles did too. Good for him. Although the entire family could do with some therapy. 

 

[Sweet-tea]

On 11/18/2020 at 1:03 AM, swanpride said:

I thought the episode was boring. I mean, the plus is that it was actually about some history I didn't know about, so kudos to that. But for one, I was already over Magaret's constant self-pity last season, and two, the whole episodes just played out very uneven.  

Me too. I don’t enjoy the shows about Margaret. This one was no different. 

I didn’t like last season. I’m watching this season mostly for Diana and Charles. I would’ve preferred another episode about them instead of one about Margaret. 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Sweet-tea

[CeeBeeGee]

On 11/17/2020 at 10:29 PM, Peace 47 said:

And Dazzle (was that his name?) saying that she should abandon the royal family and her title to convert to Catholicism because that gave his own life meaning was so weird to me because it’s not like Margaret had been exploring and compelled by the Catholic faith.  Such a random suggestion.  They used it as an opportunity to say that Margaret was very attached to her title and snobbishness and would never let that go even as her status dwindled, but why would Dazzle suggest abandoning the royal family?  It was the non-Royal brother of the Queen Mum who shut his kids away.  Maybe that was at the behest of the Royal Family, but it’s not like Elizabeth and the other family members who made up Margaret’s social circle knew about this and bore blame for it.

That said, I adore Helena Bonham Carter.  A few years ago, I would see post/ articles/ whatever around the Internet about how people just loved HBC, and I didn’t relate just because I hadn’t seen much, if any, of her work.  But in the past couple years, I’ve seen her in a few things, and she is just so good, so charismatic onscreen, just so compelling to watch.  When she tells the therapist that she hasn’t been able to shake off the particular low she has been going through, I welled up at how poignant that delivery was.

They're not showing it but Margaret, notwithstanding her party girl activities, was actually very religious and even composed a few prayers. (What I've seen, she was a decent writer.) At one point she was indeed exploring Catholicism.

Yes, HBC is fantastically charismatic--I've loved her ever since I first saw her in Lady Jane in the '80s.

 

On 11/18/2020 at 10:28 AM, benteen said:

I thought they missed an opportunity to introduce Margaret's children into this episode.  They are hardly discussed at all and it would have been an interesting and fun change of pace to see her interacting with them.  I would have preferred it to the same repetitive storyline they've been hitting with Margaret for the past four seasons.

When Margaret and Dazzle were collapsed on the couch together, the framing of the shot placed a photograph dead center right above their heads--it was a boy and a girl, obviously her two children, David, Lord Linley (at the time) and Lady Sarah. I wish we could see a bit of them, Lady Sarah was the head attendant for Diana at the wedding.

 

On 11/30/2020 at 6:08 PM, kwnyc said:

As mentioned above, and in the episode, there were some royals who had various disabilities (the ones who got hemophilia through Queen Victoria) and Prince John, who was their father's younger brother; there's a wonderful Masterpiece Theater series about him called The Lost Prince. He's thought to have had epilepsy and was perhaps autistic/developmentally disabled.

Yes! Absolutely fantastic series. A wonderful way to revisit history at the beginning of the 20th century.

My thoughts as I watched the episode:

Margaret coughing just like her father. She had a terrible, lifelong addiction to cigarettes.

Elizabeth trying oh-so-tactfully to alert Margaret as to Dazzle's orientation was hilarious reminiscent of Mrs. Patmore trying the same thing with Daisy about Thomas. "Thomas is not for you....he's a troubled soul!"

Philip saying about Andrew and Edward "they were conceived in reconciliation"--Andrew has frequently been referred to as the "reconciliation baby" and it's speculated that is why he is supposedly her favorite.

There are actually five counsellors of state--the ones ahead of Margaret at the time were Philip, Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward. They made an exception to keep on the Queen Mother (making six) after she was widowed in 1952.

Diana said that the period when she was pregnant with Harry was when she and Charles were the closest, which seems to contradict this.

HBC's acting in that first session with the therapist--incredible. God, she is a national treasure, WHEN is she going to get knighted already?

"P, R, S"--I've never actually paged through Burke's Peerage so I'm not really sure how the information is organized, but likely they were looking up their cousins under their mutual grandfather's title, the Earl of Strathmore. The Queen Mother was the 9th of 10 children by the Earl and the two sisters were, as the episode says, the children of her older brother, the Hon. John Bowes-Lyon. (Fun fact--my mother's family is distantly distantly related to the Bowes-Lyons--we are from Clan Lyon. Well, our ancestors are 😉

Dazzle praying out loud as Margaret was lurching all over the road, being pursued by the vengeful cyclist, was amusing.

This episode sure does take some liberties with what really happened. The fact is, the QM had no say in what happened to her nieces (and I believe sincerely thought they were dead)--that was all down to Fenella, the mother. As to the "reported dead" thing, the story is that she was not great with forms and either neglected to send them back to Burke's who assumed they were dead, or she filled them out incorrectly. But still that all goes back to the mother, not the QM. Sure, you can criticize the royals for not visiting them once they found out about them in the '80s but not the rest of it--certainly not the institutionalization which was very much What Was Done at the time. They appeared to be well cared for, which is the important thing.

The whole "we had to hide it because of the hereditary principle" is strictly a conceit for the show. Again, the QM had no say in whether or not they were institutionalized. It is true that their existence was something of a secret and it's true that Prince John (one of my favorite "hidden" royals, there's a wonderful miniseries about him) set a precedent for this. He was the youngest child of Margaret and Elizabeth's grandfather, George VI, and was diagnosed with severe epilepsy--they think he might have also been autistic. As his condition got worse, he was sent to live in his own household away from the family.

Man, if Margaret is this upset about her cousins' institutionalization, wait til she finds out about the Monster of Glamis! (Family secret 😉

"A system that ignored five members of its own"--no, the other three were Katherine and Nerissa's cousins on the other side of the family. They were no relation to the royal family.

Just gonna point this out--if you're that upset about their treatment, Margaret, why not go visit them?

Once again, this series sure doesn't seem to like the Queen Mother much. It's starting to piss me off--I'm no particular fan of hers but she was a goddamn hero during WWII. She was not responsible for either the institutionalization or the fact that they were reported to be dead--all of that goes back to the mother and the other siblings. We can feel that the QM and M & E should've visited--fair--but she/they didn't know their nieces/cousins (and there were MANY since the QM was the 9th child of 10). She really doesn't deserve this hatchet job.

[LeDucDiableBleu]

On 11/20/2020 at 9:26 PM, SeanC said:

Jock Bowes-Lyon was actually dead at that point; the decision was made (as far as we know) by his widow Fenella, who died in 1966.  Fenella visited them up until her death, but otherwise gradually put out that they were dead.

There isn't any particular reason to think the Palace was involved in any of this, in the real world.  A lot of the time people today have a tendency to try to assess the past in terms of singular or conspiratorial motivations when it was a general societal practice; see also, from around this same time period, the way that Joe and Rose Kennedy vanished their mentally-disabled daughter Roesmary from public view with similar obfuscation about her whereabouts for a few decades (though that case has the additional icky factor of Rosemary's disability being the result of her parents trying to "cure" her with a lobotomy).  If you could afford it, shuffling such relations out of sight and out of mind was the done thing.

 

Humanity horrifies me sometimes.

[Anothermi]

6 hours ago, LeDucDiableBleu said:

Humanity horrifies me sometimes.

What happened to children with developmental issues or what we call autism spectrum who did not come from rich families was even worse!

[Razzberry]

How long, Margaret, will you go on abusing our patience?

We get it.  I'm all choked up about your plight of being born rich, royal and beautiful.  

scarf, hat, and hoodie?

On 12/1/2020 at 4:58 PM, CeeBeeGee said:

Man, if Margaret is this upset about her cousins' institutionalization, wait til she finds out about the Monster of Glamis! (Family secret 😉

Not anymore...😄  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-monster-of-glamis-92015626/

[Blakeston]

On 11/20/2020 at 10:26 PM, SeanC said:

Jock Bowes-Lyon was actually dead at that point; the decision was made (as far as we know) by his widow Fenella, who died in 1966.  Fenella visited them up until her death, but otherwise gradually put out that they were dead.

There isn't any particular reason to think the Palace was involved in any of this, in the real world.

And yet Peter Morgan still chose to lay all of the blame at the Queen Mother's feet. I can't say I'm surprised.

[blackwing]

I have been decrying the lack of spotlight for the amazing Helena Bonham Carter this season, and here it was with this episode!  I thought she was fantastic.  I thought she was robbed of the Emmy for her great performance in Season 3.  As much as I think Gillian Anderson deserves the Supporting Actress Emmy this season, I think Helena could give her a run for her money with this episode.

I was surprised that Margaret didn't know that Dazzle (I forget what his name actually is) was gay.  Hadn't they been supposedly dating/flirting for several months at the point where we were introduced to him?  I guess they never went that far, wouldn't she have wondered why?  Wasn't he supposed to be a younger man that she was dallying with?  She should have been able to spot the signs, after all, Tony was supposedly bi and I recall a scene of him on the show in bed with a couple, but can't remember if Margaret was the woman in that bed.

I liked seeing Margaret's friends the Tennants again, and it was nice to see that she had people that really loved her.  I liked that Anne driving her to the psychiatrist's office, I guess maybe they didn't want to use a royal car.

Edward still acted like a pissy brat, Philip was joking about how he and Andrew were extras and Anne called them "the B team" and he had this pissy frown.  It's no wonder why his schoolmates gave him a bottle of chilled urine.  I did really enjoy seeing how much fun Charles and Diana were having.  She was laughing and so was he.  Someone gave Edward this diving helmet (maybe it was Andrew, since he was in the navy) and Charles said something like "you look ridiculous".

On 11/18/2020 at 8:53 AM, AZChristian said:

The two women featured in this episode were blood relations to the British Royal Family.  Their other three cousins with the same genetic disability are not related to the BRF.  But given the $88,000,000,000 combined worth of the BRF, it seems like it would have been financially possible to have set the five cousins up in a cottage with caretakers (a group home).  Instead, they ignored their existence, kept them secret, and didn't even provide a headstone when they died. 

I was just doing some more reading on what it's like to be related to the BRF.  Just reading Wikipedia, there are references to a number of first cousins of QEII who lived in lavish apartments at Kensington Palace.  Which makes it even more horrendous that the Bowes-Lyon sisters lived and died the way they did.

I agree that with all the money they had, you would think that Elizabeth and Margaret would want to take care of their cousins.  However, I'm not sure if these women are considered part of the British Royal Family... they don't have royal blood.  They were related to a woman who married into the family, and maybe that would account for the difference in treatment?  Not sure if the cousins of Elizabeth who lived at Kensington were royal cousins (related to her through her father) or related to her through the Queen Mother.  If these cousins who got apartments were also on her mom's side, then that's a shame that the fate of these two women was hidden from her.

On 11/18/2020 at 9:28 AM, benteen said:

So 7 episodes in, this is the episode they decide to give Helena Bonham Carter?  I just find myself frustrated with how little they use her and how many of the Margaret episodes are so repetitive.  Margaret wants more to do, only for her power to be taken away from her by the Queen, who feels sorry for her but can't do anything for her.  

I thought they missed an opportunity to introduce Margaret's children into this episode.  They are hardly discussed at all and it would have been an interesting and fun change of pace to see her interacting with them.  I would have preferred it to the same repetitive storyline they've been hitting with Margaret for the past four seasons.

I have been wondering the same thing.  I can't remember if there was an episode last season where it was mentioned that she got divorced or if this is the first time it was said.  I was wondering why she never talks about her children and was wondering if some of the people at Edward's party was them.  We see Edward with Andrew next to him on our right.  Diana is next to Andrew.  Then there is a man next to her.  Not sure who that was, was it Anne's husband or Margaret's son?  To our left of Andrew I recall Anne on the end but there was a woman in between them that I didn't recognise, was that Margaret's daughter?

On 12/1/2020 at 6:58 PM, CeeBeeGee said:

HBC's acting in that first session with the therapist--incredible. God, she is a national treasure, WHEN is she going to get knighted already?

Couldn't agree with this more.  I would think that she should be next in line amongst prominent British actresses to receive a Damehood?  Olivia Colman will sure receive one too eventually, but she's only 46.  Seems to me like actors and actresses tend to have to wait until they are in their 60s before getting knighted.  But somehow, 30 year old Olympic athletes can get them when at the peak of their career?

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

I agree that with all the money they had, you would think that Elizabeth and Margaret would want to take care of their cousins.  However, I'm not sure if these women are considered part of the British Royal Family... they don't have royal blood.  They were related to a woman who married into the family, and maybe that would account for the difference in treatment?  Not sure if the cousins of Elizabeth who lived at Kensington were royal cousins (related to her through her father) or related to her through the Queen Mother.  If these cousins who got apartments were also on her mom's side, then that's a shame that the fate of these two women was hidden from her.

The two cousins the episode focused on were the children of the Queen Mum's brother, so they may have been of royal blood, but they were related by blood.

If I remember what I read, most of Kensington Palace has been occupied for decades by distant relatives of the queen.  They were mostly descendants of Queen Victoria, but the occupants were 3rd, 4th, 5th (etc.) cousins of the queen.  The ladies in the asylum were first cousins, although from the Queen Mum's lineage.  I also found it interesting the Tommy Lascelles lived at Kensington in the 50s.  

With many things in life, people do what people do.  But people who are as rich as the BRF - in my opinion - should be "called out" when they allow close relatives to live hidden away because their presence could be embarrassing.  There is no excuse for the BRF not to make a small home available to be turned into a group home for their cousins, and the cousins' cousins who shared that affliction.

Edited December 7, 2020 by AZChristian
Typo

[Clanstarling]

20 hours ago, blackwing said:

Couldn't agree with this more.  I would think that she should be next in line amongst prominent British actresses to receive a Damehood?  Olivia Colman will sure receive one too eventually, but she's only 46.  Seems to me like actors and actresses tend to have to wait until they are in their 60s before getting knighted.  But somehow, 30 year old Olympic athletes can get them when at the peak of their career?

To be fair, athletes peak young, and actors continue to develop and by their 60s are likely at their peak.