S04.E04: Favourites

[Blakeston]

1 hour ago, meep.meep said:

Since in their conversation he specifically asked to go to war, and she agreed that he should, I would say not.  

He seemed surprised by her response.

I think he wanted to make a big show of his bravery, expecting that his mother would say, "Of course you can't be on the front lines, you're too important!", and then he wouldn't have to go through with it.

[Milburn Stone]

This was the first episode of this season that I just enjoyed without getting pissed off at it. I think the reason was that it substantially stuck to material that was private, and therefore not falsifiable. And this private material was plausible, whether or not it happened.

And also, because it put Elizabeth back at the center of things. I realize the show is not called The Queen, but The Crown, meaning it's not meant to always be about her. I just think it's better when it is.

[Aliferously]

I agree that all the children bar Carol Thatcher and Anne were absolute insufferable shitheads.

But I did feel for Anne. Trying to make it clear to her mother that her marriage wasn't working and basically getting cold shouldered as an answer. I think her problem is that she doesn't listen to her children when it's necessary to listen. 

[suomi]

The queen pretty much is good at everything she does, either that or she is very good at faking it. I can see where, on some level, she would not want to put herself "out there" by managing a child's bath in an awkward manner, especially with an "expert" observing. 

I recently read a post mentioning that her cold public greeting of a very young Charles came about because he approached her "out of turn." The scene I have in mind is a homecoming after a long trip when he is about 4 years old and clearly comes to her when he is supposed to and she... very slightly leans down toward him so that she can shake his hand. Ooof. 

[OdinO.]

On 11/21/2020 at 11:11 PM, Growsonwalls said:

I think being a hands-on parent wasn't considered very posh in her circles. She was brought up with nannies. The queen mum all her life would rather have a tumbler of whisky and a cigar rather than spend much time with her kids. 

Albert was only a more hands-on parent because Victoria was SUCH a crappy mother. Like so bad Albert lamented that she seemed to actively hate her own kids. Also Albert was pretty sickly and thus more of a homebody than the usual male royal. 

The other thought I've always had was if Elizabeth was upset that her kids are ... uh, well, they're kind of homely. When young Elizabeth and Philip were a striking looking couple. It's unfortunate but many parents who are good looking are upset when their kids are not beauties. Eleanor Roosevelt talked of this -- how her glamourous mother ridiculed her homeliness and called her "granny."

The queen was no beauty. Phillip was handsome but all of her children are as unattractive as she is.

 

[JudyObscure]

45 minutes ago, OdinO. said:

The queen was no beauty. Phillip was handsome but all of her children are as unattractive as she is.

 

Your comment sent me to Google Images for some pictures.  Comparing them all when they were young I was struck with the depressing fact that most of us are way better looking then. Even Camilla was pretty, with a little turned up nose and tiny waist, two things Diana didn't have.  Anne had the same slight faults that Margaret had (nose a little too big, chin a little weak) but both Anne and Margaret had a sexy quality and were very stylish and  attractive. 

As you say, Elizabeth was not a great beauty but she was pretty enough when young with a sweet smile and big eyes.  I think the reason she didn't make "beautiful" was that her nose was a tiny bit big and her eyes were too close set. Ironically those close set eyes came from the Queen Mother who always bragged about how pretty she was and it's this dominant gene that passed though Elizabeth to it's extreme in Charles.  Almost ruining any chance he had of being truly  handsome.  It's a shame because he came from a long line of very good looking men from King Edward VII on down through his father who was movie star material.

[CeeBeeGee]

But the Queen was considered kind of hot when she was younger. Paul McCartney talked about how they all had mad crushes on her, she was considered a dish.

Quote

“Oh, yeah. We were like 11, she was 21 and good looking. And she had a figure on her,” McCartney said. “I shouldn’t say this about Her Majesty but we, as schoolboys, we said, ‘Look at the fuckin’ heave on her’!”

 

[Umbelina]

3 minutes ago, CeeBeeGee said:

But the Queen was considered kind of hot when she was younger. Paul McCartney talked about how they all had mad crushes on her, she was considered a dish.

 

Yes, rather large breasts and very tiny waists giving that perfect hourglass figure were shared by both Liz and Margo.  Pretty blue eyes for both too, but Margaret was the stunner.

[qtpye]

5 hours ago, OdinO. said:

The queen was no beauty. Phillip was handsome but all of her children are as unattractive as she is.

 

 

4 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Your comment sent me to Google Images for some pictures.  Comparing them all when they were young I was struck with the depressing fact that most of us are way better looking then. Even Camilla was pretty, with a little turned up nose and tiny waist, two things Diana didn't have.  Anne had the same slight faults that Margaret had (nose a little too big, chin a little weak) but both Anne and Margaret had a sexy quality and were very stylish and  attractive. 

As you say, Elizabeth was not a great beauty but she was pretty enough when young with a sweet smile and big eyes.  I think the reason she didn't make "beautiful" was that her nose was a tiny bit big and her eyes were too close set. Ironically those close set eyes came from the Queen Mother who always bragged about how pretty she was and it's this dominant gene that passed though Elizabeth to it's extreme in Charles.  Almost ruining any chance he had of being truly  handsome.  It's a shame because he came from a long line of very good looking men from King Edward VII on down through his father who was movie star material.

This is her father...a rather good looking man.

I think the queen and her sister were attractive during their younger years. The problem was they aged into ordinary looking middle aged women when other middle aged women still were quite attractive. My mother was a stunner well into her fifties and so are many other women. My mother actually met the queen when she was young ( and she said the queen was lovely).

I also have heard that Prince Andrew and Edward were good looking when they were young.

[CeeBeeGee]

13 minutes ago, qtpye said:

 

This is her father...a rather good looking man.

I think the queen and her sister were attractive during their younger years. The problem was they aged into ordinary looking middle aged women when other middle aged women still were quite attractive. My mother was a stunner well into her fifties and so are many other women. My mother actually met the queen when she was young ( and she said the queen was lovely).

I also have heard that Prince Andrew and Edward were good looking when they were young.

Andrew was a smokeshow when he was younger. He looked a lot like his great uncle, the dashing Duke of Kent, who died during the war. I never thought Edward was that attractive but others have thought so.

[formerlyfreedom]

Back to the episode, please.

[swanpride]

The episode has a very fluent timeline and if I remember correctly, he went missing five days ago, but there were reports that he might have been sighted two days ago.

[blackwing]

I enjoyed this episode a lot, I thought it was a very interesting look at the Queen's relationship with each of her children.  I could have done without the Mark Thatcher garbage but I guess it was done to set up the Queen's introspection.

On 11/15/2020 at 7:39 PM, Runningwild said:

As soon as the Queen asked who was her favorite, I said Andrew. Not sure why I guessed him, but there it is. Frankly, most of these people are insufferable. Andrew comes off the best here. 

I agree, I thought he came off the best as well.  Anne was bitchy and resentful and cut the meeting short, Edward is a spoiled brat and bully, and Charles is a mess.  Andrew came across as a little too pleased with himself, but at least he was smiling and laughing and friendly and did something other than complain about his lot in life.   Philip assumes that Andrew is the Queen's favourite and she doesn't answer, but I thought the same.

On 11/17/2020 at 12:47 AM, swanpride said:

Anne is the least awful. At least her problems are understandable, and mostly out of her hands.

On 11/17/2020 at 9:06 AM, lovinbob said:

Help me understand this. I agree her problems are understandable, but whose fault is it that she fell out of love with her husband? She said her affair was the only thing that made her happy—that sounded like a big selfish whine. It's understandable but it's not her mother's fault, nor is it the Crown's fault. Is there an aspect of this match that I'm not getting right? ETA: Thank you! I didn't know about Mark Phillips cheating.

I didn't like Anne's complaining either.  It doesn't matter to me if her husband was cheating on her, she was doing the same on him and it doesn't matter to me who cheated first.  She sounded very entitled and resentful and jealous.  I agree that it sucks that she didn't get recognition or credit for her charity work, but what was to be expected?  She was the second child, and a woman.  She was never realistically going to inherit the throne, and she seemed very unnecessarily jealous of Charles.  Then she complains about Diana?  Of course the public would take to Diana, she was young and pretty and new.  

Anne struck me as very selfish as well.  The Queen asks to have lunch with her, and she's all "I'm very busy so you only get a little bit of my time".  It sounded like the Queen was a detached mother even to her adult children, so why wouldn't Anne have appreciated whatever time she got?  Instead, "I'll squeeze you in between my riding lesson and my next appointment".  After she stands up and says she has to go, it was clear that Elizabeth was ready to go as well, and approached her own horse.  Anne can't even do her the courtesy of waiting just one extra minute so they can ride back to the house together.

 

On 11/19/2020 at 9:18 AM, Normades said:

I also wonder if the fact that Charles is literally waiting to take over for her causes issues in their relationship.  It can't be healthy to think "this kid is waiting for me to die so that he can be king."

I wonder this too, it has to always be on his mind to some extent.  He's been told from childhood that he will be king one day.  Didn't real-life Charles not too long ago say that he "is anxious to rule"?  I recall that didn't go over very well with his mother.  I assumed that he has been feeling that way for a long time.

[Normades]

8 minutes ago, blackwing said:

Anne struck me as very selfish as well.  The Queen asks to have lunch with her, and she's all "I'm very busy so you only get a little bit of my time".  It sounded like the Queen was a detached mother even to her adult children, so why wouldn't Anne have appreciated whatever time she got?  Instead, "I'll squeeze you in between my riding lesson and my next appointment".  After she stands up and says she has to go, it was clear that Elizabeth was ready to go as well, and approached her own horse.  Anne can't even do her the courtesy of waiting just one extra minute so they can ride back to the house together.

Maybe Anne was giving her mother back the same attention and affection she received from her.  I don't doubt there were times Elizabeth told Anne "I'm very busy so you only get a little bit of my time."  You know what they say about payback.

[blackwing]

33 minutes ago, Normades said:

Maybe Anne was giving her mother back the same attention and affection she received from her.  I don't doubt there were times Elizabeth told Anne "I'm very busy so you only get a little bit of my time."  You know what they say about payback.

Very true... I think perhaps the conclusion is that all of these people are not very good people.

If Elizabeth was also resentful of Margaret being the favourite child, it would have been nice if they had shown the two of them talking about this.  Anything to get more HBC onscreen.

[Umbelina]

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

Anne struck me as very selfish as well.  The Queen asks to have lunch with her, and she's all "I'm very busy so you only get a little bit of my time".  It sounded like the Queen was a detached mother even to her adult children, so why wouldn't Anne have appreciated whatever time she got?  Instead, "I'll squeeze you in between my riding lesson and my next appointment".  After she stands up and says she has to go, it was clear that Elizabeth was ready to go as well, and approached her own horse.  Anne can't even do her the courtesy of waiting just one extra minute so they can ride back to the house together.

I had the impression that Anne was about to cry from the sheer frustration of trying to get through to her mother, and from everything in general.  She wasn't about to cry in front of her, so she got the hell out of there as soon as she could.

1 hour ago, Normades said:

Maybe Anne was giving her mother back the same attention and affection she received from her.  I don't doubt there were times Elizabeth told Anne "I'm very busy so you only get a little bit of my time."  You know what they say about payback.

Very interesting point.

We had a whole episode last year about Elizabeth's inability to deal with emotion, or even to cry when surrounded by the dead bodies of children and their heartbroken families.  Then we saw her coldly shut down a nearly desperate Charles, who was begging for a little recognition, or appreciation, or just a touch of understanding.  

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

I wonder this too, it has to always be on his mind to some extent.  He's been told from childhood that he will be king one day.  Didn't real-life Charles not too long ago say that he "is anxious to rule"?  I recall that didn't go over very well with his mother.  I assumed that he has been feeling that way for a long time.

If that is the case, and I've certainly read a lot about that particular dynamic all over the place?  Frankly, shame on her.

It seems more likely there is just something emotionally haywire about Elizabeth, at least where children are concerned. 

She was not Queen when she had a supposedly very happy life on Malta with Philip.  She had two children at that time, Anne and Charles.  She also had servants and nannies, so she wasn't an overly stressed new mother buried in diapers and nursing and never able to sleep because of the crying and feedings.  She had the massive privilege of simply enjoying clean, fed, and freshly changed children whenever she wanted.  

Still?  She apparently made no connection to them.  Someone said they were sent back to Buckingham palace, but we've seen photos of them on Malta, and if they were sent back?  WHY?  I honestly just don't understand that.  Who doesn't enjoy babies, and toddlers discovering the world?  Especially when she would never have to deal with the diapers, 3 AM feedings, etc?  

Oh and that whole thing when she will not hug her son after a long trip away?  I call bullshit on that too.  Her mother, the Queen, readily hugged Charles!  It wasn't a protocol thing, it was a Queen Elizabeth II thing.  

All of that ties into this episode and her complete inability to connect with her children, now that they are adults and she finally takes a day out of her life to attempt it.  Even then?  Charles tries to show his inner self to her, with his whole gardens thing, and she mocks it, leaving him crushed again.  Even though I agree with her about Charles' complete disconnect with costs and selfishness about 'building a monument to your soul' or whatever she said?  It was still pathetic, and had she chosen kindness to teach that lesson to him?  Perhaps she could have guided him into the realizations she was obviously frustrated he didn't grasp?

The main thing though, is that Elizabeth and her sister were raised with love, even though they had two very busy, and very stressed parents.  So once again, this utter coldness and disconnectedness from her children wasn't something she learned.  I think it's just who she is.  There is a screw loose somewhere. 

[Roseanna]

50 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

or even to cry when surrounded by the dead bodies of children and their heartbroken families. 

It's not the job of the Queen, or Prime Minister or Bishop for that matter, to cry in the situation like that - their job is to give comfort.

[Growsonwalls]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

The main thing though, is that Elizabeth and her sister were raised with love, even though they had two very busy, and very stressed parents.  So once again, this utter coldness and disconnectedness from her children wasn't something she learned.  I think it's just who she is.  There is a screw loose somewhere. 

Well I think to be fair -- the Queen Mum was definitely a somewhat distant parent. Elizabeth had a good relationship with her but the Queen Mum wasn't a warm, cuddly personality at all.

Elizabeth's father WAS an extremely loving family man.

Maybe she felt it was the father's role to be more laid-back and nurturing and the mother's role to constantly remind the children of their place and duties. 

The issue was Philip also wasn't a very warm, hands-on parent. So neither parent gave the kids what they needed.

[Umbelina]

20 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

It's not the job of the Queen, or Prime Minister or Bishop for that matter, to cry in the situation like that - their job is to give comfort.

The show was all about her WANTING to be able to cry, and being concerned that she could not.  She even mentions FAKING the wipe away tears.  

This wasn't about the job.  It was about her.  Personally.

6 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Well I think to be fair -- the Queen Mum was definitely a somewhat distant parent. Elizabeth had a good relationship with her but the Queen Mum wasn't a warm, cuddly personality at all.

Elizabeth's father WAS an extremely loving family man.

Maybe she felt it was the father's role to be more laid-back and nurturing and the mother's role to constantly remind the children of their place and duties. 

The issue was Philip also wasn't a very warm, hands-on parent. So neither parent gave the kids what they needed.

Yet we see the Queen mum hugging Charles all the time, and he has said many times how loving and affectionate she was with him.

Philip, on the show, is shown playing with both Anne and Philip, and teaching them to ride bikes, fish, throw balls, tossing them in the air, etc.  He preferred Anne, which is understandable, but he was with his children.  They show Elizabeth always just watching.  

This entire episode was about her lack of a relationship with any, and she mentions that she welcomed Andrew, even though she was not Queen and had NO expectation of becoming Queen anytime soon when she had Charles and Anne.  She was supposedly very happy as an officers wife in relaxed Malta, where she could just be an ordinary wife, spontaneously meet friends for coffee of lunch, etc.  She even talked with that woman who was married to Charles'  assistant about their happy times as just wives together making tea, etc.  (during the whole scandalous divorce, crew and Philip cheating their way around the south seas episode.)

Edited December 4, 2020 by Umbelina
clarified

[Growsonwalls]

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

The show was all about her WANTING to be able to cry, and being concerned that she could not.  She even mentions FAKING the wipe away tears.  

This wasn't about the job.  It was about her.  Personally.

Yet we see the Queen mum hugging Charles all the time, and he has said many times how loving and affectionate she was with him.

Philip, on the show, is shown playing with both Anne and Philip, and teaching them to ride bikes, fish, throw balls, tossing them in the air, etc.  He preferred Anne, which is understandable, but he was with his children.  They show Elizabeth always just watching.  

This entire episode was about her lack of a relationship with any, and she mentions that she welcomed Andrew, even though she was not Queen, and was supposedly very happy as an officers wife in relaxed Malta, where she could just be an ordinary wife, spontaneously meet friends for coffee of lunch, etc.  

True. This whole season I think showed how Elizabeth treating her children like cordial strangers actually hurt the crown. Maybe her adult children would have made better decisions had their mum been around to, you know, guide them into making better decisions. 

One of the JOBS of a monarch is to raise heirs that are well-equipped to continue the monarchy. In this respect, I think Elizabeth has failed.

[Anothermi]

3 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

One of the JOBS of a monarch is to raise heirs that are well-equipped to continue the monarchy. In this respect, I think Elizabeth has failed.

History tells us that it is rare for a monarch to succeed in that very endeavour.  Elizabeth's father may have succeeded with her, but her grandfather George V and his father, Edward VII and  his mother, Queen Victoria (who he didn't get along with) and so on, did not succeed either.  It's a grand procession that stretches back into the mists of time. 

[Roseanna]

22 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

One of the JOBS of a monarch is to raise heirs that are well-equipped to continue the monarchy. In this respect, I think Elizabeth has failed.

 

19 hours ago, Anothermi said:

History tells us that it is rare for a monarch to succeed in that very endeavour.  Elizabeth's father may have succeeded with her, but her grandfather George V and his father, Edward VII and  his mother, Queen Victoria (who he didn't get along with) and so on, did not succeed either.  It's a grand procession that stretches back into the mists of time. 

For some reason it has been just those who have *not* been born and raised to become monarchs have succeeded best: George V, George VI and Elizabeth herself.

On 12/4/2020 at 11:42 AM, blackwing said:

I didn't like Anne's complaining either.  It doesn't matter to me if her husband was cheating on her, she was doing the same on him and it doesn't matter to me who cheated first.  She sounded very entitled and resentful and jealous.  I agree that it sucks that she didn't get recognition or credit for her charity work, but what was to be expected?  She was the second child, and a woman.  She was never realistically going to inherit the throne, and she seemed very unnecessarily jealous of Charles.  Then she complains about Diana?  Of course the public would take to Diana, she was young and pretty and new. 

Anne was just human. Most people sometimes complain in private. All people sometimes *feel* jealousy and envy and to *say* it aloud can prevent that one *acts* on it.

I don't think that one can call cheating such a situation where both spouses know and accept that their marriage is only formal.

Most all, virtuous people don't make good characters.

22 hours ago, Umbelina said:

The show was all about her WANTING to be able to cry, and being concerned that she could not.  She even mentions FAKING the wipe away tears.  

This wasn't about the job.  It was about her.  Personally.

I think that it was just *wanting* to cry that prevents crying.

As for faking, she did her job to show feelings in Wales as it was expected there and was honest about it to Wilson. I doubt that many politicians fake although they can't admit it. They can't possibly be always so "sad" or "shocked" as they say when it concerns people who are strangers to them.

[Umbelina]

12 hours ago, Roseanna said:

It's not the job of the Queen, or Prime Minister or Bishop for that matter, to cry in the situation like that - their job is to give comfort.

 

5 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I think that it was just *wanting* to cry that prevents crying.

As for faking, she did her job to show feelings in Wales as it was expected there and was honest about it to Wilson. I doubt that many politicians fake although they can't admit it. They can't possibly be always so "sad" or "shocked" as they say when it concerns people who are strangers to them.

So, which is it?  It "was not her job" or "she did her job?"

Edited December 5, 2020 by Umbelina
added bolds

[Minivanessa]

15 hours ago, Anothermi said:

History tells us that it is rare for a monarch to succeed in that very endeavour.  Elizabeth's father may have succeeded with her, but her grandfather George V and his father, Edward VII and  his mother, Queen Victoria (who he didn't get along with) and so on, did not succeed either.  It's a grand procession that stretches back into the mists of time. 

Let's not forget the personality, talents, and interests of the monarch's offspring (whether first or second in line). That's part of the story, as well as what sort of training and education the monarch provides to the offspring. Elizabeth was by all accounts a serious sort of child anyway, while Margaret was more spontaneous, artistic, and outgoing. In that situation, the first-born IMO was probably better suited temperamentally for the job of 20th Century constitutional monarch, than the younger sibling. Perhaps Margaret could have, by a combination of training, education, and on the job experience, done the job. But I'm sure she would have done it differently, certainly more "colorfully," than her sister.

If continuity of style and philosophy is paramount for the British monarchy, IMO Anne is the best-suited of Elizabeth's four children, to wear the Crown next. And of course, she will not. Anne's proven herself to be disciplined, hard-working, stable, and unlike Charles who has a head full of ideas and philosophies that he just *has* to share with the world (including the government), she seems to be skilled at the art of keeping her mouth shut. Someone, sometime, should present Charles with a desk plaque elegantly displaying this reminder: STFU already.

Here's a snippet about Charles from The Diana Chronicles that gives me a chuckle every damn time I read it:

Quote

 A member of Prince Charles’s staff said they dreaded Charles’s annual cruise to talk with the Catholic monks of Mount Athos in northern Greece. He was liable to come back opposed to stem-cell research or nanotechnology because they “interfere with the natural order of things.” (Having been born on top, Charles has a soft spot for the natural order of things.)

--Brown, Tina. The Diana Chronicles (p. 438). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Okay, I know he's not a total loon. He was ridiculed during his marriage for talking to his plants, but his plunges into organic farming and other environmentally aware projects were sometimes ahead of the times. I loathe the fox-hunting, but back in his 20's he started The Prince's Trust which has been helping so many young people coming from at-risk situations, to achieve success in life. And I believe his mother's courtiers were much against him starting the trust; they saw it as competing with her glory or something, but he persisted. He's a mixed bag, that Charles. 

Edited December 5, 2020 by Jeeves

[cambridgeguy]

Quote

The issue was Philip also wasn't a very warm, hands-on parent. So neither parent gave the kids what they needed.

 Philip (show version, at least) had very rigid ideas about boys and girls - boys had to be tough and grow up to be traditional manly men.  It makes me wonder what would have happened if they had only daughters like George VI.  Would he have been more accepting of his kid being sensitive if Charles was a girl named Charlotte instead?
 

As for Charles, I can see him being very bitter about having to live what he feels is such a restricted life because he;s going to be king - a job he probably won't even get until he's in his late 70s.  What's the point if you have to "waste" your entire life just to be king for a short amount of time, especially since he'd likely be compared very unfavorably to Elizabeth (70 year reign!).

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, Umbelina said:

So, which is it?  It "was not her job" or "she did her job?"

It depends on time and place whether a public figure is to expected to show feelings or not. But *showing* feelings is not the same as *feeling* them. The latter is not necessarily needed and can even be harmful if it means to concentrate on one's own feelings instead of showing empathy towards others.

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

It depends on time and place whether a public figure is to expected to show feelings or not. But *showing* feelings is not the same as *feeling* them. The latter is not necessarily needed and can even be harmful if it means to concentrate on one's own feelings instead of showing empathy towards others.

The point is she had no feelings.

At all.

So she faked them.

That seems to be a personality defect to me, which leads us right into this particular episode when we see her massively dysfunctional relationships with her children.  

Edited December 5, 2020 by Umbelina

[AZChristian]

4 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

The point is she had no feelings.

At all.

So she faked them.

That seems to be a personality defect to me, which leads us right into this particular episode when we see her massively dysfunctional relationships with her children.  

This description reminds me of a commercial for a product I can't remember the name of.  The mother is curled up with a book and her cat.  A kid off-camera yells, "Mom, I fell down."  She doesn't move or show any emotion.  She just calls out, "There are band-aids in the cabinet."  He says, "I'm really bleeding."  She responds, "Take two."

Of course, on this show, the kid would be calling, "Nanny, I fell down," and at least three people would come running.

[sistermagpie]

On 12/5/2020 at 6:03 PM, Umbelina said:

The point is she had no feelings.

At all.

So she faked them.

That seems to be a personality defect to me, which leads us right into this particular episode when we see her massively dysfunctional relationships with her children.  

She seemed to see it that way, and connect the two, I thought. The situation in Whales was like her visits to hospitals during the war--a scene of massive suffering all around her that she might have reacted to by just shutting down.

But then with her kids, she says she wanted to be a different kind of mother but then didn't know how to even touch them. Those two things don't have to go together--someone could be very affectionate with their own family and kids but shut down when surrounded by massive suffering of strangers, but it seemed like she was having the same disconnect in both situations and seeing herself as a failure in both of them. Which also seemed related to her not even knowing which kid was her favorite--and even there, Elizabeth's affection for Andrew seemed quite different from the way Philip relates to Anne.

[Umbelina]

Just now, sistermagpie said:

She seemed to see it that way, and connect the two, I thought. The situation in Whales was like her visits to hospitals during the war--a scene of massive suffering all around her that she might have reacted to by just shutting down.

But then with her kids, she says she wanted to be a different kind of mother but then didn't know how to even touch them. Those two things don't have to go together--someone could be very affectionate with their own family and kids but shut down when surrounded by massive suffering of strangers, but it seemed like she was having the same disconnect in both situations and seeing herself as a failure in both of them. Which also seemed related to her not even knowing which kid was her favorite--and even there, Elizabeth's affection for Andrew seemed quite different from the way Philip relates to Anne.

So glad you finally started watching!

Yeah, that's the way I read it too.  Perhaps the same qualities that make her a good Queen, make her disconnect from emotions?  

Of course, this is just Morgan's take on things, but there certainly is back up documentation to suggest he could be correct.

[sistermagpie]

2 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

So glad you finally started watching!

I finished it and it just occured to me now that duh, there's a forum for it! I need to catch up on the threads!

2 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Yeah, that's the way I read it too.  Perhaps the same qualities that make her a good Queen, make her disconnect from emotions?  

Of course, this is just Morgan's take on things, but there certainly is back up documentation to suggest he could be correct.

Yeah, like in the Queen the movie it seems like she was just the right queen for a different time. Making a great contrast with Diana, who people related to in such a different way. I read a recap that said Charles seemed to get the worst qualities of both parents (where Andrew in this ep seemed to get the best) in that he was petulant and self-centered like Philip and dull and passive like Elizabeth . LOL. But it makes sense that the country could--and still does--relate perfectly well to Elizabeth in ways they don't to him. 

[swanpride]

Elizabeth gets respect for her self-discipline above all. And naturally for the fact that along with her parents she stuck out the Blitz. Charles has neither her self-discipline, nor has he ever sacrificed anything in his life.

[Calvada]

Regarding the Queen's parents, I think her father was very  uncomfortable with shows of affection.  I remember some documentary when someone (possibly the Queen's cousin Margaret Rhodes?) talked about how affectionate Princess Margaret would be with her father - hugging him, etc. - and he would freeze up, not return it.  And their mother was all about concern for their father, looking after him.  I get the impression that her daughters were not as important as helping her husband to be a good King.  That was and always would be her first priority.  As for the Queen's children, her first two were very much a duty, producing the heir and the spare, and her father's death when they were very young meant that she was an absent parent in a lot of ways. Andrew and Edward were wanted, not a box to be checked, and by the time they arrived, she had settled into her life as a monarch. 

Elizabeth wanted to connect with her children, asked for these one on one meetings, and then was very disconcerted when told they were unhappy in some way.  Andrew was her favorite if only because he seemed to be so carefree.  I had to laugh at Andrew's comment about the salmon, because it was clear he knows his mother enjoys salmon and I'm sure he wouldn't miss any opportunity to be on her good side.  And it was sad that none of her children seem concerned about her, that not one thought perhaps she asked to see them because she was ill or that their father was.  

[swanpride]

I think he was her favourite because he wanted to go to war. That was right in line with her own perspective on duty.

[Camera One]

There were hints of it in the last few, but finally, this episode focused on Elizabeth, allowing her to have a range of emotions.  It actually explored her character in terms of what she thought about her children and her "success" as a mother, making her more like a person like she was in Season 1-2.  I don't know if they're representing the people accurately so it's a tad uncomfortable, but it was an interesting character study to look at Thatcher's two children as well as Elizabeth's four children, and their relationships with the two mothers.

As other said above, Elizabeth's body language and interactions with each of the children were quite telling.  There was a definite awkwardness and not knowing what to say with Edward, and she was the one asking most of the questions.  Despite Anne being cross and cutting the conversation short, at least she was very willing to share her frustrations and unhappiness with her mother.  Charles, too, shared his difficult relations with Diana.  In that sense, there must have been a closeness of some sort.

But it was clear when Charles was philosophizing about the garden, Elizabeth was bored, looking around her.   When Charles was describing how Diana wasn't interested in Shakespeare and isn't curious, I thought it was an interesting parallel that neither Elizabeth nor Diana were compatible with Charles in terms of interest, which made them poor company for each other.  It seemed like Andrew was the only one who was asking Elizabeth questions (instead of the other way around), and he also didn't discuss his problems or issues, so perhaps he was lower maintenance.  

Edited February 1, 2021 by Camera One

[Razzberry]

 

15 hours ago, Camera One said:

 It seemed like Andrew was the only one who was asking Elizabeth questions (instead of the other way around), and he also didn't discuss his problems or issues, so perhaps he was lower maintenance.  

I think there's probably some truth in that.   Andrew may have been a happy problem-free kid, and Charles perhaps needy and quarrelsome.  That's my impression anyway. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Razzberry

[dubbel zout]

There were vastly different expectations for Charles and Andrew, and I think their personalities reflected that.

[Razzberry]

Yes, but people inherently have certain personality traits that can be seen in families where expectations and treatment are similar.

[dubbel zout]

Absolutely. But being the heir to the throne has particular and unique expectations. Charles's personality wasn't exactly suited to a lot those expectations. But would his personality be different if he weren't the heir? There is something of a chicken-and-egg factor here.

[Natalie25]

On 12/30/2020 at 5:13 PM, Calvada said:

And it was sad that none of her children seem concerned about her, that not one thought perhaps she asked to see them because she was ill or that their father was.  

I think they were concerned about the out of norm meetings. I found it quite funny when Philip mentioned that all of the children phoned him up to ask what was wrong and why she was meeting with each of them. I'm assuming he let them know there wasn't anything to concerned about. But it's quite sad too, to get a lunch invitation from your mother and wonder what the real reason is. It must have been incredibly rare for her to spend time with them just because!

[Macbeth]

On 11/16/2020 at 11:53 AM, leighdear said:

Parents didn't actually "parent" in those days, and certainly not at that social level. 

Comparing Elizabeth and Phillip's parenting back then and there to even parents in the 80's is like comparing apples to suspension bridges.  They are nowhere in the same realm.  Thus all the brouhaha about Diana being a "hands on" mum to her boys.  These days it looks almost normal, but back then in Royal society it was just NOT done, dear.  

When Chaz, orphan Anne, Andy and Eddie were coming up, royal parents saw their kids occasionally, and the retinue of nannies, butlers and minders kept them up-to-date on their kids lives.  Liz and Phil were the norm for the time & place.  

As Downton Abbey's Dowager Countess said about parenting her children - the nanny brought the kids down to visit.  "It was a full hour every day."  

And I can't imagine it was even that much for the Queen with all of her duties and tours over seas.

[Magnumfangirl]

So the show is going to completely skip over Charles and Di's early days of marriage?  I have to wonder how she ever managed to get pregnant since the show portrays them like they can't stand each other for even a minute.

[Roseanna]

If Charles shows the results of too severe upbringing, Prince Andrew and Mark Thatcher show the results of pampering. Also Mark shamelessly took advantage of his position based on her mother.

According to Peregrine Worsthorne, Thatcher would have wanted to bring back her father's world, but inadvertently created her son's world.

[formerlyfreedom]

Please note the red box above where you type your post - this is STILL in effect, and posts will be removed that reference the future; repeated incidents may result in further sanctions. Thank you.

[andromeda331]

I really hated Margaret in this episode. She's terrible in others but that her favorite child is a spoiled brat manchild while treating her daughter with such distain. For all the crap she says about women and praising her father so much it is interesting her favorite is nothing like the qualities she thinks are important.

I'm not sure I believe that Elizabeth didn't know she had a favorite. But it's common that some parents' do really believe that while not realizing they do have a favorite child and it's obvious to everyone else.

[qtpye]

On 10/29/2022 at 2:49 PM, andromeda331 said:

I really hated Margaret in this episode. She's terrible in others but that her favorite child is a spoiled brat manchild while treating her daughter with such distain. For all the crap she says about women and praising her father so much it is interesting her favorite is nothing like the qualities she thinks are important.

I'm not sure I believe that Elizabeth didn't know she had a favorite. But it's common that some parents' do really believe that while not realizing they do have a favorite child and it's obvious to everyone else.

Yes, in trying to "guild the Lilibet" and make her look so innocent of everything, they end up making her seem a little clueless.

Margaret's son is awful and so different from her patient caring husband.

[Spartan Girl]

On 2/1/2021 at 1:31 AM, Camera One said:

 

But it was clear when Charles was philosophizing about the garden, Elizabeth was bored, looking around her.   When Charles was describing how Diana wasn't interested in Shakespeare and isn't curious, I thought it was an interesting parallel that neither Elizabeth nor Diana were compatible with Charles in terms of interest, which made them poor company for each other

Rewatched this episode and I caught that too. Elizabeth was clearly phoning it in. Although I couldn’t really muster any pity for Charles since:

1) He just yelled at pregnant, tired, and obviously depressed Diana and pounded on her door with such snarling venom that it gave off the vibes of a domestic violence situation.

2) He complained to Elizabeth about Diana “being intellectually incurious”—which was just a fancy way of calling her stupid.

Not to mention about how hard he’s tried to ”educate” her and get her interested in all the things he likes. Hey Charles, you’re her HUSBAND, not her father! And marriage is a two way street, so why don’t you try to take in interest in any of the things she likes to do?! 

[Quickbeam]

Loved this episode and just watching it for the first time. For anyone who was ever the Carol Thatcher in your family, you’ve been seen.

—the clown car of the Charles and Diana marriage continues. 

Edited February 6 by Quickbeam
Typo