S04.E02: The Balmoral Test

[Minivanessa]

35 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

The Thatchers being all shocked and confused by proper royal protocol reminded me of the episode with the Kennedys, where JFK and Jackie apparently had no clue when to curtsy or how to act among the royal family, even if both the Thatchers and the Kennedys would certainly at least know some of how to present themselves among royalty, or would have at least looked into it beforehand. Look show, just because people aren't born in Buckingham Palace doesent mean that they cant still learn what forks to use, especially when they're world leaders. 

Preach. And, there's this little detail: JFK's father was the United States Ambassador to Great Britain when JFK was a teenager, and he and his sibs spent years in England. His sister Kathleen married into the British aristocracy. I'm sure JFK was well-informed and even a bit experienced in court protocol; he could probably have given Brits lessons in how to behave there. Sheesh.

[secnarf]

The scene with Philip and Diana hunting really reminded me of the hunting scene in X Company (female Allied spy infiltrates Nazi family, invited to go hunting with their patriarch and it devolves into hunting their Jewish servant). Needless to say, that scene is so disturbing that I tend to skip it on re-watch.

Obviously the scene with Philip and Diana was far less sinister, but something about it all just kept reminding me of X Company and it left a sour taste in my mouth.

[kaygeeret]

I do agree that there is not a chance that the Thatchers showed up w/o the proper clothing for a country weekend.

Also, given that she is the PM, surely they were both aware of the conventions of proper dress at various meals.

And even if they were that ignorant, she/they had aides, advisors, etc to clue them in.

They had been navigating upper society for her political career.

The show made them appear like boobs.

Too bad.  I never liked her, but this was a fairly stupid scenario.

The only reason for the entire sequence was to present the royal family as snobs and fools.  Could have been done differently.

That game was ridiculous. And what hostess would allow guest to participate w/o explaining the rules.

This scene really left me feeling very skeptical about the entire series.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by kaygeeret
make a complete sentence

[3 is enough]

All I took away from this episode is that the Windsors are a very messed up group of people.  And Margaret Thatcher wasn't much better.

 I felt that Elizabeth was at least trying a bit to make the Thatchers feel more at ease, but nothing was going to mess up the hunt.

I got married a year before Charles and Diana, and remember the whole lead up to the wedding.  It was presented as a modern day fairy tale, but there was no happily ever after to be sure. 

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by 3 is enough

[heavysnaxx]

On 11/15/2020 at 10:16 AM, Roseanna said:

Thatcher was a daughter of a shopkeeper, so she had perhaps never been in the country. However, she could have asked advice beforehand but perhaps she was too proud to do that.  

Gillian Andersen is just KILLING IT as Thatcher. I feel like I have her entire emotional history already: She's uninformed about the culture and customs of the place she's about to visit but instead of availing herself of insider-knowledge, she opts to remain proudly and obstinately ignorant. It's not pride. It's fear. She needs that ignorance as a reason for why her failing will not be her fault. That tells me she has little real confidence in who she is, her ability to build a rapport with others, or in her capacity to evolve as a person. She doesn't feel as if she belongs there and she refuses to do any of the work to change that, even when the Queen is trying to be kind. Her much-vaunted "grit" is nowhere in evidence. She's a PM and negotiating high-level social engagements is part of the job but she's defeated by a pair of walking shoes.

[Umbelina]

7 minutes ago, heavysnaxx said:

Gillian Andersen is just KILLING IT as Thatcher. I feel like I have her entire emotional history already: She's uninformed about the culture and customs of the place she's about to visit but instead of availing herself of insider-knowledge, she opts to remain proudly and obstinately ignorant. It's not pride. It's fear. She needs that ignorance as a reason for why her failing will not be her fault. That tells me she has little real confidence in who she is, her ability to build a rapport with others, or in her capacity to evolve as a person. She doesn't feel as if she belongs there and she refuses to do any of the work to change that, even when the Queen is trying to be kind. Her much-vaunted "grit" is nowhere in evidence. She's a PM and negotiating high-level social engagements is part of the job but she's defeated by a pair of walking shoes.

I also wonder if she simply never intended to join in on the hunting or fishing.  I could see her planning to work when the others were out doing those things, and only joining them for meals, and evenings.  She could take a stroll around the gardens in "indoor shoes" easily enough, we've seen the Queen do it for years at Buckingham palace.

The other thing I wonder if whether or not she had any real support from the kind of people who MIGHT have, or COULD have warned her about what to take.  I can easily imagine those men in her cabinet resenting this woman, and hoping for her to fall flat on her face.   Who else would there be to guide her, other than those who had been to Balmoral themselves?

[Umbelina]

10 minutes ago, DarkHorse said:

I was surprised by Diana being ok with killing the stag. It seems t

It was suffering.  I have nothing against hunting, but I also want no part of it personally, however, even I would be OK with helping to put down a suffering animal.

[Lsk02]

Diana was there hunting because she had the be. She was a guest of the Prince of Wales, and his father, Prince Philip, the husband of the Queen, had her woken up at dawn and requested her presence. I don’t think she had any way out of that. So she went along with it, as she was likely trained to do, and pretended to enjoy it probably more than she did. She may have been manipulating a bit by doing that, but I don’t think she had any choice in being there. Showing a bit of cheekiness to the Prince was a gamble, but her charm paid off. Or not, in the long run, depending on how you look at it. 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

2 hours ago, kaygeeret said:

And what hostess would allow guest to participate w/o explaining the rules.

She did understand the rules, but she didn't want to make a mistake, so when called on, she responded in a tedious, careful fashion, because that's who she was.  Her husband's face had many stamps on it, because he must have gone with the flow.

 

1 hour ago, DarkHorse said:

I was surprised by Diana being ok with killing the stag. It seems to fly in the face of her kind image. 

That's how she was raised, and she didn't seem to have rebelled against her upbringing.  Charles is the one who likely hated hunting, although fishing seems to have been fine. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by ItCouldBeWorse

[mmecorday]

That ibble dibble game or whatever it was -- I suppose the loser is the one who looks most like someone who attended an Ash Wednesday service with a jittery priest in charge of the imposition of ashes?

I learned long ago from watching "Designing Women" that it's a sign of class to make people comfortable, not to make them feel like they're unwelcome.

[methodwriter85]

On 11/15/2020 at 4:17 PM, NYCFree said:

I didn’t see Diana as exactly conniving, but thinking she knew what she wanted and how to get there. I also didn’t see any kind of Eliza Doolittle at all, in fact the opposite. She had been trained, since birth, on how to act and behave around royals and at a hunting weekend in the country. She packed exactly the right clothes, knew how to be charming at dinner and fun at parlour games. She spotted the stag and told Philip the correct direction of the wind. 
Unlike the Thatchers, she knew exactly that she was being tested and how to pass the tests.

Yeah, that's how I read the scenes as well.

[Blakeston]

I can buy that the royal family, IRL, has a "Balmoral Test" where they're curious to see if their upper crust guests can handle "mucking it up" in the country. I don't buy that they'd be so hideous about it, though - okay, maybe Margaret.

I certainly don't buy the Queen waiting until she's out in the wilderness with Thatcher to say, "You should probably head back and change." 

And I don't buy that the Queen Mother would have been so nasty, either. Peter Morgan is really determined to depict her as a mean, slow-witted snob. (Of course she was shown to be by far the worst at the ibble-dibble game.) The woman wasn't a saint in real life, but she was certainly an intelligent woman who enjoyed meeting all kinds of British citizens, including commoners. She showed a lot of courage during World War II, as well, but you'd never guess it from her depiction here.

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, mmecorday said:

That ibble dibble game or whatever it was -- I suppose the loser is the one who looks most like someone who attended an Ash Wednesday service with a jittery priest in charge of the imposition of ashes?

I learned long ago from watching "Designing Women" that it's a sign of class to make people comfortable, not to make them feel like they're unwelcome.

ibble dibble bored me as much as I'm fairly certain it bored Thatcher.  I still don't "get" the rules, and yes, I read them.  I don't get them because they aren't worth knowing, not because I could not grasp them if my life depended on it.  Other than that though?  WHY would anyone bother?

I don't care for Thatcher, but I'm on her side on this one.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, DarkHorse said:

I am not enjoying this season as much as other seasons. I do not feel any sympathy at all for the Royals anymore and watching them play stupid party games and even Margaret who was once more down to Earth just behave like a stuck up bitch isn't interesting at all. 

I was surprised by Diana being ok with killing the stag. It seems to fly in the face of her kind image. 

As much as they were playing games with her, she was playing her own. 

I also believe that Thatcher would have been far better prepared. I think the writers are enjoying making her look bad due to her being a Conservative. 

 

 

I'm not enjoying the season so far either. The Royals were snobs and jerks Margaret ended up one at the Scottish game. Margaret was a bitch to Margaret Thatcher so she sat in the wrong chair she didn't know and remarks when Thatcher pointed out things were bad in the country. Sure Margaret when your a princess that really means nothing to you and you've never had to deal with the ups and downs economy and other stuff. When your a normal person trying to survive or support a family its a big deal and its a big deal every time it happens. Elizabeth seemed to try to a point but then you had the scene of her and Margaret talking about Thatcher leaving early claiming an emergency. Margaret of course makes a remark about some PM staying longer then they should and Elizabeth confused on why Thatcher would leave early. Hey, Elizabeth, maybe if the country is in as bad as shape as you and Thatcher say perhaps the PM should be in London working on that. Aside from being snobs, their just so out of touch with the real world. They made Thatcher look like an idiot for wearing the wrong clothes and not knowing if drinks at six meant to dress. They could have asked the servant. Why didn't Elizabeth suggest Thatcher change before they headed out?

I'm having a hard time having any sympathy for Charles. I know he's under a lot of pressure to marry and produce an heir and spare. His father treats him like crap and his mother isn't much better. It absolutely sucks that the woman he loves is married to someone else. But she is. Listening to him ask her why she can't come up for the weekend and her remind him she's a wife and mother. Yes, Charles, she's married to someone else which means she can't always be with you and she has kids. Either accept this how its always going to be or move on. While I do like that he doesn't want to marry Diana and tells people that and point out how young she is. The one person he doesn't tell is Diana. He's letting her think he's interested in her. He could have been up front with her from the beginning that he's in love with another woman and always will be and in relationship with her and let her decide whether she still wants to be with him. At least she would know what she was getting into. If he doesn't want to marry them man up and his family he's never going to marry. I don't like Camilla telling him what to say either. Another person letting Diana think Charles is into her. 

I'm not surprised Diana did so well during the test. She could be very charming and funny which got her a lot of fans. As said by many others she's from an aristocrat family so she's been trained since birth how to behave in situations like that. Also after that scene with her crappy grandmother I thought it was going to be revealed that her grandmother instructed her on everything to do and say. Grandmother seemed very determined that the weekend go well. Which of course is crappy of Grandmother. At least give Diana a heads up that Charles isn't really into her but into Camilla. I wish Diana would pick up all the signs that Charles clearly isn't interested in her. It can't be more obvious but she doesn't. I know it shows how inexperience she is and she really was. She never really dated before so its not surprising she's not picking it up. But I wish she would. 

Although I do keep realizing that would mean Andrew would be his heir and that's a scary thought.

Edited November 17, 2020 by andromeda331

[swanpride]

Honestly, in a weird way I enjoy it more now that all characters are portrayed like a-holes. It feels more honest than beforehand. My biggest joy this season was hating on Thatcher.

[Ellaria]

13 hours ago, Jeeves said:

Preach. And, there's this little detail: JFK's father was the United States Ambassador to Great Britain when JFK was a teenager, and he and his sibs spent years in England. His sister Kathleen married into the British aristocracy. I'm sure JFK was well-informed and even a bit experienced in court protocol; he could probably have given Brits lessons in how to behave there. Sheesh.

Yes - all of this. Showing the Kennedys as bumbling with protocol was a bit silly. That's why we need to remember that this isn't a documentary. Morgan clearly wanted to present the Kennedys in that light whether or not it was entirely factual.

[MartyQui]

On 11/15/2020 at 1:16 PM, greekmom said:

I hate Charles with a passion. But I can get why Diana fell for him.  She was 18 years old and sheltered. I read somewhere she was a big fan of harlequin romances which could have shaped her view on how romance goes.

Not even Harlequin romances...her step-grandmother was Barbara Cartland, who wrote icky novels about 18 year old virgins marrying 40 year old dukes.

[ahpny]

Quote

I found that the Queen was sympathetic to Thatcher not getting protocol while the rest of the royals were major dicks.  

I didn’t. In a way the Queen was worse than the rest.  Though ostensibly showing a modicum of concern, she was in a unique position to change the situation at any time with little effort. Yet she chose to let the humiliation play out in full resplendence. Who would have questioned the Queen if she had said, why don’t we depart in 15 minutes? Alternatively, why didn’t someone tell Thatcher before that morning what the hunt would entail and what clothing might be appropriate? The Queen gets no points in my book for “agreeing” with Thatcher mid-hunt, hours later, miles out, that maybe Thatcher should go back and change. Irredeemable they all are.

Quote

The first rule of good manners is to make the other person feel comfortable and correcting another person's actions or clothing is about the rudest thing you can do.

Exactly. As for being sticklers about “manners,” you’d expect more. Violating a “prime directive” of being a good host here is more than rude, its sociopathic.

But the most rewarding part of this episode was Thatcher’s recitation of the poem to the Queen in their second “audience.” That loudly telegraphed Thatcher’s superiority in any way that should count in a meritocracy. The Queen wasn’t smart enough to say anything in response, but wasn’t too stupid to miss the deep insult that it was. Just a little bit of karma there. Thatcher might have well said, “screw your ibble dibble, stalking-hunting bs, I run this country, and deserve to because I got here on my own merits.”

[Ohiopirate02]

I know a lot people are rightly calling out the RF for being shit hosts, but Maggie was also a shit guest.  A good guest would do the bare minimum of looking up what was expected at a place like Balmoral.  The Thatchers can remember to bring black tie apparel but not outdoor shoes. It's not like she was the first non-aristo prime minister.  She made the choice not to research anything about the visit.  Maggie came expecting to work while the royal family played outdoors.  Margaret was right to call her out for not taking time off.  Maggie could easily have declined the Queen's invitation to go stalking in the morning but then rode out with Margaret for lunch.  Also, while there is nothing wrong with not finding enjoyment in parlor games or the Highland Games, Maggie could have faked some interest.  

[Bunnyette]

20 hours ago, kaygeeret said:

I do agree that there is not a chance that the Thatchers showed up w/o the proper clothing for a country weekend.

Also, given that she is the PM, surely they were both aware of the conventions of proper dress at various meals.

And even if they were that ignorant, she/they had aides, advisors, etc to clue them in.

They had been navigating upper society for her political career.

The show made them appear like boobs.

Too bad.  I never liked her, but this was a fairly stupid.

The only reason for the entire sequence was to present the royal family as snobs and fools.  Could have been done differently.

That game was ridiculous. And what hostess would allow guest to participate w/o explaining the rules.

This scene really left me feeling very skeptical about the entire series.

 

 

And the Queen is known for her excellent hospitality and no way would her staff be rude to her guests.  

[tennisgurl]

23 hours ago, Jeeves said:

Preach. And, there's this little detail: JFK's father was the United States Ambassador to Great Britain when JFK was a teenager, and he and his sibs spent years in England.

The Kennedy episode was a real low point in the series for me, do not even get me started. That JFK and Jackie were apparently these miserable drug addled morons who have no idea how to even curtsey, and not the well educated well traveled international political and cultural power houses, is just absurd. I know that I have to take a lot of what happens on this show with a grain of salt, but I need a whole salt shaker for that one. 

[dubbel zout]

55 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

who have no idea how to even curtsey,

Technically, they don't have to bow/curtsey to the queen because they are both heads of state, so equals. The Queen of England doesn't curtsey to the Queen of Denmark or the King of Spain or vice versa, for example.

[Neurochick]

23 hours ago, heavysnaxx said:

Gillian Andersen is just KILLING IT as Thatcher. I feel like I have her entire emotional history already: She's uninformed about the culture and customs of the place she's about to visit but instead of availing herself of insider-knowledge, she opts to remain proudly and obstinately ignorant. It's not pride. It's fear. She needs that ignorance as a reason for why her failing will not be her fault. That tells me she has little real confidence in who she is, her ability to build a rapport with others, or in her capacity to evolve as a person. She doesn't feel as if she belongs there and she refuses to do any of the work to change that, even when the Queen is trying to be kind. Her much-vaunted "grit" is nowhere in evidence. She's a PM and negotiating high-level social engagements is part of the job but she's defeated by a pair of walking shoes.

I agree with this.  There are many people who share in 12 step programs and say things like, "I felt like everybody else was born with the rule book of life, except me."  That's why a lot of people drink, to feel normal because they feel everybody else knows the "rules" but them.  The truth is that no one is born with the rule book; they do research, they ask questions, they let down their pride.  In this episode, Maggie didn't want to do that.  She wanted to sit and stew and then get all superior about those "privileged folk" at the same time wanting to be accepted by them.

The stag was SUCH bad, bad CGI, I couldn't take it. 

Diana knows what she wants and how to get it, can't hate on her for that.  The thing is, everything you do has a price.

I think Gillian Anderson looks less like Maggie Thatcher and more like Nancy Reagan.  Was Thatcher that thin?  I know Nancy Reagan was, because I once saw her when she was First Lady and she was thinner than me and at the time I weighed less than 100 pounds.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Neurochick

[Minivanessa]

11 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

I think Gillian Anderson looks less like Maggie Thatcher and more like Nancy Reagan.  Was Thatcher that thin?  I know Nancy Reagan was, because I once saw her when she was First Lady and she was thinner than me and at the time I weighed less than 100 pounds.

Nope, Thatcher was not that thin. She wasn't fat, and everyone says the camera adds pounds to your look, but she wasn't as wraithlike as GA plays her. She was bosomy, I think, which may have made me remember her as heavier than she was since most news/media photos are cropped from above the waist. (I'm old, and although I'm in the US I did follow the news in the 80's and saw MT on the news and in the papers probably as much as most Americans if not more.)

[Neurochick]

Just now, Jeeves said:

Nope, Thatcher was not that thin. She wasn't fat, and everyone says the camera adds pounds to your look, but she wasn't as wraithlike as GA plays her. She was bosomy, I think, which may have made me remember her as heavier than she was since most news/media photos are cropped from above the waist. (I'm old, and although I'm in the US I did follow the news in the 80's and saw MT on the news and in the papers probably as much as most Americans if not more.)

I knew I wasn't going crazy.  I remember Thatcher as having a womanly figure.  I knew she wasn't as thin as Nancy Reagan.

I don't think the Balmoral Test was to see if Maggie "knew the rules."  I think it was a test to see how Maggie would do if she felt uncomfortable or foolish.  Do you deal with it, do you run and hide, do you become resentful?

[Trillian]

56 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Technically, they don't have to bow/curtsey to the queen because they are both heads of state, so equals. The Queen of England doesn't curtsey to the Queen of Denmark or the King of Spain or vice versa, for example.

And on top of that, they were Americans. Americans do not bow/curtesy to foreign royalty.  Subjects do so as a sign of fealty.   Miss Manners says so and Miss Manners knows all such things. 
 

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

[heavysnaxx]

54 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

I think Gillian Anderson looks less like Maggie Thatcher and more like Nancy Reagan.  Was Thatcher that thin? 

I had the very same thought! Thatcher had a much rounder face and a bit of a double chin, and while maybe ol' Nancy's do was a bit more elegant, it was very similar to Maggie's, in sheer magnitude. There was a moment when Thatcher was in profile in this episode when that bulwark of hair and Anderson's more delicate features made me think, "That's Nancy Reagan!"

[chocolatine]

I abhor hunting and find taxidermy utterly disgusting, so I found this episode hard to watch. Add to that the cringeworthiness of the Thatchers' Balmoral visit. It doesn't seem accurate that either the RF would be such rude hosts or that the Thatchers would be so unprepared. Margaret Thatcher went to Oxford, so she would have met at least *some* posh people there and gotten an idea of their favorite pastimes, well before she became PM.

To the comments of whether Diana was conniving or naive in the way she handled her Balmoral visit, I think it's perfectly plausible that she was well versed in "country" ways and comfortable interacting with aristocracy, while also being naive about the scrutiny and psychological abuse she would endure as part of the RF, so I didn't see any contradiction there.

[heavysnaxx]

24 minutes ago, Trillian said:

No way on earth would the British PM not have the benefit of a protocol officer, either in the PMO or HM’s, to let her know what was expected from a whole weekend. 

Well, there's being told things and then there's really hearing them. From what I've seen of Thatcher, I can easily imagine her waving away any help on offer and disparaging it, to boot.

I would ordinarily be on the side of the person in her position but her utter lack of either humor or self-awareness is just chilling, given the power she holds.

[sugarbaker design]

Great episode about horrible people visiting a castle of horrible people.  I'm loving the performances by all, but I'm especially pleased by the performance of Stephen Boxer as Denis Thatcher.  He consistently cracks me up.  Denis reading the Balmoral hunting diary in a German accent was the highlight of the show.

[benteen]

Gillian's performance as Thatcher might be even worse in this episode than the last one.  The one bright spot is her interaction with Stephen Boxer as Denis Thatcher.  I liked the interaction between the two and they're a good counterpoint to the Royal Family.

I'm continuing to enjoy the Charles and Diana scenes.

[graybrown bird]

Wondered about the presence in this episode of Diana's witchy, calculating grandmother.  Wikipedia says Lady Fermoy, Diana's maternal grandmother, was a long-time lady-in-waiting to Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

[tennisgurl]

12 hours ago, heavysnaxx said:

Well, there's being told things and then there's really hearing them. From what I've seen of Thatcher, I can easily imagine her waving away any help on offer and disparaging it, to boot.

 

This whole episode is basically about the supposed "getting to know you" weekend really being about people that came into the weekend ready to hate each other, and they both succeeded. 

Edited November 18, 2020 by tennisgurl

[AZChristian]

12 hours ago, heavysnaxx said:

Well, there's being told things and then there's really hearing them. From what I've seen of Thatcher, I can easily imagine her waving away any help on offer and disparaging it, to boot.

I would ordinarily be on the side of the person in her position but her utter lack of either humor or self-awareness is just chilling, given the power she holds.

Thatcher is portrayed here and in a lot of history books as a person who walked into the first meeting after becoming Prime Minister with an eye to changing things to how she wanted them to be.  She may have been told - and heard - things, but it seems that she had never developed the ability to be flexible or willing to compromise.  

[LeDucDiableBleu]

On 11/16/2020 at 3:27 AM, Daisy said:

I guess I'm the odd duck here.  During the Thatcher portion, I kept thinking but why didn't they just ask? Like. they had the protocol sheet, it said drinks, and then dinner. Why not just ask them if it mean you had to be black tie for drinks? They just assumed. Other than Philip being, you know. Philip and a big baby - to me anyway it seemed that the Queen was trying. She had extra shoes, she was pointing out for next time how to dress etc.  I am a city girl at heart  but I wouldn't really go to the country with impractical clothing. 

At the games, they didn't even try. You've watched how it is done. why not just try to go fast, even if you make a fool out of yourself?  Then just laugh and dab your face. But to me it was just... i suppose. reverse snobbery?  And how she acted during the Highland Games. that didn't make sense to me at all. but again, I'm the odd duck since everyone thought the royals were being snotty. Maybe they were. but i don't think the Thatchers were being very open either. 

This is just a sad sad road Diana and Charles are headed. 

 

 

They couldn't just ask. Even asking the question would expose them as bumpkins. The decided to roll the dice and guess at which attire they should wear, with a 50% chance they could be right and not be exposed as bumpkins. Turns out they guessed incorrectly. So in that case I saw them taking a calculated risk. 100% chance of being exposed as bumpkins by outright asking what to wear, versus 50% chance with guessing. Sometimes people want to minimize their risk of being exposed. Some people aren't comfortable with actively showing that they're bumpkins, inept, unsure of the answer, etc. 

 

 

 

[benteen]

If there's one thing that's a real weakness on The Crown it's the tendency to portray certain people as "country bumpkins" who don't know anything.  Usually it's reserved for Americans like JFK and the Apollo astronauts.  The show portrayed JFK, a smooth politician, as a "country bumpkin" who didn't know the slightest thing about protocol or how to present himself when he visited Buckingham Palace.  They actually ignored the fact that JFK had spent a lot of time in the UK, had many British friends and knew how to conduct himself when he was over there.  He learned all of this because, his father was the former ambassador of Great Britain!  

It seems the country bumpkin portrayal is no longer exclusive to the Americans as Margaret Thatcher, who climbed the ranks of British politics for decades, has no clue about aristocratic norms and protocol.  It's one thing to ignore them, it's quite another to act like someone like her wouldn't have known anything about them.  I wish The Crown could do a better job of showing these differences instead of making one side just look stupid and ill-informed.

Edited November 18, 2020 by benteen

[Wordsworth]

Of the three episodes I've seen, this one is my favorite.   I was in grade school when Thatcher became PM and I remember the hoopla over the first female Prime Minister.  I don't have the same antipathy toward Thatcher as others do.  I am finding Anderson's portrayal to be wonderful, though, perhaps, she doesn't quite have the same tone and pitch that the real Thatcher did (she's certainly much better than whatshisname who played JFK in season 2).

I am loving the Thatcher marriage, stolidly middle-class people with more egalitarian ideals than the Royal Family.  She unpacks his bags, fully expects to share his bed and commisserates with him.  He seems perfectly content to read Balmoral hunting logs in Prince Albert's voice while his wife works.  If only the Royals could come up with partnerships as good as this.

In the first episode of the season, we find Elizabeth pleased with the idea of a female Prime Minister, then seems surprised that Thatcher has found many women too emotional to withstand leadership positions.  It's an unpopular opinion, but there are some women who can't handle leadership positions; some men, too.  Thatcher comes away with a better impression of the queen than she had - the queen is far more interested and informed about the government than she'd thought.

Of course, that doesn't mean the two women are exactly alike.  I did appreciate Elizabeth's attempts to downplay the Thatchers' faux pas.  On the other hand, bringing someone to your home in order to haze them seems pretty immature so I can see how the PM would be put off by these so-called sophisticated royals behaving like middle school kids.

As for why she didn't bring galoshes or hunting paraphernalia...well, she may not have realized she would be invited to go out with the family to hunt.  

The Diana stuff is obviously required, but I'm less interested in that than I would have been ordinarily.  I lived through the Diana years, was 11 when they got married, so I remember what a big deal it was.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Umbelina]

Just now, LeDucDiableBleu said:

 

 

They couldn't just ask. Even asking the question would expose them as bumpkins. The decided to roll the dice and guess at which attire they should wear, with a 50% chance they could be right and not be exposed as bumpkins. Turns out they guessed incorrectly. So in that case I saw them taking a calculated risk. 100% chance of being exposed as bumpkins by outright asking what to wear, versus 50% chance with guessing. Sometimes people want to minimize their risk of being exposed. Some people aren't comfortable with actively showing that they're bumpkins, inept, unsure of the answer, etc. 

That makes sense, honestly, I also doubt many of her coworkers were ever invited to spend time with the Queen at Balmoral.  Calling the palace to ask would have exposed her.

I still think her real plan was to socialize at meals and tea, and then get work done while the others were out hunting and fishing, honestly, it may not have even occurred to her that invited guests had to "sing for their supper" by killing things, or that they would have a strict schedule for every moment of her time.

[sugarbaker design]

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I still think her real plan was to socialize at meals and tea, and then get work done while the others were out hunting and fishing, honestly, it may not have even occurred to her that invited guests had to "sing for their supper" by killing things, or that they would have a strict schedule for every moment of her time.

I totally agree.  The Thatchers didn't expect to do any of that ridiculous shit the Windsors were doing, they were expecting a work weekend.  It was fun watching the Thatchers at the Scots field event, watching the Windsors, like they were zoo animals, trying to figure them out when Denis hits the nail on the head with "boorish, snobbish and rude".

[Roseanna]

4 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I still think her real plan was to socialize at meals and tea, and then get work done while the others were out hunting and fishing, honestly, it may not have even occurred to her that invited guests had to "sing for their supper" by killing things, or that they would have a strict schedule for every moment of her time.

If I am invited to somebody's holiday cottage, I don't bring my work with me (if I have work to do, I don't accept the invitation). And yes, I would wait for a lot socializing, especially evenings. If I for some reason couldn't participate in some hobby of the hosts, I would go walking to admire nature and take pictures (what a waste - such a beauty around and Thatcher can't stop working for a day!).        

[Umbelina]

4 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

If I am invited to somebody's holiday cottage, I don't bring my work with me (if I have work to do, I don't accept the invitation). And yes, I would wait for a lot socializing, especially evenings. If I for some reason couldn't participate in some hobby of the hosts, I would go walking to admire nature and take pictures (what a waste - such a beauty around and Thatcher can't stop working for a day!).        

You don't turn down the Queen, and running a country isn't exactly a normal job.  Yes, Thatcher was driven, very driven, which is why and how she became the first female PM of a very old country.

I don't like her politics at all, but I admire her work ethic, and her "relaxation" seemed to be cooking and doing wifely things at home.  Not everyone relaxes while stomping in the mud, and that doesn't mean there is something wrong with them.

ETA, I wonder if she even owned "outside shoes" or the kind of clothing you needed for freezing and raining Scotland.  I doubt it.  

Edited November 18, 2020 by Umbelina

[Roseanna]

1 minute ago, Umbelina said:

I admire her work ethic

She is a typical woman who thinks that by working 24/7 and controlling everything you get the best results. But it's just the opposite: when you are free from your normal routine, you suddenly get fresh ideas.  

[AZChristian]

6 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

She is a typical woman who thinks that by working 24/7 and controlling everything you get the best results. But it's just the opposite: when you are free from your normal routine, you suddenly get fresh ideas.  

Or you observe how/why others do what they do (from monarchs to miners) and perhaps learn!!!!

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

She is a typical woman who thinks that by working 24/7 and controlling everything you get the best results. But it's just the opposite: when you are free from your normal routine, you suddenly get fresh ideas.  

And that is the advice that Margaret gives her.  There is always going to be a crisis, and the country will pull through like it always does.  

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

And that is the advice that Margaret gives her.  There is always going to be a crisis, and the country will pull through like it always does.  

As Margaret, who never held a job or had any real responsibility in her life, pours herself her 19th cocktail of the day.

The country doesn't "pull itself through."  As PM Thatcher was one of the primary people, along with all of the other who actually are accountable and must work for a living, do.

13 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

She is a typical woman who thinks that by working 24/7 and controlling everything you get the best results. But it's just the opposite: when you are free from your normal routine, you suddenly get fresh ideas.  

It was the eighties, all women were working harder to get to that level, especially then.  She was the FIRST who ever did.  We still haven't managed to elect a woman in the USA, how many decades later?

It's like that old saying from Fred Astaire's partner, "I did the same thing he did, only backward, and in heels."  Women had to be yards above men to compete in a man's world back then, let alone to get to the highest office in the land.

[sugarbaker design]

5 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

As Margaret, who never held a job or had any real responsibility in her life, pours herself her 19th cocktail of the day.

That scene was hysterical, I don't know how HBC or GA held it together.  Margaret, the original party girl, telling Thatcher what to do!

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

It's like that old saying from Fred Astaire's partner, "I did the same thing he did, only backward, and in heels." 

Ginger Rogers!!!

[BitterApple]

Watching this family makes me grateful a scrappy Colonial militia said "to hell with this shit" in 1776. 

[qtpye]

59 minutes ago, benteen said:

If there's one thing that's a real weakness on The Crown it's the tendency to portray certain people as "country bumpkins" who don't know anything.  Usually it's reserved for Americans like JFK and the Apollo astronauts.  The show portrayed JFK, a smooth politician, as a "country bumpkin" who didn't know the slightest thing about protocol or how to present himself when he visited Buckingham Palace.  They actually ignored the fact that JFK had spent a lot of time in the UK, had many British friends and knew how to conduct himself when he was over there.  He learned all of this because, his father was the former ambassador of Great Britain!  

It seems the country bumpkin portrayal is no longer exclusive to the Americans as Margaret Thatcher, who climbed the ranks of British politics for decades, has no clue about aristocratic norms and protocol.  It's one thing to ignore them, it's quite another to act like someone like her wouldn't have known anything about them.  I wish The Crown could do a better job of showing these differences instead of making one side just look stupid and ill-informed.

The series has up until this season been very pro-crown. I think the creator probably does adore her majesty and there is not less pro-crown than Americans or the bourgeoisie (at least that is how the royals would perceive Thatcher and her husband).

JFK and his wife...is England not lucky to have the dignity of a monarch instead of this gauche (not ) president.

Brilliant astronauts that are the first humans to go to the moon...all they want to do is run around the palace and are in awe of Prince Phillip.

 

56 minutes ago, Wordsworth said:

Of the three episodes I've seen, this one is my favorite.   I was in grade school when Thatcher became PM and I remember the hoopla over the first female Prime Minister.  I don't have the same antipathy toward Thatcher as others do.  I am finding Anderson's portrayal to be wonderful, though, perhaps, she doesn't quite have the same tone and pitch that the real Thatcher did (she's certainly much better than whatshisname who played JFK in season 2).

I am loving the Thatcher marriage, stolidly middle-class people with more egalitarian ideals than the Royal Family.  She unpacks his bags, fully expects to share his bed and commisserates with him.  He seems perfectly content to read Balmoral hunting logs in Prince Albert's voice while his wife works.  If only the Royals could come up with partnerships as good as this.

In the first episode of the season, we find Elizabeth pleased with the idea of a female Prime Minister, then seems surprised that Thatcher has found many women too emotional to withstand leadership positions.  It's an unpopular opinion, but there are some women who can't handle leadership positions; some men, too.  Thatcher comes away with a better impression of the queen than she had - the queen is far more interested and informed about the government than she'd thought.

Of course, that doesn't mean the two women are exactly alike.  I did appreciate Elizabeth's attempts to downplay the Thatchers' faux pas.  On the other hand, bringing someone to your home in order to haze them seems pretty immature so I can see how the PM would be put off by these so-called sophisticated royals behaving like middle school kids.

As for why she didn't bring galoshes or hunting paraphernalia...well, she may not have realized she would be invited to go out with the family to hunt.  

The Diana stuff is obviously required, but I'm less interested in that than I would have been ordinarily.  I lived through the Diana years, was 11 when they got married, so I remember what a big deal it was.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I noticed the ones most harping on the supposed faux-pas are Prince Phillip, whose claim to fame is being the literal and figurative royal dick and Margaret, a woman who does nothing but party and feel sorry for herself 24/7. They are insecure and need these type of petty customs to feel superior.

The Queen is secure with herself and has standing. She was gracious until the hunting scene. It does feel like she and Thatcher will be like oil and water.

[Umbelina]

5 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

Watching this family makes me grateful a scrappy Colonial militia said "to hell with this shit" in 1776. 

I just made an eerily similar comment in the Dear Mrs. Kennedy thread.  I think we were typing at the same time even.  

[Roseanna]

3 hours ago, Wordsworth said:

I am loving the Thatcher marriage, stolidly middle-class people with more egalitarian ideals than the Royal Family.  She unpacks his bags, fully expects to share his bed and commisserates with him.  He seems perfectly content to read Balmoral hunting logs in Prince Albert's voice while his wife works.  If only the Royals could come up with partnerships as good as this.

I have hard to understand why people have to keep their former habits that don't suit to their new situation in life? If a wife is a Prime Minister, she has better things to do than unpack her husband's bag (can't he do it himself or does Margaret want check if there is evidence for cheating?). And sleeping together is sheer folly - that poor husband has stay awake until his wife has finished reading her state papers. 

Could it be that Thatchers have the same motivations to keep middle-class habits as Harold Wilson who had to smoked pipe instead of cigars because to please Labour voters.

However, I admit that each couple have their own habits to show that they care for each other. If these are Thatchers' ways and they agree, how am I to judge.