S04.E02: The Balmoral Test

[swanpride]

Simple, she was a control freak.

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, swanpride said:

Simple, she was a control freak.

I agree.  Plus there were circumstances (like the apartheid issue) where she was the only one who held onto that opinion; she was NOT going to trust anyone else to deal with things.

[dubbel zout]

53 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

But this episode suggests that when Thatcher visited the Queen there was an expectation (by the royals) that the Prime Minister would leave ALL her responsibilities behind for the weekend (or however long they were invited) and that she would focus all of her attention on her role as a guest of  the Queen.

I didn't see it this way at all. 

[Anothermi]

 

On 11/23/2020 at 11:59 AM, WatchrTina said:

But this episode suggests that when Thatcher visited the Queen there was an expectation (by the royals) that the Prime Minister would leave ALL her responsibilities behind for the weekend (or however long they were invited) and that she would focus all of her attention on her role as a guest of  the Queen.  That seems unrealistic.  Surely the Queen has invited other Prime Ministers before?  Surely there is already an established protocol for ensuring the Prime Minister has the support he/she needs to relax during a week-end get away, while still attending to time-sensitive matters of state.  

I've no doubt that Thatcher was a fish-out-of-water during the visit but I scoff at the depiction of the visit that has been served up.

Absolutely. This visit by the Prime Minister was a yearly requirement (my brief on-line search revealed) because the Royal Family moved camp to Balmoral for 8 weeks from Aug - Sept for a holiday. The Queen reduced her work time, but meeting with her Prime Ministers was a requirement of her job, hence the visit (although I don't think it was weekly like her normal work schedule). It WAS a working visit for both the Queen and the PMs. The expectation was that it would be in a more relaxed environment (for the Queen) and that the PMs had to adjust to that. Many knew it could be an opportunity... or an ordeal. Clearly it was an ordeal for Thatcher. She wasn't a true guest because her invitation stemmed from the need to carry out the work of governance, not a desire for her (or any PM's) company. 

The whole episode being set at Balmoral was a way to contrast Thatcher and the Queen as personalities, to give a glimpse of the deterioration of the Crown/PM relationship between these two women, and to show the difference between how Thatcher "handled" the visit with how Diana handled it. I have to assume that "liberties were taken" by the show to highlight this.  ;-)

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Anothermi
The PMs, not the MPs

[irisheyes]

27 minutes ago, Anothermi said:

I have to assume that "liberties were taken" by the show to highlight thi

I definitely agree with that. I highly doubt that Diana and Thatcher passed each other on the Balmoral driveway. 😀

[VCRTracking]

So reading how to play "Ibble Dibble" it seems easy and fun to play. Each person has their assigned number. Just say your number then "ibble dibble" and how many burned cork marks ("dibble Ibbles") and pass it to another person's number. If you mess up just take a drink. I saw a video on YouTube of regular people playing it. It's not just for upper class. 

[QuinnInND]

I read recently that Margaret Thatcher hated the outdoors and wasting time tramping around in the rain. Her relaxing was working. She thought she could work during the day when the royals were out doing whatever, then meet them for dinner. They set her up to look like a fool. I hate people like that. 

My mother in law told me that Charles needed to find a suitable young virgin to marry to sire an heir. Diana was the perfect fit in that regard. I didn't realize that Diana's bulimia was a thing so early on. I thought it came later in the relationship. 

[qtpye]

Was anyone else perturbed that no one was taking Diana's feelings into consideration at all? Yes, she was clout chasing but at the end she was just a young girl. I know Charles proposed to a couple of other ladies who turned him down because they did not want the responsibility and they knew about Camilla. Someone should have told Diana about Charles' infatuation with this Camilla.

I mean they think Charles will grow to love her when he can barely stand to kiss her?

[swanpride]

The show really overstated that part. I doubt that Charles had ever problems with kissing any pretty women.

[qtpye]

41 minutes ago, swanpride said:

The show really overstated that part. I doubt that Charles had ever problems with kissing any pretty women.

I think it was more to do that she was so young than him not finding her pretty.

[Milburn Stone]

On 11/15/2020 at 9:00 AM, swanpride said:

I am not sure who I disliked more...the stupid tests and expectations, or being so idiotic to turn up without proper shoes and then, after accepting the invitation to hunt, not asking for some proper clothing.

True, but it seemed like the housemaid (or whatever her title) who showed them to their rooms was in on the assholiness. Because as soon as the Thatchers said they didn't bring any outdoor shoes, the response I'd expect would be, "Oh, I'm so sorry, don't worry, I'll get you some." So either that servant became a dick from hanging around the royals, or they only hire dicks, or else the royals specifically instructed her, "Now listen, if they say they didn't bring any outdoor shoes, LET THEM TWIST SLOWLY IN THE WIND. Got it?"

On 11/16/2020 at 7:59 AM, Blakeston said:

There had better not be any more Diana/stag symbolism throughout the rest of this series.

I thought the wounded stag limping around, and finally having his head mounted on a wall, was meant to represent Charles.

[Lorna Mae]

16 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

So reading how to play "Ibble Dibble" it seems easy and fun to play. Each person has their assigned number. Just say your number then "ibble dibble" and how many burned cork marks ("dibble Ibbles") and pass it to another person's number. If you mess up just take a drink. I saw a video on YouTube of regular people playing it. It's not just for upper class. 

I can't get past the idea that a lot of what was happening at Balmoral was just what the Windsors liked to do. And while "test" elements like "Don't sit in that chair that's right out in the open!" are unfair, pursuing your favorite activities is not necessarily setting someone up to fail. Some people are into hunting. Some people can take the stick out of their arse long enough to take part in a drinking game. 

I mean, drinking games aren't something you try to win. If you never mess up, you don't have to take a drink, and where's the fun in that? When you think of all the folderol they have to do, Trooping of the Colors and like that, the Windsors need a chance to just get silly once in a while. 

[merylinkid]

I personally am not fond of drinking games -- they get in the way of -- DRINKING.  But that's me.   If ever I am invited to Balmoral, I would participate.   Because just as the Royals should have been good hosts, Thatcher should have been a good guest.   Thatcher with her attitude of "all work and no play" and anyone who wants to play is just FRIVOLOUS wasn't a good guest.

How can you tell Queen Victoria's chair from all the other old chairs sitting around?   It's not like the Windsors redecorate often.   

[buttersister]

Well, aren't they charming? And products of an inbred blood line (looking at you, George III and Victoria).

Can't say I wasn't entertained by a miserable Thatcher.

I also understand and shout out to the young women who turned away Charles. I haz old so remember him as the so-called World's Most Eligible Bachelor. Ha, somewhere, Chris Harrison just sneezed.

[Deskisamess]

On 11/15/2020 at 4:46 PM, Roseanna said:

I am not against hunting irl, but I didn't like if the stag was wounded on purpose just to get those scenes filmed.  

That wasn't a real stag, it was cgi for probably 99% of the scenes. Really wounding an animal for a tv show in this century would never happen.

[Lorna Mae]

Eh, I wasn't denying the existence of the Balmoral test. Just saying that a weekend with any close-knit group will be a test, whether deliberately set up or not. You either mesh with them or you don't. I think I see this cold-bloodedly because I have a set of cousins who were very close with each other, and highly insular. I couldn't get beyond the superficial with them because I hadn't been to any of their events nor met any of their friends, and since that's all they talked about, we didn't talk much. And? By the time I was 18, I figured, forget them. I didn't need people like that. 

I mean, does it matter that much? Surely there have been PMs who didn't click, socially, with the Windsors. Did it make their job more difficult? Serious question because I don't know. But if I were in that position, I might say, "Forget those clowns: I'm Prime Minister and I was voted in." 

[Scott]

21 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

So reading how to play "Ibble Dibble" it seems easy and fun to play. Each person has their assigned number. Just say your number then "ibble dibble" and how many burned cork marks ("dibble Ibbles") and pass it to another person's number. If you mess up just take a drink. I saw a video on YouTube of regular people playing it. It's not just for upper class. 

I've actually played a version of Ibble Dibble in French ("La vache qui tache") with some friends from Paris many, many years ago.  I completely got sidetracked while watching this episode trying to remember those phrases.

[kaygeeret]

22 hours ago, QuinnInND said:

I read recently that Margaret Thatcher hated the outdoors and wasting time tramping around in the rain. Her relaxing was working. She thought she could work during the day when the royals were out doing whatever, then meet them for dinner. They set her up to look like a fool. I hate people like that. 

My mother in law told me that Charles needed to find a suitable young virgin to marry to sire an heir. Diana was the perfect fit in that regard. I didn't realize that Diana's bulimia was a thing so early on. I thought it came later in the relationship. 

Diana suffered from bulimia prior to her relationship with Charles.  She also struggled with depression and that predated Charles as well.  She was messed up by her parents and her mother leaving.  She and her step mom didn't get along either. 

[Umbelina]

2 hours ago, Lorna Mae said:

Eh, I wasn't denying the existence of the Balmoral test. Just saying that a weekend with any close-knit group will be a test, whether deliberately set up or not. You either mesh with them or you don't. I think I see this cold-bloodedly because I have a set of cousins who were very close with each other, and highly insular. I couldn't get beyond the superficial with them because I hadn't been to any of their events nor met any of their friends, and since that's all they talked about, we didn't talk much. And? By the time I was 18, I figured, forget them. I didn't need people like that. 

I mean, does it matter that much? Surely there have been PMs who didn't click, socially, with the Windsors. Did it make their job more difficult? Serious question because I don't know. But if I were in that position, I might say, "Forget those clowns: I'm Prime Minister and I was voted in." 

It's not one on one though, not a fair situation.

I'd liken it more to the mean kid popular gang at a junior high school, waiting to mock the new kids as they come in.  

I can't IMAGINE being rude to a guest, let alone laughing at them, and the idea that I would tell them what they were going to do for their time staying with me is just beyond my comprehension.  

[merylinkid]

14 hours ago, Umbelina said:

nd the idea that I would tell them what they were going to do for their time staying with me is just beyond my comprehension.  

That's how house parties were set up.    People arrived on Thursday night or Friday morning and found the weekend Itinerary in their rooms.   Usually walks or something on Friday, get up god awful early for a hunt on Saturday, then Saturday night was a ball, or just parlor games (depending on the season and the size of the group).   Sunday was church and then more walks in the afternoon.   Monday you go home.  

Its how the upper class did things.    As someone deeply involved in politics -- as a TORY no less, Thatcher would have attended her share of weekend house parties.  The show just exaggerated her workaholic attitude to 1) show how hard she worked and how much she DISAPPROVED of relaxing and 2) to sharply contrast her with Diana who knew exactly how the game was played.   So that Diana would look all the more "of the right sort" to marry a prince.    It was pretty heavy handed story telling.

[Umbelina]

6 hours ago, merylinkid said:

That's how house parties were set up.    People arrived on Thursday night or Friday morning and found the weekend Itinerary in their rooms.   Usually walks or something on Friday, get up god awful early for a hunt on Saturday, then Saturday night was a ball, or just parlor games (depending on the season and the size of the group).   Sunday was church and then more walks in the afternoon.   Monday you go home.  

Its how the upper class did things.    As someone deeply involved in politics -- as a TORY no less, Thatcher would have attended her share of weekend house parties.  The show just exaggerated her workaholic attitude to 1) show how hard she worked and how much she DISAPPROVED of relaxing and 2) to sharply contrast her with Diana who knew exactly how the game was played.   So that Diana would look all the more "of the right sort" to marry a prince.    It was pretty heavy handed story telling.

Then you send them a calendar before they arrive (or decline, which Thatcher was not allowed to do.)

The polite thing to do is always the kind thing to do.

Have a list of activities available, and send it early so people know what clothes to bring.  The key word here is AVAILABLE, not "REQUIRED."  Send them the clothing list too, if you are such snobs that you dress one way for drinks and another for dinner.

The idea here is to be a good host, which obviously the Royals had no intentions whatsoever of being.  Instead they deliberately invite a few people who will "fail" their childish and rude tests, so they can be amused and gossip.

It's disgusting.

[merylinkid]

That's just it.   Someone who attend these types of house parties wouldn;t have needed a packing list before hand or even a calendar.   It's KNOWN what goes on.   We don't because we don't run in those circles.   But Thatcher once she started moving up in the party leadership most definitely would have known.    The Royals house parties are a lot like ALL the upper class parties.   Because they all went to the same schools as the upper classes, and their friends all came from the upper classes.   Now a LABOUR party PM might not have known but a TORY PM, most definitely would have known.    Her not knowing how it worked was just another example of creative license in the show.

[swanpride]

Well, it is true that Thatcher hated it, so I guess at the very least the part that she disliked the games, the conversations aso is true, and I doubt that she owned proper hunting clothing ever. But the part with not knowing how to dress is certainly iffy, and at least the chair exist, though I doubt that Thatcher sat on it.

[merylinkid]

7 hours ago, swanpride said:

Well, it is true that Thatcher hated it, so I guess at the very least the part that she disliked the games, the conversations aso is true, and I doubt that she owned proper hunting clothing ever. But the part with not knowing how to dress is certainly iffy, and at least the chair exist, though I doubt that Thatcher sat on it.

Oh she didn't like it.   That is not disputed.   But the show took very creative license with her not knowing that was how it worked.   She knew.  She didn't approve of such frivolity but she knew.

[AZChristian]

Found this GREAT article about what visitors (guests) at Balmoral should expect.  Too bad the internet wasn't around when the Thatchers went to visit.

[chaifan]

On 11/25/2020 at 7:04 PM, Umbelina said:

Then you send them a calendar before they arrive (or decline, which Thatcher was not allowed to do.)

The polite thing to do is always the kind thing to do.

Have a list of activities available, and send it early so people know what clothes to bring.  The key word here is AVAILABLE, not "REQUIRED."  Send them the clothing list too, if you are such snobs that you dress one way for drinks and another for dinner.

The idea here is to be a good host, which obviously the Royals had no intentions whatsoever of being.  Instead they deliberately invite a few people who will "fail" their childish and rude tests, so they can be amused and gossip.

It's disgusting.

And it's also fiction.  Reading the comments it appears that people are, by and large, taking everything that appears on screen as historical fact.  It's not.  This is largely fiction.  We have no idea what information MT was given prior to arrival or how she was actually treated.  There are several articles that do confirm that she did not have "outdoor shoes" and was given wellies while at Balmoral.  I've found no confirmation of the actual scene where she shows up in bright blue trench and heels, or the rest of that scene.  So in real life, did she need wellies just for wandering about the gardens, or was she invited out on a hunt?  We don't know.  Same with the "dressing for dinner" scene - there's nothing from a historical standpoint to confirm MT was set up to be embarrassed by the royals.  But it makes for good TV, especially as the contrast to Diana.  The "Queen Victoria's chair" scene was made up, but it was based on accounts that other guests had made that mistake. 

I'm more interested in whether MT knew outdoor activities were likely, but purposely not pack outdoor shoes, hoping to use it as an excuse, or if she truly was caught off guard and was naively unprepared.  I prefer to think the former. 

The Brits laugh at Americans, saying we are viewing The Crown as a historical documentary, and episode threads like this make them perfectly justified!

 

 

[swanpride]

...I think most of us are aware that it is fiction. In fact, multiple of us pointed out scenes which seemed to be too over the top. But that doesn't change the fact that those tests in itself are apparently real.

[PeterPirate]

 

3 hours ago, swanpride said:

...I think most of us are aware that it is fiction. In fact, multiple of us pointed out scenes which seemed to be too over the top. But that doesn't change the fact that those tests in itself are apparently real.

Indeed.  I think it is rather bemusing that some Brits think Americans can't tell the difference between fact and fiction.  

Edited November 28, 2020 by PeterPirate

[swanpride]

I'm not even American....

[Inquisitionist]

On 11/15/2020 at 2:16 PM, Pepper Mostly said:

Same. She's shown to be a meticulously prepared hard worker. But she gets to Balmoral and she doesn't have a clue? Its just like the scenes with Lyndon Johnson not knowing which fork to use. I get that its for exposition but its insulting to both Johnson, who was a sharp and savvy politician, not some rube, and Thatcher, who, love her or hate her, was not naive. 

It reminded me of how S2 made the Kennedys look like hayseeds when meeting the royals.  This show is not subtle about exaggerating for effect.  ::eyeroll::

[Razzberry]

On 11/18/2020 at 7:53 AM, 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.  

It would perhaps be different if the activities were something the PM could enjoy, but mucking about stalking stags while her work piles up would be extremely stressful to a workaholic.  

They do have some things in common though.

[Courtney]

On 11/16/2020 at 9:12 PM, 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 having trouble getting into this season, too.  There's so many miserable characters.  Knowing how many train wrecks lie ahead of everyone doesn't help matters either.

[Umbelina]

30 minutes ago, Courtney said:

I'm having trouble getting into this season, too.  There's so many miserable characters.  Knowing how many train wrecks lie ahead of everyone doesn't help matters either.

I loved the season, even though there certainly wasn't much happiness around.  I felt it all held together so much more than last year.

Lots of unpleasant people though, to be sure.  This episode showed that in spades.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Umbelina

[sistermagpie]

On 11/24/2020 at 12:29 PM, Milburn Stone said:

True, but it seemed like the housemaid (or whatever her title) who showed them to their rooms was in on the assholiness. Because as soon as the Thatchers said they didn't bring any outdoor shoes, the response I'd expect would be, "Oh, I'm so sorry, don't worry, I'll get you some." So either that servant became a dick from hanging around the royals, or they only hire dicks, or else the royals specifically instructed her, "Now listen, if they say they didn't bring any outdoor shoes, LET THEM TWIST SLOWLY IN THE WIND. Got it?"

I thought the wounded stag limping around, and finally having his head mounted on a wall, was meant to represent Charles.

Although the Royals were set up as petty mean girls throughout the ep, snickering at her dressing early for dinner and not telling her she needs to change her clothes until after you're in the middle of nowhere etc., Thatcher had her own chip going in as well. To me it felt like one of those situations where the middle class has more friction with the people above and below them than they have with each other.

For instance, with the servant, yes, she could have explained to Thatcher that she might need the shoes--or Thatcher could have asked if it would be a problem. But Thatcher's reaction to the servant throughout was pretty haughty. She said something like, "What an odd thing to say to someone" about the shoes, as if the servant couldn't possibly have been saying anything worth listening to, and earlier was outright offended that the woman dared to start to unpack her husband's suitcase because "that's a wife's job" according to Thatcher's conservative, sexist, middle-class worldview.

The scene I mostly didn't buy was Margaret dressing her down, since it not only was too OTT, but I thought Thatcher would have had a comeback for it. I found myself wanting Thatcher to a)  ask Margaret what on earth she would know about the value of taking time off when she'd never worked enough to need one and b) tell her if she didn't stop telling her not to sit in Queen Victoria's chair she was going to take a shit on it.

[swanpride]

lol...

yeah, I think the servants reacted to the behaviour of Thatcher. NEVER anger the hired help.

I am not sure if real live Thatcher would have dressed down a royal, because she was still a royalist at the end of the day.

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, swanpride said:

lol...

yeah, I think the servants reacted to the behaviour of Thatcher. NEVER anger the hired help.

I am not sure if real live Thatcher would have dressed down a royal, because she was still a royalist at the end of the day.

Oh you're right, she totally wouldn't. Though she did eventually learn how to throw shade at the Queen. This was pretty early, though. Plus, I guess she did respect the chair!

[Camera One]

I didn't see the "test" as being an intentional thing.  With the exception of Philip and Margaret being rude (since they're being them), I saw it more as just incompatibility in culture and personality.  Thatcher coming down for drinks/dinner early seemed like a misunderstanding.  Elizabeth and her family were very excited over the stag and invited her along, not realizing that Thatcher couldn't care less and didn't enjoy that type of thing.  

I really hate parties and especially parlor games and even board games after dinner, so I actually did feel badly for Thatcher (I'm kind of a workaholic too).   Even though it was all probably historically made up, I thought it was entertaining to watch the actors "play" with the fish out of water scenario.  Mr. Thatcher was amusing.

The Charles/Camilla/Diana stuff is a little more uneasy to watch.  Those clandestine conversations with Camilla make it feel very shady.  It seems to be going towards the angle that Charles never felt anything for Diana from the start.  They're also making Charles very bitter towards everyone in the family, and that's all based on that fictional Charles-idolizes-David arc, which makes it difficult for me to truly believe.  But again, the guy who plays Charles is very charismatic, as is the actress who plays Diana, so it's a bit easier for feel for both of them in a way.

Like the last one, I really enjoyed the scenery and the production value.  The ensemble approach so far this season is more enjoyable than the more aloof one-off centrics from last season.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Camera One

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, Camera One said:

I didn't see the "test" as being an intentional thing.  With the exception of Philip and Margaret being rude (since they're being them), I saw it more as just incompatibility in culture and personality.  Thatcher coming down for drinks/dinner early seemed like a misunderstanding.  Elizabeth and her family were very excited over the stag and invited her along, not realizing that Thatcher couldn't care less and didn't enjoy that type of thing.  

 

I think it can be intentional without them thinking of it is intentional. That is, them not realizing that Thatcher couldn't care less automatically says that they think this is the way anybody should be. They're so isolated and entitled they don't even realize how isolated and entitled they are--so they can wind up thinking somebody's just a bad person without acknowledging to themselves that what they mean is that they failed the Balmoral Test.

[Roseanna]

20 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I think it can be intentional without them thinking of it is intentional. That is, them not realizing that Thatcher couldn't care less automatically says that they think this is the way anybody should be. They're so isolated and entitled they don't even realize how isolated and entitled they are--so they can wind up thinking somebody's just a bad person without acknowledging to themselves that what they mean is that they failed the Balmoral Test.

I doubt they would regard Thatcher as "a bad person", rather as a person who is odd, that is "not like us". And exactly the same would happen if a  townie would go f.ex. to a farm where she behaves like she has used to be, not to speak if a Westerner would go to another culture.

It's both parties that are responsible. A good host tells beforehand about the program and what kind of clothes to take with.  A good guest asks if she isn't sure. If a guest makes a mistake, a good host pretends not to notice it. Or a good guest laughs at her own mistake.

Regarding Thatcher, she had been a MP and a minister, so she couldn't be ignorant but must have attended at the weekend parties of the upper class.

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I doubt they would regard Thatcher as "a bad person", rather as a person who is odd, that is "not like us". And exactly the same would happen if a  townie would go f.ex. to a farm where she behaves like she has used to be, not to speak if a Westerner would go to another culture.

 

Yes, exactly. But that's what I mean. She's being judged as "not like us" when they consider themselves reasonable people. Both parties are somewhat responsible--and in this ep I would say that Thatcher was just as judgmental as the family was so they were on a pretty even playing field. But in some situations one or the other person is at a disadvantage and it's unfair. 

So in terms of the Balmoral test in theory it seems like it could very well be an unfair test because you've got a group of people who are super privileged in a very insular world that would easily make an outsider feel uncomfortable, and they're the ones who get to give the approval. So they really do have more of a responsibility to make the other person feel comfortable. 

[Roseanna]

On 1/31/2021 at 7:08 PM, sistermagpie said:

So in terms of the Balmoral test in theory it seems like it could very well be an unfair test because you've got a group of people who are super privileged in a very insular world that would easily make an outsider feel uncomfortable, and they're the ones who get to give the approval. So they really do have more of a responsibility to make the other person feel comfortable. 

I agree.

However, when aristocrats and gentry began to lose their position in the society, they got stuck the more with their manners which the noveaux riches didn't know.

That is clearly seen in Jane Austen's novels. F.ex. that horrible Mrs Elton in Emma. However, Austen preferred Admirals and Captains who had earned their position and fortune over the heroine's Baronet father in Persuasion.

Frances Donaldson tells in her biography about Edward VIII that because he had not been in Eton, he didn't know these tiny details in the dress that told that a person was "U". If he hadn't been the Prince of Wales, he would have been called "a cad".

 

[Magnumfangirl]

I've read though most of this thread and I can't believe no one commented on the weirdness of Phillip and Diana!  Phillip demands that an18 year old girl go out hunting alone with him at the break of dawn!  It just seems so bizarre.  The father of a guy you've been out with once whose also the husband of the Queen!  Most 18 year old girls would have been scared to death, yet Diana is portrayed as totally cool with it.  I don't think she was as naïve as she is sometimes portrayed, but this was OTT ridiculous.  There's no way that happened in real life.

Also, GA sucks as Thatcher.  The gigantic hair and the weird way she holds her head reminds of Dolly Parton trying to keep her wig from falling off.

Edited March 21, 2021 by Magnumfangirl

[sistermagpie]

16 minutes ago, Magnumfangirl said:

I've read though most of this thread and I can't believe no one commented on the weirdness of Phillip and Diana!  Phillip demands that an18 year old girl go out hunting alone with him at the break of dawn!  It just seems so bizarre.  The father of a guy you've been out with once whose also the husband of the Queen!  Most 18 year old girls would have been scared to death, yet Diana is portrayed as totally cool with it.  I don't think she was as naïve as she is sometimes portrayed, but this was OTT ridiculous.  There's no way that happened in real life.

Also, GA sucks as Thatcher.  The gigantic hair and the weird way she holds her head reminds of Dolly Parton trying to keep her wig from falling off.

It didn't seem that strange to me. She knew hunting took place at dawn, knew the family was checking her out. She wasn't seeing herself as an 18-year-old girl and knew he wasn't either. She was a potential Princess of Whales and they both knew it. Why would she be that freaked out at Charles' father telling her they were going hunting? I mean, yeah, obviously he's pulling a power move and testing her by doing it the way he did it, but she knew what he was doing and why, and was fairly prepared for it. She just didn't know what form it would take until that moment.

[Magnumfangirl]

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

It didn't seem that strange to me. She knew hunting took place at dawn, knew the family was checking her out. She wasn't seeing herself as an 18-year-old girl and knew he wasn't either. She was a potential Princess of Whales and they both knew it. Why would she be that freaked out at Charles' father telling her they were going hunting? I mean, yeah, obviously he's pulling a power move and testing her by doing it the way he did it, but she knew what he was doing and why, and was fairly prepared for it. She just didn't know what form it would take until that moment.

You don't think that would be awkward (not the hunting, just the fact that they were strangers with a huge age gap) ?  It was portrayed as way too congenial to be believable to me.  I did a lot of eye rolling during that part.

[sistermagpie]

55 minutes ago, Magnumfangirl said:

You don't think that would be awkward (not the hunting, just the fact that they were strangers with a huge age gap) ?  It was portrayed as way too congenial to be believable to me.  I did a lot of eye rolling during that part.

It could have been awkward, of course, but I didn't think the age gap was a problem. He was interacting with her like a potential father figure and they had something to talk about--hunting. It didn't seem like a situation that would make it hard to be congenial given their backgrounds. Plus I get the impression that stalking is a situation where you have a good excuse to go for stretches without talking at all.

[wrlord]

On 11/15/2020 at 5:37 AM, leighdear said:

Gillian is killing it as Maggie T.  For those of us that were around at the time & remember it all, she's just nailed her look & sound.  

Not remotely. She's playing her as though she'd had a stroke.

[Roseanna]

On 3/21/2021 at 6:03 PM, Magnumfangirl said:

I've read though most of this thread and I can't believe no one commented on the weirdness of Phillip and Diana!  Phillip demands that an18 year old girl go out hunting alone with him at the break of dawn!  It just seems so bizarre.  The father of a guy you've been out with once whose also the husband of the Queen!  Most 18 year old girls would have been scared to death, yet Diana is portrayed as totally cool with it.  I don't think she was as naïve as she is sometimes portrayed, but this was OTT ridiculous.  There's no way that happened in real life.

Also, GA sucks as Thatcher.  The gigantic hair and the weird way she holds her head reminds of Dolly Parton trying to keep her wig from falling off.

 

On 3/21/2021 at 6:23 PM, sistermagpie said:

It didn't seem that strange to me. She knew hunting took place at dawn, knew the family was checking her out. She wasn't seeing herself as an 18-year-old girl and knew he wasn't either. She was a potential Princess of Whales and they both knew it. Why would she be that freaked out at Charles' father telling her they were going hunting? I mean, yeah, obviously he's pulling a power move and testing her by doing it the way he did it, but she knew what he was doing and why, and was fairly prepared for it. She just didn't know what form it would take until that moment.

 

On 3/21/2021 at 10:56 PM, Magnumfangirl said:

You don't think that would be awkward (not the hunting, just the fact that they were strangers with a huge age gap) ?  It was portrayed as way too congenial to be believable to me.  I did a lot of eye rolling during that part.

 

On 3/21/2021 at 11:57 PM, sistermagpie said:

It could have been awkward, of course, but I didn't think the age gap was a problem. He was interacting with her like a potential father figure and they had something to talk about--hunting. It didn't seem like a situation that would make it hard to be congenial given their backgrounds. Plus I get the impression that stalking is a situation where you have a good excuse to go for stretches without talking at all.

I agree with Sistermagpie.

Not all 18-year old girls are similar. Diana was born and raised in an aristocratic family, her maternal grandmother was a lady-in-waiting to the Queen and as a kid she had played with Prince Andrew. She knew how to behave and she was socially adept.

As for "did it really happen", that doesn't mean in the drama. The essential thing is that every scene has a purpose, i.e. that it tells something new about the characters and their relationship. In this case, Philip is testing Diana for her role as the Princess of Wales and she shows him that she can fill it: she doesn't complain about rising early and (evidently) long walking, she has right clothes and shoes, she tells that she enjoys the country (falsely and fatefully as the royal family spends long holidays in the country), she isn't shamed about her "low" jobs but tells about them openly, she can both discuss and be silent when waiting for the deer, she isn't afraid to contradict Philip's opinion about the wind's direction (evidently Philip said it on purpose to test her courage).

All in all, Diana seems to be "ours", unlike Thatcher who, evidently for dramatic purpose was presented as her opposite and therefore unjustly presented as a middle-class simpleton (although it's know Margaret was know for her rudeness). Diana's character in this episode is consisted with how she was presented earlier: it was she who made a pass on Charles. The scene on the road was invented but also irl her sympathy for his grief over the murder of Lord Mountbatten that made him interested in her.       

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Thatcher's lack of "preparedness" for outdoors happenings to some extent has been supported.  The shoes in particular.

However, the way TPTB tried to present a shocking embarrassment in the Thatcher's premature formal dressing simply could not be.  Either some number of servants got the evening's schedule wrong, or the Thatchers were intentionally hazed.

"Drinks at 6 PM" is not "tea."  

Of course, there's the obvious point to be made about an outright refusal to double check the attire requirements.

The subsequent PM visit to Buckingham Palace where MT spoke of toughness/grit and the virtues of being firm was very interesting to me.   She was well describing The Crown, Elizabeth Regina.  It could easily be taken for an homage, of sorts.  This, after the MT and DT were treated abominably at Balmoral.  I can see why a biased Elizabeth would choose to judge it all harshly, though.  Good TV.

Finally, the enthusiastic bloodlust on display after it was announced that there was a wounded stag on their grounds brought to my mind when many Union supporters, some very well off, went to see the show as the Union army was to engage the Confederate army for the first time.  It was an expected rout.  Unfortunately for them, it was the Union who were routed and they had to bid a rather hasty retreat home.  The Royals enjoyed a similar success in their initial outing.

 

[CeeBeeGee]

On 3/11/2022 at 10:00 PM, Lonesome Rhodes said:

Finally, the enthusiastic bloodlust on display after it was announced that there was a wounded stag on their grounds brought to my mind when many Union supporters, some very well off, went to see the show as the Union army was to engage the Confederate army for the first time.  It was an expected rout.  Unfortunately for them, it was the Union who were routed and they had to bid a rather hasty retreat home.  The Royals enjoyed a similar success in their initial outing.

Do you mean the First Battle of Manassas aka the Great Skedaddle?

[Roseanna]

I just something about Thatcher that shows that, however badly especially Princess Margaret treated Thatcher, her criticism was basically sound: Thatcher's religiousity inherited from her father was of the sort that had a negative view of pleasure, joy and enjoyment which made her to a unvarnished person. Her assistants needed to explain her puns they had written in her speeches in order to prevent that she would change them to incomprehensible while editing her speeches.