S05.E06: Ipatiev House

[Peace 47]

On 11/12/2022 at 2:51 PM, Spartan Girl said:

That opening sequence was so horrible. I didn’t need to see that. 

I agree.  My main issue with it was that it seemed like it was “artistic brutality” in an almost cliched way.  Like with the contrast of the dead Romanov bodies with the game shot by the carefree English sportsmen:  that type of contrast seems like it’s an artistic shorthand for the brutality of man that gets used enough in entertainment.  You could consciously feel the writer manipulating your emotions, instead of you being able to get lost in the story and experience the visceral emotion of the scene.

5 hours ago, bluestocking said:

Seem like this season it's time for everyone to pile on Elizabeth.  We had Margaret blaming her for making her life miserable, Charles doing the same, and now Philip.  But Elizabeth barely fights back; she just sits there and takes it.  Where is the Elizabeth who went toe to toe with Thatcher?   Dullard is right. 

Margaret going off on Elizabeth after Windsor Castle burned was exactly what I thought of when Philip started going to town in Elizabeth in this episode.  Same structure, same dredging up the old wounds of past seasons when Liz was at a down point.  Very repetitive.

All I know about the real Penny and Philip is that they were close friends who shared a hobby.  I guess for this show to go there, there must have been whispers about some improprieties between them, but (1) I think the show missed an opportunity to tell a nice story of friendship between them (separate from all the other romantic relationship drama happening in the storyline) and (2) to use that relationship as an excuse for Philip to go to town on Elizabeth for not puffing him up like Penny did just made the whole Penny/ Philip relationship seem icky.

I burned through seasons 1-4 of The Crown, but I’m finding this season to be a slog. I’m getting why the reviews have been less than glowing.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Peace 47

[jeansheridan]

On 11/12/2022 at 9:42 AM, SnapHappy said:

Jonny Lee is outstanding as J. Major.  Such a hottie, now completely believable as a chunky, middle-aged Prime Minister. 

It's fun to see how chatty he is with her. In just a few eps they seem less formal. 

This is why they wanted Jonathan Pryce. He was ruthless and a bit smug getting what he wanted from Elizabeth. And it did cost her something to do that. I loved how she began that meeting in the stable and was always in control. That's power. 

Imelda is wonderful in my opinion. She has a sharper face but her size and age are perfect. And her intelligence.  Apparently Morgan thinks Queen Elizabeth wasn't very bright but Imelda radiates intelligence.  She's very present always. 

Jonny Lee Miller is a delight. I found his Sherlock to be a bit much so it's nice to see him dial back the quirk.

Edited November 19, 2022 by jeansheridan

[Hanya2]

I believe Prince Phillip and Penny could have been having an emotional affair, an intellectual attraction, especially if they were both a bit lonely. It didn't have to be actually sexual.

But there was no need to be cruel about it to Elizabeth.

I did love the blue jewels.

I always thought of Nicholas and Alexandra as the Marie Antionette's of the early 20th century. They were out of touch with the Russian people. The slaughter of their children was brutal and unforgivable.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Hanya2

[LadyIrony]

1 hour ago, Hanya2 said:

I believe Prince Phillip and Penny could have been having an emotional affair, an intellectual attraction, especially if they were both a bit lonely. It didn't have to be actually sexual.

But there was no need to be cruel about it to Elizabeth.

I did love the blue jewels.

I always thought of Nicholas and Alexandra as the Marie Antionette's of the early 20th century. They were out of touch with the Russian people. The slaughter of their children was brutal and unforgivable.

I think Philip was definitely attracted to her emotionally. At least according to the show the Queen seemed simpler and older than Philip who still seemed to have a lot of passion and curiosity about things. He probably had a crush on Penny but a very innocent one. He would have known how inappropriate the whole thing was and I doubt Penny would have wanted anything physical with him anyway. 

I like that they didn't gloss over how brutal the Bolsheviks were, even if they wanted to kill them they could have done so in a much more humane manner. And why shoot the men and then bayonet the women and children? 

Also interesting that the Royals of the time could have saved them but due to petty bitchiness they decided not to bother! 

[dubbel zout]

26 minutes ago, LadyIrony said:

And why shoot the men and then bayonet the women and children? 

They did shoot the women and children, but the women, at least, had jewels sewn into their clothing (to use as currency if/when they could leave Russia), and the bullets ricocheted off them. Some of the soldiers thought it was divine interference. To ensure everyone did die, the soldiers used bayonets. Extremely brutal and extremely effective.

[Blakeston]

8 hours ago, Hanya2 said:

I believe Prince Phillip and Penny could have been having an emotional affair, an intellectual attraction, especially if they were both a bit lonely. It didn't have to be actually sexual.

This was my interpretation as well. I don't think Peter Morgan was suggesting that Phillip and Penny screwed. I think the idea was that they were having an emotional affair, and Elizabeth knew it, and felt much more threatened by it than by Phillip's casual sexual flings.

[Roseanna]

11 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

They did shoot the women and children, but the women, at least, had jewels sewn into their clothing (to use as currency if/when they could leave Russia), and the bullets ricocheted off them. Some of the soldiers thought it was divine interference. To ensure everyone did die, the soldiers used bayonets. Extremely brutal and extremely effective.

The most effective way would have been a shot to the head from behind. 

Compared these murderers, in the execution of Mary Stuart, Charles I, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette there was at least some humanity, including a possibility to confess sins beforehand or at least pray.      

[LadyIrony]

11 hours ago, Roseanna said:

The most effective way would have been a shot to the head from behind. 

Compared these murderers, in the execution of Mary Stuart, Charles I, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette there was at least some humanity, including a possibility to confess sins beforehand or at least pray.      

At least in the way it was depicted on the show, the Bolsheviks seemed to very uneasy about what they were doing. Probably due to that emotional conflict they were clumsy in how they went about it. They were also brutal probably due to the anger and resentment about having to do it. Or perhaps there was genuine hatred for their victims too. 

[Bunnyette]

A few facts…the Russian Imperial Family spoke French or English to each other.  Sadly the Tsars mother had wanted to take the Children to Crimea but the Tsarina said no…I think George V had to placate the rising socialist feelings in the UK at the end of WWI

[andromeda331]

On 11/19/2022 at 3:24 PM, dubbel zout said:

They did shoot the women and children, but the women, at least, had jewels sewn into their clothing (to use as currency if/when they could leave Russia), and the bullets ricocheted off them. Some of the soldiers thought it was divine interference. To ensure everyone did die, the soldiers used bayonets. Extremely brutal and extremely effective.

Yes, that's what made the girls murders even more brutal. The jewels made for really good bulletproof vests. The family believed they were going into exile and would need the jewels for money. They weren't wrong when Nicholas's mother Maria accidently left a bag of jewels behind while escaping. She ended up getting a pension from George V.  Alexandra and Nicholas were killed immediately. Why they waited so long to go to the head. Who knows but the soldiers were also drunk at the time. Oddly enough Alexei was tough to kill too. He didn't have any jewels sewn into his cloths.

On 11/14/2022 at 6:32 PM, Jan Spears said:

Nicholas, Alexandra and their children were doomed long before the October Revolution brought the Bolsheviks to permanent power.

George V abandoning Nicholas, Alexandra and the family to their fates remains a severe mark against his character. But offering asylum and then rescinding it was irrelevant to the family's final fate. The last French ambassador to the Imperial court, Maurice Paleologue, wrote this in his Ambassador's Memoirs:

"During the last few days a rumour has spread among the mob that "Citizen Romanov" [Nicholas] and his wife "Alexandra the German," are working secretly for a restoration of autocracy, with the connivance of "moderate" ministers. The [Petersburg] Soviet accordingly demanded the immediate arrest of the sovereigns yesterday evening. The Provisional Government yielded to its desires."

Paleologue wrote this nine days into the February Revolution.

The Bolsheviks were never going to let the Romanovs escape their grasp. In exile, they would serve as a living challenge to what was more than a change in government - the successive revolutions represented an entirely new vision of the world. That's why the Bolsheviks killed every Romanov they could lay hands on, including Nicholas's younger brother, Grand Duke Michael, and Alexandra's older sister, the saintly Grand Duchess Elizabeth (who was an Orthodox nun at the time and whose husband, Grand Duke Sergei, had been assassinated in the Revolution of 1905). (Elizabeth, like Alexandra, was also Prince Philip's great aunt.)

To his credit, George V did come to the aid of Nicholas's mother, the Dowager Empress Marie Feodorovna, who, along with other Romanovs, had sheltered uneasily in Crimea while they waited to see which side would prevail in the Russian Civil War. (Besides being Nicholas's mother, Marie Feodorovna ["Aunt Minnie"] was also George V's aunt - Marie and George's mother, Queen Alexandra, were sisters.) Realizing that the Bolsheviks were advancing on Crimea, George ordered a British warship to rescue his aunt and the other Romanovs. He also provided for Marie Feodorovna's financial upkeep for the remainder of her life.

Yes, that's another good point. They weren't the only Romanovs killed. Nicholas's brother Michael was the first one killed. He was shot a month before they were massacred. Alexandra's sister Elizabeth who married Nicholas's uncle Serge was thrown into a pit with five other Romanovs and a bunch of hand grenades thrown down the same day as Alexandra and her family were executed. Only one was killed by the grenade. The rest all down there until they died. It's really amazing that Maria and others got away. Elizabeth had left the family to become a nun and living in a convent but she was still murdered. 

Edited November 21, 2022 by andromeda331

[kassa]

During the Russian insult scene, the woman to the Queen's left had a look on her face - she clearly understood what was being said. Not sure who she was supposed to be. A great reaction shot.

At any rate, I would assume at such an event not only would both sides have their own translators, but the press covering it would as well.

[dubbel zout]

15 minutes ago, kassa said:

During the Russian insult scene, the woman to the Queen's left had a look on her face - she clearly understood what was being said. Not sure who she was supposed to be.

If I'm thinking of the same person, that was Yeltsin's wife.

[Jan Spears]

17 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Yes, that's another good point. They weren't the only Romanovs killed. Nicholas's brother Michael was the first one killed. He was shot a month before they were massacred. Alexandra's sister Elizabeth who married Nicholas's uncle Serge was thrown into a pit with five other Romanovs and a bunch of hand grenades thrown down the same day as Alexandra and her family were executed. Only one was killed by the grenade. The rest all down there until they died. It's really amazing that Maria and others got away. Elizabeth had left the family to become a nun and living in a convent but she was still murdered. 

18 Romanovs died at the hands of the Bolsheviks. While Elizabeth II had a connection to many of them, Philip's ties were much, much stronger:

• Tsarina Alexandra - Philip's great aunt as she was a sister to Philip's maternal grandmother, Victoria.
• Tsar Nicholas II - Philip's great uncle by marriage (to Alexandra). Also, Philip's 1st cousin once removed - Nicholas and Philip's father, Andrew, were 1st cousins.
• Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna - Philip's great aunt as she was also a sister to Philip's maternal grandmother.
• Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich - Philip's 1st cousin once removed. Philip's father and Michael were 1st cousins.
• Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich - Philip's uncle by virtue of Paul's 1st marriage to Philip's aunt, Alexandra (Andrew's elder sister). Paul and Alexandra were parents of Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich, who was one of Rasputin's murderers. Philip and Dmitri were 1st cousins.
• Grand Duke George Mikhailovich - Philip's uncle by George's marriage to Philip's aunt, Maria (another sister of Andrew).
• Grand Duke Dmitri Konstantinovich - Philip's great uncle as he was a brother to Philip's paternal grandmother, Queen Olga of Greece.

So, for Philip, the Russian Revolution wasn't some dusty affair from history. For him, it resulted in the deaths of many of his closest relatives and he would have known that growing up.

As for Marie Feodorovna, she got "lucky" in the sense that Crimea came under German control once the Bolsheviks negotiated a peace treaty with the German Empire in 1918. The Romanovs sheltering in Crimea were safe under German control even though it aggravated Marie F. to no end because she and her sister, Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom, despised Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany,

Edited November 22, 2022 by Jan Spears

[tennisgurl]

Good to see that Elizabeth and Philip are having the exact same damn fight, after several decades. Its like when Margarete was getting all upset with Elizabeth about Peter again, like nothing has changed at all since season one. I really don't buy this fight between Elizabeth and Philip at this point, it all just seems cooked up for cheap drama. 

That opening with the Romanovs was brutal to watch, especially so quickly after they thought that they were being let go to live in exile. This show is usually pretty bloodless, even when depicting violence and tragedy, and while they cut away before things got really nasty, that was still pretty intense for this show. I think its really the brutality of the deaths of the Romanov children that really made this such an infamously horrific event, if it was "just" Nicholas and Alexandra, there would have still be outrage but probably not the visceral horror of the royal children's being bayonetted to death. Nicholas really did end up being Tsar at the worst possible time for him. He was a rather weak minded but personally affable person who tried to make up for his insecurities about his own inadequacies as a leader by doubling down on being an autocrat, right in a time when the people were demanding more rights for the common people which just added to this powder keg that he just kept adding powder to. If he had been Tsar in a much earlier time of almost universal total rule by monarchs, he probably wouldn't have been a great Tsar but he probably would have at least made it without being overthrown, while if he had been a more modern constitutional monarch, who's political power is limited or almost nonexistent, he would have been a good cultural figurehead the way that the British royal family is. Just a perfect storm. 

King George not trying harder to save his Romanov relatives is certainly a bad mark on his record, but you also cant blame him completely. The family was probably doomed from day one no matter what the other world powers did, and what was going on at the time all around Europe really has to be taken into account. European monarchs were watching the revolution in Russia and were all very concerned about something similar happening in their countries, so touching the Romanov's was considered a pretty big political risk. At least Elizabeth brought up the actual reasoning for why they did what they did, not the "the Queen left the Romanov's to their fate because of catty mean girl jealousy." 

Philip was a dick about it, but he wasn't wrong that there isn't anything wrong with his friendship with Penny. Helping her deal with her grief and bonding with her is a nice thing, I really don't like the show trying to play coy about their relationship going beyond being platonic. To me, its never read as more than a friendship with a paternal feel to it, its never come off as an affair. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by tennisgurl

[Roseanna]

On 11/22/2022 at 2:58 AM, Jan Spears said:

So, for Philip, the Russian Revolution wasn't some dusty affair from history. For him, it resulted in the deaths of many of his closest relatives and he would have known that growing up.

No doubt Philip knew but the hadn't met them personally. He tried so much to be a Brit when he was young, but now he is old, he has become curious about his family's history.

Plus, having relatives that were killed by Communists wouldn't get him much sympathy during WWII when Britain and Russia were allies, so maybe he learned to be silent about them.

[dubbel zout]

Philip was born in 1921 and the tsar's family was killed in 1918, so they never met.

[Camera One]

It was hard to watch the killing of the Romanov family and they kept going back to the gruesome imagery, with the later mass grave scene.  The brutality of these scenes intercut with Queen Mary implied she was heartless and evil, just so they could have a later scene of Elizabeth explaining to Penny what Mary's true motivations were and the difficulties of being a sovereign unable to show their emotions publicly.

Someone was saying the other day to me how this show makes a metaphor about of everything.  In some ways, I do appreciate writing that draws parallels between different events weaving them into a cohesive narrative.  So I do think the episode was well crafted.

But with this particular show,  at the back of my mind, I can't help but feel a bit uneasy with that technique because they are tying historical events and real people into a neat little bow and in the process sometimes distorting what happened or misrepresenting these human beings.  

From a fictional perspective, the whole issue with a husband and wife not sharing too many interests and one of them feeling disconnected from the marriage was interesting.  But they were clearly adding subtext to the scenes with Philip and Penny, teasing that it could be more, while making the Queen look like a simpleton with no intellectual interest.  Which in turn allowed to them to draw parallels between Queen Mary and the Tsarina being rivals, or how the relationship between Britain and Russia paralleled the marriage between Philip and Elizabeth.  It did lead to some nice and well acted conversations between Elizabeth and Penny, and Elizabeth and John Major.  But still, I could not help but see the puppet strings of the writers and I could not help wondering if all of this could be fiction.

Finally, we got a more Queen centric episode and overall, I think the actress did a good job.  Like Margaret's tirade in the last episode, Philip's tirade about everything he gave up for her felt a bit out of the blue.  Again, it was well acted and dramatically quite effective, but still left me with mixed feelings.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Camera One

[Notwisconsin]

The problem with the opening, is that it makes it look like the refusal to save the Romanovs was simultaneus with their murder, when in fact the former was over a year prior to the latter. Also, the George V had far more power than Lillibet did. The Prime Minister in the late 20th century would have just done it without consultation.

I would have loved to see whom they would have cast as Lloyd George.

Also, one must remember that Nicolas and Alexandra were GUILTY as HELL and GV knew it. While the children and servants were innocent, the Czar and Czarina got what they deserved. World politics was very different then.

[Jan Spears]

On 11/23/2022 at 1:57 PM, Roseanna said:

No doubt Philip knew but the hadn't met them personally. He tried so much to be a Brit when he was young, but now he is old, he has become curious about his family's history.

On 11/23/2022 at 3:26 PM, dubbel zout said:

Philip was born in 1921 and the tsar's family was killed in 1918, so they never met.

All true. But Philip's grandmother (and Alexandra and Elizabeth's sister), Victoria, lived until 1950. Also, Victoria's son - Louis Mountbatten - had met the Imperial family and he was reportedly quite taken with the third daughter, Grand Duchess Maria (who was also his 1st cousin). So, there would have been reminders of the Romanovs everywhere for Philip.

[PeterPirate]

Philip had his own personal experience with being part of a deposed monarchy.  He and his family were transported out of Greece by a British cruiser.  I find it, well,  incongruous that he would blame his wife's family for the ills suffered by his family.  

[andromeda331]

18 hours ago, Notwisconsin said:

Also, one must remember that Nicolas and Alexandra were GUILTY as HELL and GV knew it. While the children and servants were innocent, the Czar and Czarina got what they deserved. World politics was very different then.

Honestly, they really were. Nicholas only gave in to the Duma after the 1905 revolution when he had no choice and then he messed with it until he got one that did whatever he said. Alexandra was quick to dislike anyone she thought was too scandelous, or she thought was underminding Nicholas's power which was pretty much everyone. Once Nicholas was off at war she managed to make things worse with Rasputin hiring and firing ministers based on who was with them and who was against them.

[Notwisconsin]

15 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Honestly, they really were. Nicholas only gave in to the Duma after the 1905 revolution when he had no choice and then he messed with it until he got one that did whatever he said. Alexandra was quick to dislike anyone she thought was too scandelous, or she thought was underminding Nicholas's power which was pretty much everyone. Once Nicholas was off at war she managed to make things worse with Rasputin hiring and firing ministers based on who was with them and who was against them.

Prior to the 1905 revolution, there WAS NO Duma. Russia was an aboslute monarchy. Russia had serfdom (a form of slavery) only 30 years prior to Nicky's accession, and he himself was a dictator for most of his reign.

[sistermagpie]

51 minutes ago, Notwisconsin said:

Prior to the 1905 revolution, there WAS NO Duma. Russia was an aboslute monarchy. Russia had serfdom (a form of slavery) only 30 years prior to Nicky's accession, and he himself was a dictator for most of his reign.

I think that's what they're saying, that Nicki only gave persmission for a Duma after the revolution, since he preferred being a dictator.

[chocolatine]

Unless I see some documentation, I don't believe that Yeltsin would have mouthed off in front of the Queen like that. He was a drunk, but not a complete rube. He would have waited until he was in his hotel suite and gossiped with his wife and/or entourage.

The depiction of the Romanov killings was a lot more graphic than I had expected from this show. One of the Bolsheviks did say that they had been "sentenced" to a firing squad because "[their] relatives in Europe continue to attack Soviet Russia" so King George's or Queen Mary's decision wouldn't have mattered either way.

I give the Queen a pass on her pronunciation of DNA because using it in forensics was still relatively new in the early 90s. And I'm sure she *had* read about it, she just hadn't had the opportunity to discuss it with anyone extensively.

[andromeda331]

6 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I think that's what they're saying, that Nicki only gave persmission for a Duma after the revolution, since he preferred being a dictator.

Yes, Nicholas only agreed to the Duma as because of the 1905 Revolution it was a last ditch attempt to save his reign. Which worked the revolutionaries stopped because they thought they were finally getting reforms. But it wasn't long before Nicholas stripped the Duma of any real power and filled it with those who would do whatever he said.  He

[PeterPirate]

Also, Nicholas took personal charge of military operations during the war.  So he was close to the front when unrest in St. Petersburg forced him to abdicate.  If I remember correctly, he was on a train back to the capital when he got word things there were so bad he had to give up the throne.  

And let's not forget the fact that Nicholas ordered a general mobilization before Kaiser Wilhelm did. 

12 hours ago, chocolatine said:

Unless I see some documentation, I don't believe that Yeltsin would have mouthed off in front of the Queen like that. He was a drunk, but not a complete rube. He would have waited until he was in his hotel suite and gossiped with his wife and/or entourage.

The depiction of the Romanov killings was a lot more graphic than I had expected from this show. One of the Bolsheviks did say that they had been "sentenced" to a firing squad because "[their] relatives in Europe continue to attack Soviet Russia" so King George's or Queen Mary's decision wouldn't have mattered either way.

This episode, more than most, is filled with non-historical contrivances.  Which wouldn't be so irritating if they served a satisfying narrative.  But the hour ends with the Queen of England playing with her corgis.  

This makes me think about the discussion between Philip and Elizabeth in Margaretology about the dual nature of the Windsor family.  Ipatiev House could have been the perfect setup for another such dialogue about the role of the British monarchy in the modern era.  But instead we got melodrama.  

Edited November 26, 2022 by PeterPirate

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

Also, Nicholas took personal charge of military operations during the war.  So he was close to the front when unrest in St. Petersburg forced him to abdicate.  If I remember correctly, he was on a train back to the capital when he got word things there were so bad he had to give up the throne.  

And let's not forget the fact that Nicholas ordered a general mobilization before Kaiser Wilhelm did. 

Yes, his train was stopped before he got back to St. Petersburg and he was forced to abdicated. St. Petersburg was in full revolt and the soldiers who were suppose to put it down went over to their side.  He abdicated to Alexei but realized that his son would be taken from them so he abdicated on his and Alexei's behalf to his brother Michael who was quick to realize that was a bad idea and abdicated himself.  

[mmecorday]

Quote

The depiction of the Romanov killings was a lot more graphic than I had expected from this show. 

You and me both! I knew from the episode's title that it was probably going to be about the Romanovs. But I wasn't expecting to see their deaths depicted so brutally on screen. I knew the girls survived the gunshots because of the jewels sewn into their clothing, but seeing them crying and begging for their lives is probably going to give me nightmares tonight. There are a number of family photos of the Romanovs that still exist and not just ones shot professionally. They took pictures of each other. In a documentary about the Romanovs, Prince Michael of Kent remarked that they took so many pictures of themselves as a family to remind the world how much they loved each other. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by mmecorday
duplicate word

[dubbel zout]

10 hours ago, mmecorday said:

they took so many pictures of themselves as a family to remind the world how much they loved each other. 

Which in a way was part of their downfall, as Nicky and Alexandra were so wrapped up in each other that they ignored a lot of what was happening around them.

[Ohiopirate02]

On 11/21/2022 at 5:22 PM, kassa said:

During the Russian insult scene, the woman to the Queen's left had a look on her face - she clearly understood what was being said. Not sure who she was supposed to be. A great reaction shot.

That was Boris's wife Naina giving her husband the stink eye for insulting Elizabeth.  

[Notabug]

On 11/19/2022 at 3:01 PM, Hanya2 said:

I always thought of Nicholas and Alexandra as the Marie Antionette's of the early 20th century. They were out of touch with the Russian people. The slaughter of their children was brutal and unforgivable.

Nicholas and Alexandra were in part victims of their own hubris.  There were ample warnings that they were in a precarious position and several opportunities when the girls, at least, could have been gotten to safety.  However, Alexandra, in particular, insisted that the entire family stay together no matter what.  She refused to leave early in the revolution when it might've been possible.  Then, the Tsar was on the frontlines during WWI and was heading back to St Petersburg due to the unrest there when the government was overthrown.  She refused to leave Tsarkoe Selo without him.  In the meantime, the children got the measles and she refused to move them. She also thought that the royal troops would protect them and never defect to the revolution; and that, somehow their hundreds of guards could protect them from thousands and thousands of revolutionaries, big mistake there.  By the time the Tsar formally abdicated and was brought back to Tsarkoe Selo in custody, it was too late for all of them.  But, the writing had been on the wall for a long, long time before that and their refusal to see it was a big part of their ultimate end.  Both Nicholas and Alexandra were delusional about his right to power being God-given and really believed the Russian people believed it too and would never overturn him.

Quote

Prior to the 1905 revolution, there WAS NO Duma. Russia was an aboslute monarchy. Russia had serfdom (a form of slavery) only 30 years prior to Nicky's accession, and he himself was a dictator for most of his reign.

Even once the Duma was formed, Nicholas felt he had absolute power over it and disbanded and re-formed it as needed to maintain his virtually absolute power.  Just as Queen Elizabeth feels that she is Queen because it is God's will; Nicholas was also convinced that his role as Tsar gave him a closer relationship to God than anyone else and, therefore, his decisions were not to be questioned.  

Edited November 28, 2022 by Notabug

[jschoolgirl]

11 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Which in a way was part of their downfall, as Nicky and Alexandra were so wrapped up in each other that they ignored a lot of what was happening around them.

Queen Mary indirectly referenced that in her “Dearest Lilibet” letter in season 1.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, jschoolgirl said:

Queen Mary indirectly referenced that in her “Dearest Lilibet” letter in season 1.

That's right. She mentioned the fall of three great monarchies 

Here's the Letter

Queen Mary: Dearest Lilibet, I know how you loved your papa, my son. And I know you will be as devastated as I am by this loss. But you must put those sentiments to one side now, for duty calls. The grief for your father's death will be felt far and wide. Your people will need your strength and leadership. I have seen three great monarchies brought down through their failure to separate personal indulgences from duty. You must not allow yourself to make similar mistakes. And while you mourn your father, you must also mourn someone else. Elizabeth Mountbatten. For she has now been replaced by another person, Elizabeth Regina. The two Elizabeths will frequently be in conflict with one another. The fact is, the crown must win. Must always win.

She was right. 

[Notwisconsin]

On 11/24/2022 at 7:49 PM, PeterPirate said:

Philip had his own personal experience with being part of a deposed monarchy.  He and his family were transported out of Greece by a British cruiser.  I find it, well,  incongruous that he would blame his wife's family for the ills suffered by his family.  

Not really. The Greek Royal family was restored in 1935, when Phillip was 12. It was deposed again in 1967. If you go back to season one, his father hated him, even before his sister died. Prince Andrew of Greece didn't like Greece all that much and the entire branch of the family never went back. 

The other royals of Europe had interesting stories as well....

Greece was the only European monarchy deposed since the 1940s.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Notwisconsin
added stuff.

[blackwing]

On 11/11/2022 at 12:33 PM, Marley said:

I felt bad for the Queen. Stupid Philip lol. Philip just always seems so whiny in the show complaining about being lonely etc. Cry me a river you rich baby. Who knows what’s true but in the show he can get annoying. The queen and the dogs were cute.

On 11/12/2022 at 8:53 AM, SnazzyDaisy said:

Phillip was a bit condescending during dinner when talking about DNA sequencing. Did Lilibet just pretend she didn’t feel anything?

Philip requesting Lilibet to legitimize his female companionship to the public wasn’t surprising. Everything for the system. And using their church visits for PR moves was their go-to tactics for years, still is.

I feel like this season's Philip is yet another version of Philip, each one a little bit different.  Seasons 1-2 with Matt Smith, he was whiny and petulant and feeling emasculated by his wife.  He was irreverent and suffered a little from foot-in-mouth disease, like when he said "nice hat" to the king/chief of whatever African nation they were in and Elizabeth said to him "it's a crown".  I thought Matt Smith was great in this role.

Seasons 3-4 with Tobias Menzies, I felt like he was a sad sack snoozefest.  The episode where he met with astronauts and which I think represented his lamentation of his lost dreams was one of the most boring hours of TV I had ever seen.  But I'm not a Tobias Menzies fan, his voice during these seasons put me to sleep.

Now with Jonathan Pryce, I feel like Philip has once again become a different person with a different personality.  Now all of a sudden, he's smart and competent and astute and knowledgeable about everything.  Meanwhile, the Queen is being depicted as increasingly out of touch.  "How do you know about this D-N-A?"  "I read."  What a dick.  So not necessary to cut her down like that.  The same guy who was clueless about an African king's crown in Season 1 is now all of a sudden the smartest member of the royal family?  I don't buy it.

I'm curious about whether the relationship with Penny Knatchbull was accurate in real life.  Because the show makes him out to be this horndog, his wife is aging and gaining weight (see episode 1 of this season) and no longer attractive to him.  He feels lonely and ignored, so his response is to find "female companionship" in his godson's wife?  The show all but implies that he wanted to have an affair with her.  Was that for real?  In today's age, we would say that he was definitely having an "emotional affair" even if it wasn't physical.  But I would think that even the appearance of this impropriety would not have been allowed.  I couldn't believe that he asked the Queen to legitimise his emotional affair by pretending that she was BFFs with the object of his affection.  He pretty much said that the whole country is assuming he is sleeping with Penny so might as well tell the world you are OK with it.  What?!  

[CeeBeeGee]

On 11/21/2022 at 2:10 AM, andromeda331 said:

Alexandra's sister Elizabeth who married Nicholas's uncle Serge was thrown into a pit with five other Romanovs and a bunch of hand grenades thrown down the same day as Alexandra and her family were executed. Only one was killed by the grenade. The rest all down there until they died. It's really amazing that Maria and others got away. Elizabeth had left the family to become a nun and living in a convent but she was still murdered. 

As you say, Elizabeth wasn't even really a Romanoff, she was just married to one. The Bolsheviks were mad with bloodlust.

My thoughts:

OMG. As soon as the guy started saying "a photograph before you go" I started hyperventilating. Jesus.

The Bolsheviks'...elimination of the Romanoffs was unbelievably brutal, and savage, and nullified any claim they might have had to be some kind of righteous retribution. Yes, Nicholas was a shitty Emperor who leaned way too heavily into his autocratic legacy. Arguably Alexandra earned murder as well, since she contributed SO much to Nicholas's dreadful, mishandled, ham-handed rule. (There are some valid reasons for this, mainly the stupid, stupid Salic law policy Russia had--post Paul I, son of Catherine the Great, who hated his mother, he effectively doomed the Romanoff family with that legislation--meaning no woman could inherit the throne. Olga would've been a perfectly fine Empress Regnant, but because she wasn't allowed to inherit, poor stupid carrying-the-hemophilia-gene Alexandra and her husband had to keep trying for that boy--and that's what really brought them down. Because since Alexei was born with hemophilia, which no one really knew how to treat, other than, "protect this child as much as possible," Nicky and Alix were very susceptible to all sorts of quacks, of which Rasputin was just the worst example.) But aside from all that, Alexandra was too stupid to know how stupid she was. And she influenced Nicholas's policy to disastrous effect.

That said--absolutely nothing justifies the murder of the five children. Nothing. And subsequent analysis of the first 10-15 years of the Bolshevik's reign shows it was nothing more than a cash grab. They spent years and years and years trying to murder survivors of the old regime, all to get their hands on their money. Make you feel like a man, bayoneting teenage girls? Shooting a hemophiliac child who can't even stand up on his own? Butchering a dog? Dumping their bodies in a pit in the forest after robbing their bodies of jewels? May they rot in hell.

The juxtaposition of the pheasant shooting scene with the murder of the Romanoffs was a little too on the nose....but not entirely out of hand. I detest blood sport.

The whole "Philip is becoming too close to their first cousin once removed" is utterly contrived drama and never happened. Surely the writers of The Crown could conceive of an actual, organic drama to compare/contrast the British monarchy v. the Russian monarchy?

[sugarbaker design]

I'm still scarred by the ending of the movie Nicholas and Alexandra 40 years later.  I was thoroughly prepared for The Crown's depiction of the slaughter of the Romanovs and their staff.  Both scenes, filmed fifty years apart, are quite similar, right down to Alexandra asking for two chairs.

They never mentioned that Philip's DNA was also used to discredit Anna Anderson's claim she was Anastasia.

[sistermagpie]

53 minutes ago, sugarbaker design said:

They never mentioned that Philip's DNA was also used to discredit Anna Anderson's claim she was Anastasia.

I saw her on In Search Of...when I was a kid and of course they made it seem like oooh, maybe it's really her! But in reality nobody needed DNA to disprove her claims. She didn't speak a single language Anastasia did!

Quote

That said--absolutely nothing justifies the murder of the five children. Nothing. 

Not that this justifies it in a moral sense, but it's pretty standard to murder the blood heirs of a throne you're claiming for yourself. Catherine the Great basically did the same, or other people did it for her.

Edited December 4, 2022 by sistermagpie

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I saw her on In Search Of...when I was a kid and of course they made it seem like oooh, maybe it's really her! But in reality nobody needed DNA to disprove her claims. She didn't speak a single language Anastasia did!

I did believe as a kid. It was nice to think one of the kids survived that. But there were too many differences. Anna knew Polish which Anastasia never learned. Things didn't add up and DNA made it official. I also learned off the hundreds of people who claimed to be Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia and Alexei. Although that tends to be pretty common in Russian history different men claim to be Peter III who's wife Catherine over threw and had murdered.

Quote

Not that this justifies it in a moral sense, but it's pretty standard to murder the blood heirs of a throne you're claiming for yourself. Catherine the Great basically did the same, or other people did it for her.

Like poor Ivan VI. Locked up by Elisabeth his whole life and murdered on Catherine's orders. Of course the people/army also often over threw the current Tsar for someone else. Nicholas seems to learn about as well as Paul did. 

[Roseanna]

20 hours ago, CeeBeeGee said:

As you say, Elizabeth wasn't even really a Romanoff, she was just married to one.

Philip wasn't Romanov, either, but a descendant of House Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (as well as Charles as his son). Prince George of Denmark became the king George I of Greece in 1863: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Glücksburg#Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

BTV, the last male Romanov ruler in Russia was Peter the Great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Romanov

[CountryGirl]

This was my favorite episode of the season, with the Mou Mou episode a close second. Obviously the murder of the Romanov children was absolutely horrific and completely undeserved with Nicholas and Alexandra conjuring far less sympathy, but the history and Philip's involvement  in finally identifying the remains so they could have a proper funeral and burial was very compelling to me. 

While I understand the family's fate was sealed whatever Britain decided to do, I still think George V is a cowardly shit for rescinding the offer for asylum despite reassurances in a letter he sent after the family was moved from the palace, saying: "My thoughts are constantly with you. And I shall always remain your true and devoted friend.” Again, I understand an offer of asylum wasn't tantamount to rescuing them but still. I have also read a number of accounts (including some books about the 3 cousins - Wilhelm, George V and Nicholas) where in addition to the concerns about public resentment of the Tsar, George bought into concerns that some crazies would attempt to kidnap him and put look alike-cousin Nicky on the throne in his place as a puppet king.

[Blakeston]

The more I think about Penny's behavior in this episode, the more it seems off to me.

Who on earth tells Queen Elizabeth, "I think your beloved grandmother chose to let her sister die because she was jealous of her for being prettier" - and says it cheerfully, like it's a fun fact?

[Camera One]

If Philip and Penny had so many "intellectual" discussions over this, wouldn't he have mentioned Queen Mary's reasoning for not helping?  Why would Philip insist on Elizabeth meeting Penny to hear her point of view, as if Penny happened upon some new discovery?

[sistermagpie]

1 minute ago, Camera One said:

If Philip and Penny had so many "intellectual" discussions over this, wouldn't he have mentioned Queen Mary's reasoning for not helping?  Why would Philip insist on Elizabeth meeting Penny to hear her point of view, as if Penny happened upon some new discovery?

Yes, it didn't do much for her rep as the smart one.

[PeterPirate]

12 hours ago, Blakeston said:

The more I think about Penny's behavior in this episode, the more it seems off to me.

Who on earth tells Queen Elizabeth, "I think your beloved grandmother chose to let her sister die because she was jealous of her for being prettier" - and says it cheerfully, like it's a fun fact?

9 hours ago, Camera One said:

If Philip and Penny had so many "intellectual" discussions over this, wouldn't he have mentioned Queen Mary's reasoning for not helping?  Why would Philip insist on Elizabeth meeting Penny to hear her point of view, as if Penny happened upon some new discovery?

Morgen used Penny as an Exposition Fairy so Elizabeth could deliver the real truth.  Just another contrivance to serve the plot.  

[andromeda331]

15 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Morgen used Penny as an Exposition Fairy so Elizabeth could deliver the real truth.  Just another contrivance to serve the plot.  

Yeah, there were easier ways to get there. I didn't like that Penny seem to think that's what happened. She really thinks Queen Mary said no because of petty jealousy? 

[Camera One]

6 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Yeah, there were easier ways to get there. I didn't like that Penny seem to think that's what happened. She really thinks Queen Mary said no because of petty jealousy? 

22 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Morgen used Penny as an Exposition Fairy so Elizabeth could deliver the real truth.  Just another contrivance to serve the plot.  

Agreed.  It was also another clumsy attempt to draw another parallel - Queen Mary being jealous of Alexandria hit close to home especially with the apparent jealousy Elizabeth felt with Penny.  

I'm also a little uncomfortable that this plot uses a made-up secret to explain what the public saw.  Technically, a viewer could now explain any real photos of the Queen with Penny as following through on this secret demand from Philip.

They also exaggerated the differences between the Elizabeth and Philip.  Elizabeth "doesn't read" like Penny does.  Maybe because she is spending so much time reading all the government briefs she receives?  I can also see Philip being more interested in reading about scientific topics than Elizabeth.  It reminded me of the episode where Charles was opining that Diana had no interest in Shakespeare.

[ombelico]

On 11/14/2022 at 2:06 AM, andromeda331 said:

No expected Edward VIII to abdicate making changing everything for Elizabeth, Margaret and their parents.

Given the way the family tree shaped up, Elizabeth would have eventually become queen anyway. Edward married Wallis when she was 41 and nothing in his or her history indicates a desire to have children (and of course, they didn't in the end). With Edward having no children, even if he hadn't abdicated the crown would have eventually passed to Bertie and then to Elizabeth, no matter what, it just would have ended up happening in the 1970s when Edward died instead of the 1950s.

On 11/16/2022 at 11:53 AM, BlackberryJam said:

Imelda in the role seems to lack the humor and self-deprecation that Elizabeth had. She overplays the stiffness, and even in the scene where she gets the singing fish, Imelda doesn’t make that look like natural, comfortable laughter at the ridiculousness. Elizabeth was a prig, but she knew she was a prig.

One of the things I think the show has really missed throughout is Elizabeth's natural sense of humor. I never met her personally of course but there are ample descriptions from many different people, and video evidence, of her having a dry sense of humor and quick wit, with a twinkle in her eye. 

On 11/13/2022 at 11:53 AM, dubbel zout said:

What I found unfair about Philip's rather snotty "I read" comment was that Elizabeth spends her days reading all those government documents she's required to deal with. And I'm sure she's always prepping for the next day's engagements, which could mean more reading for background. Maybe at the end of the day playing with her dogs is more relaxing to her than reading about DNA. Shut up, Philip.

On 11/19/2022 at 12:36 PM, jeansheridan said:

Apparently Morgan thinks Queen Elizabeth wasn't very bright but Imelda radiates intelligence.  She's very present always. 

Yes, this is another aspect where I think the characterization of Elizabeth in the show fails. No, she didn't get a traditional schooling and university education, but there's ample evidence out there that she had a natural intelligence and was well abreast of the issues of the day, and carefully read all of the documents in her red boxes. Perhaps her chosen hobbies of horses and dogs didn't seem all that intellectual, but everyone needs hobbies and activities that are just for fun and not for smarts. It's perfectly fair for her to not be all that interested in science and technology, and it doesn't make her any less intelligent than Philip just because he finds those topics interesting.

Edited December 18, 2022 by ombelico

[Notwisconsin]

On 12/4/2022 at 1:57 AM, andromeda331 said:

It tends to be pretty common in Russian history different men claim to be Peter III who's wife Catherine over threw and had murdered.

There were three false Dmitries, one of which was actually Czar for a short time.

[andromeda331]

15 hours ago, Notwisconsin said:

There were three false Dmitries, one of which was actually Czar for a short time.

That's right. With the one that was the "first" Czar Dmirti, Empress Maria mother of the real Dmitri supported him as her son. when he became unpopular the boyers killed him. They hacked him to pieces, burned his body and shot his ashes from a cannon towards Poland where he was from. They really had some very creative deaths in Russia. His wife Marina declared the second Dmitri as her husband. Russia history is far from boring.