S06.E06: Ruritania

[formerlyfreedom]

Quote

Eager to improve the monarchy's public image, the Queen seeks out savvy statesman Tony Blair — but the Prime Minister's advice defies royal protocol.

Dropping Thursday, December 14, 2023.

[Snazzy Daisy]

This episode gives me some chuckles, though it might not be the intention.

It’s fun to watch Blair helping QE with ideas to rebrand the Crown using his special ability to “read the mood of the country”. 😂

QE is apparently very protective of the swans. 😆

Quote

"Kings and queens might not be eating them anymore. Someone has to care for them."

"King Tony" being paraded through Westminster Abbey in full regalia is hilarious. A very royal nightmare! Love the uplifting tune for this scene. ❤️

Edited December 14, 2023 by Snazzy Daisy

[Shrek]

31 minutes ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

QE is apparently very protective of the swans. 😆

 

Of course she is, they do all belong to her after all.

[Straycat80]

I’m glad the Queen decided to keep with the traditional jobs. Although I did side eye employing an Astrologer and herb woman. I kept thinking how sad it would have been for those people who seemed to love their jobs to get pink slipped. 

[dubbel zout]

Again, any actor not Michael Sheen who plays Tony Blair leaves me briefly wondering, "Who's that?" Hee.

[peridot]

It was cool to see a topic the Queen was so passionate about - it's interesting that the group did so much for the war effort. 

I laughed at the Blairs emulating Clinton's accent.  Tony's speech in Chicago was good, and I'm glad it made a positive impact on the war.

I cringed at the ending speech, though!  I would have felt so embarrassed that the audience was basically doing this:
 

 

[Roseanna]

I would have liked to get more about Tony Blair - success really get his head although history should have taught him better.

Also general happenings that were so interesting in the earlier seasons were now limited. 

[Helena Dax]

Lol, the beginning of this episode was hilarious!

The rest wasn't exactly ground-breaking, but I enjoyed the parade of odd jobs and the difference between the Queen's speech and Blair's before the WI. It hasn't always been the case, but this time I think she was really "one of them", with lots of things in common, whereas he wasn't. 

[Spartan Girl]

23 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Again, any actor not Michael Sheen who plays Tony Blair leaves me briefly wondering, "Who's that?" Hee.

Seriously, why couldn’t we have gotten him back for the show instead of this guy?

The opening nightmare was just ridiculous. We’re really supposed to believe Elizabeth was that threatened by him? Spare me. 🙄

Blair really should have known better to mansplain politics at the Women’s Institute. 

[Blakeston]

Bertie Carvel is a very distinguished actor, but wow is he wrong for this. He doesn't look like Tony Blair, for one thing, and he keeps flashing that horribly awkward smile. Blair had a much more natural way about him.

It would have been less of an issue if they hadn't kept talking about how incredibly charismatic he was.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Blakeston

[Jodithgrace]

I got a tremendous kick out of all those arcane royal employees, and weird items of regalia. They forgot to mention the “bracelets of sincerity,” but I guess those are just for coronations. 
 

They also played my absolute favorite British hymn, “ Jerusalem,” not once but twice! Those Women’s Institute women really didn’t like Tony Blair, did they? Not the crowd for the word, “radical.” But I agree that aside from the original, my favorite Tony Blair is Michael Sheen. 
 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Jodithgrace

[CeeBeeGee]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:39 PM, Blakeston said:

Bertie Carvel is a very distinguished actor, but wow is he wrong for this. He doesn't look like him, for one thing, and he keeps flashing that horribly awkward smile. Tony Blair had aa much more natural way about him.

Yes! What was up with that?! It looked super creepy and his teeth are...not great. It was like Austin Powers was cosplaying as the PM.

[Soapy Goddess]

On 12/14/2023 at 5:36 PM, dubbel zout said:

Again, any actor not Michael Sheen who plays Tony Blair leaves me briefly wondering, "Who's that?" Hee.

Is this the same actor that played Masters in the Masters & Johnson series? If so, he looks quite different. More than just in the make-up sense.

[knitrovert]

Interesting tidbit on the Herb Strewer - the last official Herb Strewer was a woman named Anne Fellowes in 1820 (she strew herbs on the carpet in Westminster Abbey before George IV's coronation.  Moving to present day, Jessica Fellowes applied to be the Herb Strewer for Charles III's coronation.  Jessica Fellowes is the niece of Julian Fellowes, and she is the person who portrayed the Herb Strewer in this episode.  Not sure if she got to strew the herbs for Charles, but she did get to be on "The Crown"!

[Sweet-tea]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:39 PM, Blakeston said:

Bertie Carvel is a very distinguished actor, but wow is he wrong for this. He doesn't look like him, for one thing, and he keeps flashing that horribly awkward smile. Tony Blair had a much more natural way about him.

I preferred Sheen but I thought Carvel was also good. He had Blair's voice down. I noticed his teeth weren't great but didn't think much of it. It's the case with a lot of the Brits. Either their insurance doesn't include dental or they just don't focus on their teeth as much. I've heard some of them joke about Americans being obsessed with their teeth. 

The scene with Blair giving the Queen his ideas was so good. She was very uncomfortable with what he was saying. Imelda Staunton nailed it and a lot of it was expression and body language.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Sweet-tea

[Blakeston]

7 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Is this the same actor that played Masters in the Masters & Johnson series? If so, he looks quite different. More than just in the make-up sense.

Michael Sheen played Masters in Masters of Sex, and he played Tony Blair in the movie The Queen (as well as a few other things.) 

On The Crown, Blair is played by Bertie Carvel, best known for his stage work.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Add me to list who can’t see anyone else but Michael Sheen as Tony Blair. This guy? Nope. And he showed none of the behavior that he’s supposed to do? Like never show his back to the Queen?  

[RunningMarket]

I am not familiar with Carvel, but I felt like he was doing a caricature of Blair.

I'm never for one losing their job, but some of those positions are quite ridiculous. Definite hints of Charles' wish to slim down the monarchy in future years.

[Lonesome Rhodes]

The in-person job reviews were a nightmare, yet entirely ennobling.  I detected Elizabeth becoming more and more resolute with each passing one.  Imelda crushed these scenes.

While the pride being expressed in the "traditions" was certainly self-serving, there was deep truth.  This truth was a limb directly from the core trunk that animates this whole series (and, of course, Elizabeth's raison d'etre).   I cherished it all.

To my ears, the voicing of Blair was much too close to that of JFK.  Blair certainly used something very close to the cadence we heard in this series.  Yet, I heard a distinct Brahmin tonality.  YMMV.

[kittykat]

Episodes like these is where the Crown shines.  The Queen back in the foreground, ever growing debate of tradition vs a rapidly modernizing world and world events (crisis in Kosovo and of course the 2000 election).  Pacing wise it looks like we zipped through about 3 years but it was still well done.

[tennisgurl]

That beginning was hilarious, King Tony, a royal nightmare! Complete with cheering crowd of rabble rousers, half of whom looked like Spice Girls backup dancers. This as a much quieter episode but I like how they came back to the ever present issue of modernizing the monarchy, which the Queen has been dealing with since she took the throne all the way back in the 50s. I'm glad that they allowed all those people who were so proud of their very strange specific jobs that their families have been doing since before the Magna Carta were allowed to keep their jobs. Giving all of these random staff members their pink slips for PR reasons seems pretty mean and not at all in the spirit of what people seem to actually want from the Crown.

The guy playing Tony Blair really doesn't have quite that shine the real guy had, but he as alright. He and his wife doing impressions of Clintons accent was hilarious and that really was a great speech he gave in Chicago. Unfortunately, for a guy so supposedly great at a reading a room to get people to like him he really messed up with the ladies. "Radical" was probably not the word they were looking to hear. Never underestimate little old British ladies! 

Edited December 18, 2023 by tennisgurl

[dubbel zout]

54 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

I'm glad that they allowed all those people who were so proud of their very strange specific jobs that their families have been doing since before the Magna Carta were allowed to keep their jobs. Giving all of these random staff members their pink slips for PR reasons seems pretty mean and not at all in the spirit of what people seem to actually want from the Crown.

I wonder how many of those jobs are full-time, and even if the majority are, I doubt the salaries are huge. The rest probably get some sort of honorarium when they have to perform their tasks. Getting rid of those people is a drop in the bucket of royal expenditures.

[Jordan Baker]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:57 PM, Jodithgrace said:

They also played my absolute favorite British hymn, “ Jerusalem,” not once but twice! 

As soon as the hymn began, all I could think of was Monty Python, who used it to great effect.

I can't say I enjoyed this episode. I guess we were supposed to applaud the queen for rejecting Blair's suggestions (which she asked for, BTW). I found that the royal family, once again, could not read the mood of the country or, worse yet, did not care about the mood of the country. 

 

[sistermagpie]

15 hours ago, Jordan Baker said:

I can't say I enjoyed this episode. I guess we were supposed to applaud the queen for rejecting Blair's suggestions (which she asked for, BTW). I found that the royal family, once again, could not read the mood of the country or, worse yet, did not care about the mood of the country. 

 

I kept thinking about this, and it made me see that for me, one of the things that made the earlier seasons better was that with Elizabeth and George, you had a sense that they took the monarchy seriously as a responsibility. Agree with them or not, they saw it as their responsibility and would often make choices based on what they thought that meant they had to do.

Once you get to somebody like Charles, it's just all about him and the monarchy etc. is a burden. When he makes sacrifices, it's not actually because he thinks it's his responsibility, but because his parents made him do it, and then he resents it. So he marries Diana, but blames them and resents it and wants Camilla and wants her to get attention and for his mother to come to her birthday party. Or he leaves Oxford for Wales, then starts feeling kindly toward Welsh independence--because he met a teacher who was nice to him and decided that in some way "Wales is me" and he could rebel a bit against his parents in his speech. 

I can't claim to speak to the mood of the UK at all, but when I think of the royals as parasites, I don't think about how people like the Swan Warden are getting government salaries for jobs I think are stupid. These were people who, no matter what one thinks of their jobs, were doing the thing they were getting paid for as well as they could and didn't seem to be getting that rich on it. So the idea that you save money by firing them just feels like the usual thing of corporations firing people down below who will be seriously affected by losing their job while the top CEOs go on being rich.

Charles talks a lot about streamlining the monarchy but also built that whole massive house that cost however much money, because his ideas about cuts are always about other people and not him. Andrew shouldn't get a big wedding because he's not the heir, but Charles is going to build a garden to reflect his inner soul. And he considers himself modern for this.

At this point it seems like Elizabeth is one of the only characters left who sees The Crown as a real thing.

Edited December 19, 2023 by sistermagpie

[Jordan Baker]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I can't claim to speak to the mood of the UK at all, but when I think of the royals as parasites, I don't think about how people like the Swan Warden are getting government salaries for jobs I think are stupid. These were people who, no matter what one thinks of their jobs, were doing the thing they were getting paid for as well as they could and didn't seem to be getting that rich on it. So the idea that you save money by firing them just feels like the usual thing of corporations firing people down below who will be seriously affected by losing their job while the top CEOs go on being rich.

Oh, nor can I (speak for the mood of the UK)! I was thinking about what the polling indicated (as described in the episode), which did seem to represent the mood of the people. I'm guessing the mood was partly a reflection of Diana's death and partly people thinking "Why the heck do we need a monarchy in this day and age?" 

When the people with the odd, specific jobs were sitting in a row, waiting for their turn at explaining (and possibly saving their jobs), I thought immediately of my time in the corporate world when people would know layoffs were coming and would be waiting for the phone call or the email notifying those who were safe and those who weren't. And, yes, part of me thought--everyone goes through this. What makes these people special? But, yes, tradition. I do get it.

While I did agree with many of Blair's recommendations, I also understand that he too could be tone deaf. I cringed when he used the word "radical" in front of the women's group. Those women were never going to like him, and he (inadvertently) did his damndest to make sure that was true.

As to Charles? Yeah, I agree with your assessment. Not a fan.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[CeeBeeGee]

11 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Charles talks a lot about streamlining the monarchy but also built that whole massive house that cost however much money, because his ideas about cuts are always about other people and not him. Andrew shouldn't get a big wedding because he's not the heir, but Charles is going to build a garden to reflect his inner soul. And he considers himself modern for this.

Taking my reply to the history behind season 6 thread.

[aghst]

Would getting rid of those jobs meant less govt money paid to the Royal Family?

That part isn’t that clear to me.  Maybe Blair was looking more at the PR value of ditching some of the more obscure parts of the Royal retinue.

Sure, preserve some of that history and expertise.

But do it in a museum!

I would enjoy learning about some of these jobs, how they go back hundreds of years.  But then I wouldn’t think about these obscure trades again.  Ever.

With Elizabeth’s rationale, we’d have kept horse drawn buggies instead of adopting automobiles, because the wheel masters and craftsmen who made those ornate carriages represented Old World craftsmanship too.

We might not have modern art either, as the only type of painting to be heralded would be Renaissance painting.  Instead painting and other forms of art evolved and we’ve preserved all types of art spanning centuries.

Blair didn’t talk about the fiscal aspect and the polling and focus groups didn’t seem to emphasize all the public monies which the RF scarf up.  In fact They’ve made more in the 20-30 years since the time depicted in this episode.

In previous seasons, there was more depiction of people questioning all the public money which the RF received, despite Elizabeth being the richest woman in the world.

In any event, the whole RF didn’t want to give up one bit of privilege.  Charles talked about making concessions but the rest weren’t interested.  Elizabeth’s explanation to Blair was tantamount to, “we’re right, everyone else is wrong.”

[Roseanna]

11 minutes ago, aghst said:

Would getting rid of those jobs meant less govt money paid to the Royal Family?

That part isn’t that clear to me.  Maybe Blair was looking more at the PR value of ditching some of the more obscure parts of the Royal retinue.

Sure, preserve some of that history and expertise.

But do it in a museum!

I would enjoy learning about some of these jobs, how they go back hundreds of years.  But then I wouldn’t think about these obscure trades again.  Ever.

With Elizabeth’s rationale, we’d have kept horse drawn buggies instead of adopting automobiles, because the wheel masters and craftsmen who made those ornate carriages represented Old World craftsmanship too.

We might not have modern art either, as the only type of painting to be heralded would be Renaissance painting.  Instead painting and other forms of art evolved and we’ve preserved all types of art spanning centuries.

Blair didn’t talk about the fiscal aspect and the polling and focus groups didn’t seem to emphasize all the public monies which the RF scarf up.  In fact They’ve made more in the 20-30 years since the time depicted in this episode.

In previous seasons, there was more depiction of people questioning all the public money which the RF received, despite Elizabeth being the richest woman in the world.

In any event, the whole RF didn’t want to give up one bit of privilege.  Charles talked about making concessions but the rest weren’t interested.  Elizabeth’s explanation to Blair was tantamount to, “we’re right, everyone else is wrong.”

The show chose to show all works at least odd if not necessary, but are they really? Some no doubt are, but are all? There are many things that must be taken care of.

I recently read about a woman who is now retired but was formerly the boss of the department that took care of textiles in the Swedish royal castles. Her status was the same as the boss of IT department as it demands skill f.g. to preserve old tablecloths needed in state occassions in good order. 

In the last analysis, the question is what the people want of the royal family. If they appeared as quite ordinary in public, why would people want to go watch them and feel honored to meet them?

Even the most expensive cars can be bought with money. Instead, the royal carriages are special - even more special because people remember the former royals driving in them. 

 

[sistermagpie]

9 hours ago, aghst said:

With Elizabeth’s rationale, we’d have kept horse drawn buggies instead of adopting automobiles, because the wheel masters and craftsmen who made those ornate carriages represented Old World craftsmanship too.

We might not have modern art either, as the only type of painting to be heralded would be Renaissance painting.  Instead painting and other forms of art evolved and we’ve preserved all types of art spanning centuries.

I don't think that's true. She did modernize sometimes during her reign, after all, and has been shown trying to adapt to things the country needed. She mentioned that to Blair as well. She clearly isn't somebody who would die on a car vs. buggy hill.

She went to see those people specifically to get an idea of what they were talking about--something Blair himself didn't do. He just looked at the job title and its history and laughed at it. But I think Elizabeth is absolutely right in seeing some of the tradition being important to the whole idea, with those people representing that in ways he wasn't getting. I would bet he thought the people in those jobs barely did anything. 

Charles, it's true, has his own ideas about streamlining and some of those might be better than Elizabeth's ideas--but Elizabeth would still, imo, be thinking more about other people more than Charles "do any of you really matter except me?" would. The difference, imo, isn't about one of them being more willing to give up privilege at all, but just how they relate to the system and the crown. And that's reflected in how the public views them as well, another thing that shows it's more complex than it seems.

[meep.meep]

On 12/19/2023 at 9:58 AM, sistermagpie said:

I kept thinking about this, and it made me see that for me, one of the things that made the earlier seasons better was that with Elizabeth and George, you had a sense that they took the monarchy seriously as a responsibility. Agree with them or not, they saw it as their responsibility and would often make choices based on what they thought that meant they had to do.

Once you get to somebody like Charles, it's just all about him and the monarchy etc. is a burden. 

But both Elizabeth and George came to the throne quickly.  George never expected to be king at all, and then his brother abdicated.  Elizabeth expected to be queen, but her father died very young so she got there sooner than expected.

Charles on the other hand knew from birth that he would be king some time.  70 some years later, it happened.  I think the show portrays him thinking about his future as king and what changes could be made.

And I'm personally very disappointed that I can't apply to be the Royal Herb Strewer.  Sounds like fun!

[sistermagpie]

On 12/24/2023 at 12:04 PM, meep.meep said:

But both Elizabeth and George came to the throne quickly.  George never expected to be king at all, and then his brother abdicated.  Elizabeth expected to be queen, but her father died very young so she got there sooner than expected.

Charles on the other hand knew from birth that he would be king some time.  70 some years later, it happened.  I think the show portrays him thinking about his future as king and what changes could be made.

And I'm personally very disappointed that I can't apply to be the Royal Herb Strewer.  Sounds like fun!

I agree that's a big difference between them, but Charles knowing from birth he'll be king doesn't seem like it explains the difference in attitude. It's not just that he sees how he'd make changes, which in itself isn't bad. It's that he always seemed to see it as both a burden and an entitlement while the other two related to it as a responsibility and an honor. Charles could think about his own future as king while still doing that.

Edited December 26, 2023 by sistermagpie

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, meep.meep said:

But both Elizabeth and George came to the throne quickly.  George never expected to be king at all, and then his brother abdicated.  Elizabeth expected to be queen, but her father died very young so she got there sooner than expected.

Elizabeth and his father were traditionalists by character. George VI wanted to behave just like his father had done: George V had been very popular as his Silber Jubilee showed, and Edward VIII's abdication had made all ideas of moderninisation suspect. Elizabeth adored her father and her grandmother Queen Mary had taught her duty.

On the other hand, already George V spoke on the radio at Christmas and Elizabeth's coronation was seen in TV. So clearly they weren't against using modern tools. 

 

[formerlyfreedom]

Gentle reminder to stick to the episode please, and take off topic conversation to the appropriate topic. Thank you.

[LadyIrony]

This was another ep that I felt I had seen many times over in other movies. 

For a moment when the Queen had all the special staff attend and explain their jobs I thought she was looking a little incredulous at some of their job descriptions and titles. And then I realized she was actually in admiration! 

I understand the history but someone employed just to fold napkins?

It is funny watching this with hindsight as it seemed Blair was a national hero for a few minutes. Also hearing his plans to guide G W Bush as he believed he was now the "Senior Partner". Yeah, no worries.

[Epeolatrix]

The Yeoman of the Glass and China Pantry isn't just there to fold napkins, he is also responsible for maintaining the glasses and dinnerware collections. I think the napkin-folding is highlighted because it sounds silly; the overall job is more serious. They also head the team that has to lay the table for state banquets (except for the silverware, which is the Yeoman of the Silver Pantry). It's on par with museum work, with additional issues that come from frequently using those hundreds of museum pieces. I'd read up on this out of curiosity and there's a lot of prep work for state occasions.

In the US, this is part of the role of the White House Chief Usher and their staff. Same job, but we don't have the archaic names.

[Lorna Mae]

On 12/17/2023 at 7:54 AM, Sweet-tea said:

Imelda Staunton nailed it and a lot of it was expression and body language.

My husband and I agreed that she would have given anything for the button on the chair arm that she could push and open the Wilson Trapdoor underneath Blair. 

[Tim McD]

On 12/18/2023 at 9:04 PM, Jordan Baker said:

As soon as the hymn began, all I could think of was Monty Python, who used it to great effect.

 

Same here, I kept expecting QEII to stand in the tea chest.

[Quickbeam]

I kind of found the “roll call of the job holders” very moving. The swan guy seemed to 100% embody the task and the mission. I thought it would be silly but struck me as profound. And Imelda was just wonderful in this episode.