S01.E10: Gloriana

[formerlyfreedom]

Quote

Margaret and Peter are reunited, but another obstacle stands in their way. Elizabeth is torn between her duty as Queen and her love for her sister.

 

[Arynm]

Poor Margaret! Must suck to have so much interference into something so personal as who you love/marry. I guess she could have gone away and married him, but she would have given up everything including her family. Even the Duke of Windsor got a title and an allowance. I believe she does marry, but it didn't go well and she eventually divorced. She deserved better from her sister I think. It would not have brought down the monarchy to have he marry him.

[SeanC]

5 hours ago, Arynm said:

She deserved better from her sister I think. It would not have brought down the monarchy to have he marry him.

Once the Cabinet had signaled its opposition (and, though the series doesn't bring this up, the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa had also vetoed it), Elizabeth really did not have a choice in that.

One cannot help but feel bad for Margaret, even if her impassioned declaration that she'd never love anyone else called to mind that old Charles II bit from Horrible Histories:  "There will never be another/Well, maybe one or two."

Hey, Elizabeth and Philip briefly talked about one of their kids in this one.

[millk]

This was 20 some years after the abdication but morality moves slow. Despite Margaret'some protests, she wouldn't have done it. she would not have gotten along at all in the commoner world.

The current tabloid declared love of Harry's life is divorced and it is still eyebrow raising in royal watching circles in 2016.

[WatchrTina]

Well I binge-watched the entire series today.  That was GORGEOUS!  Everyone was perfectly cast and the sets and locations were amazing. I knew a lot of the story from history (and from watching a movie about Churchill's stroke just a few weeks ago) but I was still engrossed.  I found myself hoping Margaret and Peter would run off to Gretna Green in Scotland and then dare the Cabinet to declare the marriage "void" or to take away Margaret's title and income.  But of course they couldn't do that because Peter made his living off of the court.  If he lost his job and she was disavowed by the royal family they'd be totally destitute and they weren't cut out for roughing it, no matter what Margaret said.

Great first season.  I can't wait to see more.

I do find myself wondering what Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth thinks about the series.  I'm sure she hasn't watched it -- that would just be SO upsetting -- all the imagined conversations would probably infuriate her.  But it does make me wonder.

Edited November 12, 2016 by WatchrTina

[rubyred]

I've been waiting for more on Margaret, hoping that it would show a side of her that kind of redeems her in my eyes. To me she's always been a younger, brattier version of the Duke of Windsor, wanting her cake, but without any self-awareness of her value as a human being, not just her status because of an accident of birth. She claimed she could have lived without the money, title etc -- don't buy it, sweetheart. I believe she loved Peter Townsend but never really had anything denied her before and I think part of the whole thing was glorying in her self-created drama.

But I also think Elizabeth was kind of a mug, here. After seeing that her staff and courtiers etc were willing to lie to her about Churchill's strokes, it never occurred to her to check out the fine print on any other "advice" she received? For her to wait two years to find out that the Royal Marriage Act would still have but humongous obstacles in Margaret's path..talk about being on the back foot.

[dubbel zout]

19 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

they weren't cut out for roughing it, no matter what Margaret said.

I don't think Margaret had any sort of clue how to really rough it. It's not like fixing your own picnic lunch at Balmoral that the servants have brought and set up for you.

3 hours ago, rubyred said:

For [the queen] to wait two years to find out that the Royal Marriage Act would still have but humongous obstacles in Margaret's path..talk about being on the back foot.

You'd think with the kerfuffle about her own marriage she'd have been acquainted with the Act. I know she was very young, and the issues weren't quite the same, but forewarned is forearmed.

It cracks me up what an emotional softie Churchill was at times.

[Archery]

Well, Margaret did ask her sister to screw up, just once. Careful what you ask for, Princess.  

[Rinaldo]

8 hours ago, rubyred said:

But I also think Elizabeth was kind of a mug, here. After seeing that her staff and courtiers etc were willing to lie to her about Churchill's strokes, it never occurred to her to check out the fine print on any other "advice" she received? For her to wait two years to find out that the Royal Marriage Act would still have but humongous obstacles in Margaret's path..talk about being on the back foot.

5 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

You'd think with the kerfuffle about her own marriage she'd have been acquainted with the Act.

This is one point on which I'd really like to know (and maybe someone here can tell me) how much of the interactions are being "cinematized" or guessed at. Because the Marriage Act isn't exactly top secret, and little as I know about it, I was aware that a royal marrying a divorced person* was still a huge deal, and probably not going to get official approval. So I wonder if in fact they all knew that problem before the two years' wait, but they just hoped that official feeling would come around and be willing to approve after that time.

(*When I spent the summer of 1973 in England at a music festival, I was present at a conversation about a new ruling that a divorced person could remarry within the church as long as they were not the "guilty party" -- and I may have misunderstood this because I can't find confirmation online -- and this affected someone associated with the running of the festival. So I knew that it was a big deal in the UK even that late, and even for a person not in line to the throne (although her ex-husband was). I was fascinated by all this, as the guilty/not-guilty distinction in divorce seemed positively medieval to my young American ears.)

[MissLucas]

9 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

This is one point on which I'd really like to know (and maybe someone here can tell me) how much of the interactions are being "cinematized" or guessed at. Because the Marriage Act isn't exactly top secret, and little as I know about it, I was aware that a royal marrying a divorced person* was still a huge deal, and probably not going to get official approval. So I wonder if in fact they all knew that problem before the two years' wait, but they just hoped that official feeling would come around and be willing to approve after that time.

It's been a while since I tried to establish what had really happened as usual with any major Windsor family crisis there's plenty of conjecture, little hard fact plus contradictory interpretations (here's an example). It seems the show took some dramatic license here to fill in the gaps.

[PRgal]

9 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

This is one point on which I'd really like to know (and maybe someone here can tell me) how much of the interactions are being "cinematized" or guessed at. Because the Marriage Act isn't exactly top secret, and little as I know about it, I was aware that a royal marrying a divorced person* was still a huge deal, and probably not going to get official approval. So I wonder if in fact they all knew that problem before the two years' wait, but they just hoped that official feeling would come around and be willing to approve after that time.

(*When I spent the summer of 1973 in England at a music festival, I was present at a conversation about a new ruling that a divorced person could remarry within the church as long as they were not the "guilty party" -- and I may have misunderstood this because I can't find confirmation online -- and this affected someone associated with the running of the festival. So I knew that it was a big deal in the UK even that late, and even for a person not in line to the throne (although her ex-husband was). I was fascinated by all this, as the guilty/not-guilty distinction in divorce seemed positively medieval to my young American ears.)

I thought the best you could do, even now, was what Charles and Camilla did in 2005 - civil ceremony + church blessing.  Or was it because he's Charles? 

[Rinaldo]

58 minutes ago, PRgal said:

I thought the best you could do, even now, was what Charles and Camilla did in 2005 - civil ceremony + church blessing.  Or was it because he's Charles? 

Yes, but my point was -- wouldn't the Queen and Princess Margaret have known this right off, without needing to wait two years for someone to inform them? It seems one of the best-known of royal marriage conditions, even to us foreigners. Maybe it's because we've seen so much divorce around the royal household by now, everyone's become well informed.

[dubbel zout]

10 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

So I wonder if in fact they all knew that problem before the two years' wait, but they just hoped that official feeling would come around and be willing to approve after that time.

I think they hoped Margaret and Peter's feelings for each other would be over by the time the two years were up. That was one reason they tried to ship him far away. He was able to wrangle the Brussels position, but he might as well have been in Singapore. It's not as if there were secret trysts.

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

I thought the best you could do, even now, was what Charles and Camilla did in 2005 - civil ceremony + church blessing.  Or was it because he's Charles? 

Charles and Camilla could have remarried in the church because Diana had died by that point. They did the lesser ceremony because public feeling toward Camilla was still somewhat polarized. 

[vibeology]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

Charles and Camilla could have remarried in the church because Diana had died by that point. They did the lesser ceremony because public feeling toward Camilla was still somewhat polarized. 

Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive but is Catholic so I think that also muddied up the water somewhat. Their solution was probably the best one and now over 10 years later it doesn't seem the vast majority are bothered by Camilla the way they used to be.

[MissLucas]

The CoE's stance on remarriage after divorce is anything but clear. Since 2002 it's up to 'the discretion of the member of the clergy conducting the service'.  In other words a normal person facing a conservative clergy man might still have problems in this situation. Obviously you can always go elsewhere and Charles would have had no problems finding a member of the clergy with the right discretion - but at the time it was better to not push the issue.

[dubbel zout]

14 minutes ago, vibeology said:

Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive but is Catholic so I think that also muddied up the water somewhat.

I forgot about him! Heh.

12 minutes ago, MissLucas said:

The CoE's stance on remarriage after divorce is anything but clear. Since 2002 it's up to 'the discretion of the member of the clergy conducting the service'.  In other words a normal person facing a conservative clergy man might still have problems in this situation. Obviously you can always go elsewhere and Charles would have had no problems finding a member of the clergy with the right discretion - but at the time it was better to not push the issue.

I don't know, Charles is the future Defender of the Faith. It's likely he's held to a higher standard than others. Anne had to go to Scotland to get remarried, and she wasn't anywhere near top of the line of succession. Though that was in 1992.

Who knows what would happen today. Social mores have changed dramatically, and it's been nearly 20 years since Diana died. And in December it will have been 80 years since Edward VIII's abdication.

[jschoolgirl]

I remember reading something, perhaps apocryphal, about an archbishop (presumably the Archbiship of Canterbury) receiving Margaret. He had prepared doctrinal citations for their discussions. 

Margaret reportedly said, "You can put away your books,  Archbishop," and telling him she was renouning Peter.

[MCMLXXVII]

Maybe I watch too much "House of Cards" and such, but all the emphasis on a living ex-wife made me wonder if Margaret was tempted to have the ex bumped off? Maybe it would have been too obvious.

[PRgal]

On 2016-11-07 at 11:53 AM, dubbel zout said:

I forgot about him! Heh.

I don't know, Charles is the future Defender of the Faith. It's likely he's held to a higher standard than others. Anne had to go to Scotland to get remarried, and she wasn't anywhere near top of the line of succession. Though that was in 1992.

Who knows what would happen today. Social mores have changed dramatically, and it's been nearly 20 years since Diana died. And in December it will have been 80 years since Edward VIII's abdication.

Margaret's marriage would likely have happened today.  But we shall see with the whole Harry situation (at least as per THIS WEEK's tabloids.  And it's too early, anyway).  A bigger issue would be if one of the royals was gay and intended to marry his/her partner.

On 2016-11-07 at 9:39 AM, dubbel zout said:

 

 

^^^what's with that box?  I tried deleting it/refreshing the page, but it's still there!

Edited November 10, 2016 by PRgal

[dubbel zout]

9 hours ago, PRgal said:

Margaret's marriage would likely have happened today.

Today, definitely. I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise.

9 hours ago, PRgal said:

A bigger issue would be if one of the royals was gay and intended to marry his/her partner.

It would depend on the royal. Things would get really tricky if the gay royal was the heir, as adopted children are outside the line of succession. I don't know how the natural child of a lesbian would be classified. If the father were another royal, would s/he be his kid as far as that goes? Then it might depend on birth order. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by dubbel zout

[bunnyface]

I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing and was glad to see they are filming more series.

I wish, however much it was not possible, that Elizabeth could have drug Margaret into a meeting with the Prime Minister and said "Tell her what you just told me."  So at least Margaret would know the Queen wasn't just tossing her feelings aside and it was out of her hands.  I think a lot of the pain in the ass moments could have been cleared up with "tell him/her what you just told me." 

[VCRTracking]

Holy crap the production values of this series and especially the finale are the best I've seen in a costume drama TV show. You could see the budget on the screen. I've seen other costumed miniseries.

I was expecting Margaret to become enraged and yell when Elizabeth told her she couldn't marry but seeing her fall apart and say without Peter she felt unhinged was very heartbreaking.

Does anybody know the name of the song that was playing at the party the Duke of Windsor was at?  *ETA: (Never mind, I found out. It's called "Chills and Fever" by Freddie Houson)

Nice to see that the true-to-life fact of Charles being the Queen Mother's favorite and Anne being Phillip's was referenced.

After the past few days I could use a shot of morphine too. Seeing the Colonel Nassar scenes I thought it was terrifying to see a world leader so thin skinned and easily insulted and then I remembered...

Edited November 11, 2016 by VCRTracking

[pasdetrois]

This is a phenomenal series. It's visually breathtaking and the scripting is very intelligent and meaningful.

It was a relief to see the angry exchanges between Elizabeth and Phillip because Claire Foy has given us so little range. All we see is Elizabeth's famous reserve, and it's boring to watch, especially when all the other actors are really bringing it.

I do wonder how it feels to the family to have Phillip skewered so publicly.

I'm looking forward for the next installment.

Edited November 11, 2016 by pasdetrois

[Primetimer]

Elizabeth has to make some tough calls in the tense season finale.

View the full article

[tennisgurl]

That was a great season, even better than what I hoped it would be. I have always loved a good period piece, and this was one of the best I have seen in awhile. Lavish production and beautiful costumes, but also really well drawn characters and an excellent plot and atmosphere. 

The one thing I would change is the stuff with Philip. I have done some research on him, and while I think the way he`s been portrayed is true to life, but they are mostly focusing on the negatives of him, and not so much on his tragic life before becoming royal, and his relationship with his kids. But, we do have a LOT more seasons apparently, so maybe things get better for him later. Its interesting seeing Matt Smith in such a different role than The Doctor. 

Poor Margaret. I imagined her raging and breaking things, but watching her just start to cry and shake was much more heartbreaking. What a mess. 

Cant wait for next season!

[GaT]

On 11/10/2016 at 6:39 AM, PRgal said:

^^^what's with that box?  I tried deleting it/refreshing the page, but it's still there!

If you click on the top left of the box, a little white box will appear. Click on that & then your delete key & it should go away.

[tanita]

I got to say I really loved this first season. Yes it's slow compered to other shows and maybe not adequately soapy, but it was fantastic. Clair Foy's facial expressions and very reserved acting really have won me over. I'm now looking to watch everything else she has been in. Everyone was on the top of their game. Jared Harris's earnestness as George the VI was breathtaking - I think him and Foy are my MVP's of the season.

[tanita]

I think when it comes to Philip, we will see the absolute low of their relationship next season. We are going into the 60's, he apparently had an affair with some Princess Alexandra, and yet they popped out 2 more kids in that decade. And apparently rumor is that at least one may have been with Viscount Porchester and not Phillip. If that doesn't scream soapy drama, I don't know what is. I don't think they will outright confirm it, but they may leave it to the viewers interpretation or subtle implication.

[Badger]

Princess Alexandra was the posthumous daughter of King Alexander of Greece who was a great grandson of Queen Victoria as well as Philip's first cousin on his father's side, and his morganatic wife, Aspasia Manos.  Alexandra married King Peter II of Yugoslavia, and they had one son Crown Prince Alexander.  

[tanita]

OH, she was that Alexandra. I should have known that my own country's monarchy would have some small part in this scandal. And then prince Alexander goes and marries another Greek princess. Man, the level of inbreeding is staggering. So glad Serbia isn't a full out monarchy - sounds fancy on paper but we just don't have the finances to support them, not to mention communism and church - monarchy did not mix. Thought my grandma was a full out monarchist - she wanted the life prior to WWII.

A curiosity - my mom set next to Jelisaveta Karadjordjevic (Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia) in a public bus once. She was super chatty.

Edited November 14, 2016 by tanita

[dubbel zout]

Royal tangent: Catherine Oxenberg (erstwhile Dynasty actress) is Elizabeth of Yugoslavia's daughter. She also played Lady Di in one of those delectably horrible movies that came out soon after Charles and Diana were married. 

I thought the Princess Alexandra that Philip was supposed to have had an affair with was Alexandra of Kent, the queen's cousin? (Through her father's brother George of Kent, who died in a plane crash during the war.)

He was also rumored to have had an affair with Penelope Romsey, who was married to one of Mountbatten's grandsons. 

I wouldn't be surprised to learn Philip had dallied, but I doubt he could be too active. His calendar became increasingly full as the years went on.

Edited November 14, 2016 by dubbel zout

[Badger]

Another interesting thing about Porchy is that the woman he eventually married, Jean Wallop, was American.  In fact, her brother Malcolm was a United States Senator representing the state of Wyoming; he was a Republican.  The Wallops themselves are descended from the Earls of Portsmouth.

[Blakeston]

On November 11, 2016 at 9:43 AM, pasdetrois said:

I do wonder how it feels to the family to have Phillip skewered so publicly.

I have to wonder if Philip himself would regard it as a skewering. He might see it as, "Finally, someone is showing the world how much shit I had to put up with. And how funny my ethnic jokes are!"

[tenativelyyours]

I thought the show really glossed over the rumored breakdown of the marriage.  At least in terms of details.  What we are shown is Philip dressing up and going out but nothing overt about it.  All the while I think the hints are he was out having a good time with other women.  Maybe not full blown adulterous sex, but I think he played flirt, tickle and touch quite a bit in those years.  The only blatant bit we see is him noticing the woman server at the club.  But wasn't there an apocryphal saying bandied about with him saying to women something like "come sit on the next King of England's favorite lap" in the mid to late fifties. 

I wonder what this would have looked like had they done it after Queen Elizabeth and/or Prince Philip had died?

I also wish some stronger focus had been made on Mountbatten's ambitions and whether Philip was a gold digger as so many of the court thought.  It hardly gets mentioned but it does seem that at the time, there was some serious thought that Philip did a Kate Middleton pretty early.  As well, there was the whole attempt to make him the prototypical Englishman while retaining the royal status because Mountbatten was hoping against hope Philip would have been made King consort instead of just Prince consort.  I know that the law was opened on the title of Prince Regent which is odd because that normally would have been considered only if Elizabeth had died while Charles was still young.  But Parliament also shot that down quicker than Margaret's marriage to Townsend. 

Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia flew on the Concorde once with my grandmother who said she was a rude pretentious bitch who kept complaining to the flight attendant about the common people starting at her.  Until someone near her finally said loudly they did not know who the fuck she was and the only stares she was getting was because she had something stuck in her teeth.  She was not amused.    ZsaZsa Gabor was on the same flight.  My grandmother had tons of great Concorde stories. 

[tanita]

I think the implication is clear that he was having fun times with other women. I mean, them showing it outright might be pushing it too far, and may even get a very negative royal response - thought from what I gather they tend not to deny/confirm any rumors.

Also this whole trip to Australia just fells like everyone is screaming to Philip - go by yourself, drink, smoke,party and eff who you want. Get it out of your system and get with the program. They all in uncertain terms gave him a carte blanche, including the Queen.

Edited November 14, 2016 by tanita

[Rinaldo]

I don't feel that rumors (if that is indeed what they are) have any claim to be definitively dramatized.

[VCRTracking]

Quote

I thought the show really glossed over the rumored breakdown of the marriage.  At least in terms of details.  What we are shown is Philip dressing up and going out but nothing overt about it.  All the while I think the hints are he was out having a good time with other women.  Maybe not full blown adulterous sex, but I think he played flirt, tickle and touch quite a bit in those years.  The only blatant bit we see is him noticing the woman server at the club.  But wasn't there an apocryphal saying bandied about with him saying to women something like "come sit on the next King of England's favorite lap" in the mid to late fifties. 

He also was eyeing the stewardess on the airplane back from Ireland and Elizabeth caught it. It was just before Peter talked with her.

[VCRTracking]

3 hours ago, Blakeston said:

On 11/11/2016 at 6:43 AM, pasdetrois said:

I do wonder how it feels to the family to have Phillip skewered so publicly.

I have to wonder if Philip himself would regard it as a skewering. He might see it as, "Finally, someone is showing the world how much shit I had to put up with. And how funny my ethnic jokes are!"

Matt Smith told Prince William he was playing his grandfather and Will's response:

Edited November 14, 2016 by VCRTracking

[chick binewski]

Smith & Foy are adorable. Affleck & Botox...not so much.

I have read (but clearly cannot speak to the accuracy) that Elizabeth was so disheartened by the situation with Margaret that she eventually decided to not stand in the way of most royal matches. Frankly, I wish the Queen could banish both Margaret and the Duke of Windsor to a casino ferryboat that circles the globe in perpetuity.

I could not help thinking throughout the show was 'they would NOT pull this shit with a king!'. Also, were Margaret and Peter hiding their relationship while her father was alive? How much was the Queen Mother involved (with and without the Queen's knowledge) in keeping them apart? 

[dubbel zout]

At that point in time, Margaret and Townsend were doomed no matter the monarch's gender.

[Bec]

I was kind of hoping the show would make use of this letter: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/6520837/Princess-Margaret-recently-unearthed-letter-sheds-new-light-on-decision-not-to-marry.html

That puts the whole thing in a different light. She decided for herself she didn't want to marry him and used the duty of the crown as an excuse to avoid looking like a fickle fool.

But anyway, the way the show told the story, I still side-eye all these characters (David&Wallis, Peter&Margaret) declaring how great their love is when they're not willing to put their money where their mouth is (so to speak) and truly give everything up in service of that "great love".

Let's face it, these people would not end up living in a cardboard box like most of the rest of us would if we lost everything. They just wouldn't have the prestige and extravagant lifestyle they're accustomed to.

They would likely still be able to afford a roof over their heads and food in their bellies for the rest of their lives. If you have that, plus the love of your life, what more do you need? You're next to useless at this point, no one really needs you to stay! Go live in some small, isolated town and be left alone with your "true love" forever! 

Who knows, you might even still be treated like town royalty despite your reduced circumstances because the small town folk wants to be able to brag about royalty living in their town. That you've been stripped of those titles would just be an irrelevant technicality to them.

Or maybe they will leave you to your own devices and not bother you, wouldn't that be good, too? Considering you lot keep complaining about people being too intrusive?

Okay, you might have to do your own cooking and cleaning. Well, nobody is born knowing how to cook and clean, you get used to it once you start doing it.

The fact that they never did give up their titles and servants for "love", tells me everything about exactly how much that "love" is worth.

Look at David, despite claiming to be on side with "true love", he knows The Crown is how his bread is buttered. If the monarchy ends, his gravy train also ends.

[chick binewski]

19 hours ago, Bec said:

But anyway, the way the show told the story, I still side-eye all these characters (David&Wallis, Peter&Margaret) declaring how great their love is when they're not willing to put their money where their mouth is (so to speak) and truly give everything up in service of that "great love"

So much this. And both Duke & Mags seemed to have a really poor grasp on where their wealth actually came from. I understand there are some entitlement issues here, but both saw the lives their siblings had to lead and what they had to do to maintain a facade of calm and control.

[Thalia]

Quote

For [the Queen] to wait two years to find out that the Royal Marriage Act would still have but humongous obstacles in Margaret's path..talk about being on the back foot.

And why didn't Margaret check?  It was her life.  I don't know if she was truly as passive in real life as shown here, but why was it up to her sister to know all the details?  If I'd been Margaret and really wanted to marry Peter Townsend, I'd have made damn sure I knew every clause of the Royal Marriage Act forward and backward.  She had two years, and since she was no longer allowed to visit coal mines, she had plenty of time on her hands. 

[staveDarsky]

On 2016-11-11 at 9:43 AM, pasdetrois said:

This is a phenomenal series. It's visually breathtaking and the scripting is very intelligent and meaningful.

It was a relief to see the angry exchanges between Elizabeth and Phillip because Claire Foy has given us so little range. All we see is Elizabeth's famous reserve, and it's boring to watch, especially when all the other actors are really bringing it.

I do wonder how it feels to the family to have Phillip skewered so publicly.

I'm looking forward for the next installment.

I don't know that he is being skewered to any new extent. He's long had a reputation of being a bit out of control -- especially with saying inappropriate things within earshot. This series shows how frustrating it was for Phillip to be corralled  at age 30, when he'd had such an exciting active life before. He had little say over his life once Elizabeth ascended. Any guy going through the same thing today would be just as frustrated.

[Blakeston]

17 hours ago, staveDarsky said:

I don't know that he is being skewered to any new extent. He's long had a reputation of being a bit out of control -- especially with saying inappropriate things within earshot. This series shows how frustrating it was for Phillip to be corralled  at age 30, when he'd had such an exciting active life before. He had little say over his life once Elizabeth ascended. Any guy going through the same thing today would be just as frustrated.

I think Philip being a macho dude in the fifties made certain parts of his role a lot harder than they would be for a lot of men today.

For instance, I don't think a man today in his position would feel like he was the only person in the UK whose wife didn't take his name.

[dubbel zout]

7 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

For instance, I don't think a man today in his position would feel like he was the only person in the UK whose wife didn't take his name.

But that's the thing, even today there are very few men in his position. It's a little different when you're talking about the name of a ruling dynasty. And it was also about what name the children would have.

[Blakeston]

11 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

But that's the thing, even today there are very few men in his position. It's a little different when you're talking about the name of a ruling dynasty. And it was also about what name the children would have.

Surely public attitudes about gender roles (and especially names) have changed somewhat in the past sixty years, though. 

Could someone in Philip's position nowadays be equally macho about these things? Sure. But I wouldn't say that any guy going through this today would be just as frustrated.

[dubbel zout]

And I didn't say that any guy going through this today would be just as frustrated. I was pointing out how rare a position he was in.

Attitudes change slowly. Look at all the crap Harry is getting for dating a—gasp!—biracial woman. William got crap for marrying a commoner, and a middle-class commoner at that. (Diana was a commoner, but at least she was an aristocrat.)

[staveDarsky]

My comment wasn't just about the name. It was about him not being able to call the shots in much of his own life.

[dubbel zout]

No one of the royal family (the major royals, at least) gets to call the shots in much of his or her own life. That's one of the tradeoffs. It has to be a bummer for all of them. I'm somewhat sympathetic on that point.

In this series, at least, Philip hardly tries to carve out a space for himself. I think in that way the creators are a bit too hard on him. Maybe the next season that will improve.

Edited November 22, 2016 by dubbel zout