S01.E10: Gloriana

[Roseanna]

Many have written how Claire Foy can speak with her eyes. But have you paid attention to her hands?

There is a scene where she fiddles with her pearls, a clear sign of nervosity.

In the final scene with Margaret she crosses her hands over her abdomen, both showing her determination and praying for strength.  

[Scarlett45]

I have to say I did feel for Margaret (on a human level) in the final scene. She was told to wait 2yrs, she did that, and now she was given the choice between her family and Peter- it’s especially difficult since she is 3rd in line, with Queen Elizabeth having many child bearing years ahead of her. Sister to sister she had a point- Elizabeth wanted Phillip and she got him despite the protests of others. 

A well acted episode. 

[Roseanna]

17 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Sister to sister she had a point- Elizabeth wanted Phillip and she got him despite the protests of others. 

No, she had no point because the men and situations were different.

The opposition against Philip was only due his foreign birth and his unwillingness to accept the Court diehards' old-fashioned traditions. Also the King was unwilling to give up her daughter.  In fact, there would be hard to find a better match for an heiress to the throne than Philip: young, single and born royal.

Instead, Peter Townsend was middle-aged, a commoner and a divorcee.

I doubt if Elizabeth had ever fallen in love with an "unsuitable" man (f.ex. a Catholic). If she had, she would have given him up. She wasn't a rebel nor an egoist like Margaret.

[Scarlett45]

29 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

No, she had no point because the men and situations were different.

The opposition against Philip was only due his foreign birth and his unwillingness to accept the Court diehards' old-fashioned traditions. Also the King was unwilling to give up her daughter.  In fact, there would be hard to find a better match for an heiress to the throne than Philip: young, single and born royal.

Instead, Peter Townsend was middle-aged, a commoner and a divorcee.

I doubt if Elizabeth had ever fallen in love with an "unsuitable" man (f.ex. a Catholic). If she had, she would have given him up. She wasn't a rebel nor an egoist like Margaret.

@Roseanna you are very right, when I said “sister to sister” I meant without the considerations of the crown and their royal birth (just their hearts desires as women wanting to be married to the men of their choosing) which were of course considerations (and Margaret got that in the end although she pouted because she didn’t give up her titles etc for Peter).  

Had Elizabeth fallen for an unsuitable man she wouldn’t have behaved as Margaret did because she considered duty before all else. She was a royal before she was a woman. 

[Roseanna]

6 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

@Roseanna you are very right, when I said “sister to sister” I meant without the considerations of the crown and their royal birth (just their hearts desires as women wanting to be married to the men of their choosing) which were of course considerations (and Margaret got that in the end although she pouted because she didn’t give up her titles etc for Peter).  

Had Elizabeth fallen for an unsuitable man she wouldn’t have behaved as Margaret did because she considered duty before all else. She was a royal before she was a woman. 

I understand you now. 

However, the divorce rate tells that love alone doesn't guarantee a successful marriage.

This show had a scene where Peter went early to bed whereas Margaret continued to party. That was a strong suggestion that their characters, habits and values were different.

Also, if it's a big change to a royal to become an ordinary person, the opposite is true as well: one must live in a golden cage and lose privacy. 

[jjj]

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 8:10 AM, dubbel zout said:

Isn't that what the Queen Mother said to someone? I know someone said that to someone, knowing full well the allure of forbidden fruit.

IMO, the biggest problem was Margaret wanted to have her cake and eat it too, and at that point in time, it simply wasn't going to happen. She had to make some sort of compromise, whether it be where she got married, her post-marriage title, etc., and she wouldn't.

Yes, the Queen Mother apparently had this conversation with Tommy L; he said this to his replacement Michael in the phone call scene between them.  I found it interesting, because Tommy was clearly saying the foreign posting was done primarily at the wish of the Queen Mother, and I don't think that was articulated back when he was sent away. 

However true the personal details are or are not, what I am seeing is a Queen who has almost no personal confidential "friends," by which I mean family friends as well as non-family.  Based on what we are shown, her mother, the Queen Mother, comes closest to this during these years, if Phillip really was so self-absorbed, which seems plausible.  Her father could rely on his wife the Queen, but Elizabeth does not have a spouse watching her back (the point the Queen Mother makes to him in the dance scene).  For me, this is what makes some of the Churchill scenes and the scenes with the professor's tutorials so poignant -- she has some glimpses of what it could be like to trust someone.  And with Churchill, that was only sometimes, because of course he was looking out for himself, his party, and Parliament. 

How little the children are directly involved in her life seems to mimic what Charles himself has said about his childhood.  What an amazingly different upbringing the current tiny heirs to the throne are having, just as William/Harry had with their mother. 

So late to be viewing this first season, but what a splendid production! 

[Roseanna]

On ‎30‎.‎12‎.‎2017 at 0:35 AM, jjj said:

However true the personal details are or are not, what I am seeing is a Queen who has almost no personal confidential "friends," by which I mean family friends as well as non-family.  Based on what we are shown, her mother, the Queen Mother, comes closest to this during these years, if Phillip really was so self-absorbed, which seems plausible.  Her father could rely on his wife the Queen, but Elizabeth does not have a spouse watching her back (the point the Queen Mother makes to him in the dance scene).  For me, this is what makes some of the Churchill scenes and the scenes with the professor's tutorials so poignant -- she has some glimpses of what it could be like to trust someone.  And with Churchill, that was only sometimes, because of course he was looking out for himself, his party, and Parliament. 

She has a close friend in the show - Porchy who shares her interest in the horse breeding.

However, the Queen's job is such that she can't share her information and opinion with nobody - that would be unconstitutional.

[atlantaloves]

I just rewatched the first series due to horrible insomnia and the fact that I had been watching all these wonderful documentaries about the Royals on Netflix and frankly, I just needed a fix.  This show is even better the second time around. Love it. Jolly Good. Right you are and Bob's your Uncle.  Snort. So Sorry. This is the best thing Netflix has ever done, but I haven't seen Peaky Binders yet. Anybody recommend anything else?

[oakville]

On 12/29/2017 at 5:35 PM, jjj said:

Yes, the Queen Mother apparently had this conversation with Tommy L; he said this to his replacement Michael in the phone call scene between them.  I found it interesting, because Tommy was clearly saying the foreign posting was done primarily at the wish of the Queen Mother, and I don't think that was articulated back when he was sent away. 

However true the personal details are or are not, what I am seeing is a Queen who has almost no personal confidential "friends," by which I mean family friends as well as non-family.  Based on what we are shown, her mother, the Queen Mother, comes closest to this during these years, if Phillip really was so self-absorbed, which seems plausible.  Her father could rely on his wife the Queen, but Elizabeth does not have a spouse watching her back (the point the Queen Mother makes to him in the dance scene).  For me, this is what makes some of the Churchill scenes and the scenes with the professor's tutorials so poignant -- she has some glimpses of what it could be like to trust someone.  And with Churchill, that was only sometimes, because of course he was looking out for himself, his party, and Parliament. 

How little the children are directly involved in her life seems to mimic what Charles himself has said about his childhood.  What an amazingly different upbringing the current tiny heirs to the throne are having, just as William/Harry had with their mother. 

So late to be viewing this first season, but what a splendid production! 

I just finished watching this episode. I love this series. However, I am surprised that Elizabeth was not involved in raising the kids. There were more scenes of Philip interacting with the kid than her. I find that odd.

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, oakville said:

I just finished watching this episode. I love this series. However, I am surprised that Elizabeth was not involved in raising the kids. There were more scenes of Philip interacting with the kid than her. I find that odd.

It seems odd to us, today, but, back in that time, in Britain, it was common for upper class parents to leave most of the raising of the children to nannies and then boarding schools.  

[oakville]

I am also surprised that Philip didn't have a security detail accompany him when he left the Palace. He drove away by himself.

[dubbel zout]

It was a different world.

[LeGrandElephant]

I’m late to both the history and the episode, but for this whole episode I just kept yelling “run away to America and get married! That’s what it’s there for! A whole country founded on getting away from this royalty nonsense!” But it doesn’t seem like Margaret even considered leaving her gilded cage, how sad. 

I realize money would have been an issue, but surely a pretty princess could find someone to pay her to do something in the US, eg making cameos in Hollywood films. Just run off and get married and then threaten to make a living in Hollywood and parliament might suddenly have been begging them to come back and live quietly with an allowance. 

And I don’t think she owed them much after they lied to her and tricked her into wasting two years of her life for nothing. 

 

Oh and speaking of whole institutions founded on things like getting away from royal nonsense, the whole Church of England was founded on letting Henry the 8th divorce his wife and remarry while she still lived, so they don’t really have a leg to stand on here.

(Yes, I know it was an “annulment” not a “divorce”, but whatever dude, everyone knows it was a divorce and the king was the guilty party).

Especially after the mention that several members of Parliament/cabinet were divorced. 

Edited November 27, 2019 by LeGrandElephant

[andromeda331]

27 minutes ago, LeGrandElephant said:

Oh and speaking of whole institutions founded on things like getting away from royal nonsense, the whole Church of England was founded on letting Henry the 8th divorce his wife and remarry while she still lived, so they don’t really have a leg to stand on here.

(Yes, I know it was an “annulment” not a “divorce”, but whatever dude, everyone knows it was a divorce and the king was the guilty party).

Especially after the mention that several members of Parliament/cabinet were divorced. 

They really didn't given how the Church of England was founded. I did like Elizabeth pointing out that several members of parliament/cabinet that they were divorce. So its okay to have a divorced Prime Minister and other government officials. But not Princess Margaret? Why? She a princess but not an heir. Elizabeth already had two. So what was the big deal? 

[LeGrandElephant]

Now that I’ve read the stuff in this thread about the letter it sounds like a very different situation - though maybe she still would have wanted to marry him at the beginning before the two year wait? But my comments above are about the show more than the actual history, which I know less about. 

[Camera One]

I'm just catching up on this show now.  I sort of held back before since it's a little uncomfortable to watch a dramatization of the lives of people who are still alive, but I really enjoyed this first season since it's so well acted and so beautifully filmed.  I enjoy period shows since it can really transport you back to the past, and the show does a good job of this.  It's also fun to see historical figures come to life, though it bothers me a bit when history is changed too much, or unnecessarily.

On 8/16/2017 at 2:26 AM, doodlebug said:

The show took dramatic license with the story of Princess Margaret.  In fact, Elizabeth, with the aid of her prime minister, did find a way for Margaret to marry Townsend.  However, Margaret's feelings for him had faded and she no longer wanted  marriage. The show used the 'star crossed lovers' trope because TPTB apparently thought it was a better story.

On 12/15/2016 at 8:14 AM, Crs97 said:

This series has been driving me crazy, as much as I love it, because they keep showing Elizabeth promise to take care of something only later to find she can't.  Now, as soon as she says absolutely, hubby and I groan!

These comments really struck me, because I think this was a situation where what actually happened was more interesting than their made-up storyline.  I too was getting a bit frustrated with the pattern of Elizabeth having to choose between family and duty, and this episode was a total repeat of the earlier episode about Margaret and Peter.  Showing Elizabeth actually working with Eden to help Margaret, and having Margaret ultimately decide to end the relationship with Peter would have been so much more complex.  It would allow Elizabeth to have some agency, and it would have added even more to Margaret's character.  It's changes like this that sometimes makes me wary of historical fiction.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Camera One

[Roseanna]

On 11/27/2019 at 3:10 AM, andromeda331 said:

They really didn't given how the Church of England was founded. I did like Elizabeth pointing out that several members of parliament/cabinet that they were divorce. So its okay to have a divorced Prime Minister and other government officials. But not Princess Margaret? Why? She a princess but not an heir. Elizabeth already had two. So what was the big deal? 

Theoretically, the difference was that the Queen is the Head of the Anglican Church and Margaret could become a regent if Elizabeth died when Charles was a minor. 

In practice, the reason was the trauma of Abdication still very much alive and the threat of Lord Salisbury to leave the government.      

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

These comments really struck me, because I think this was a situation where what actually happened was more interesting than their made-up storyline.  I too was getting a bit frustrated with the pattern of Elizabeth having to choose between family and duty, and this episode was a total repeat of the earlier episode about Margaret and Peter.  Showing Elizabeth actually working with Eden to help Margaret, and having Margaret ultimately decide to end the relationship with Peter would have been so much more complex.  It would allow Elizabeth to have some agency, and it would added even more to Margaret's character.  It's changes like this that sometimes makes me wary of historical fiction.

Unfortunately, not only writers of historical fiction but also almost all who write articles about "Margaret's unhappy life" think that "she was denied her true love" make a better story.

[Roseanna]

In the episode Margaret says that she doesn't care for her title and position etc. and can abandon them for Peter, but when the choice is really put before her, it's Peter she gives away. That kind of hypocrisy makes it hard to me to feel sympathy for her.

Plus, Margaret seems to be a person who believes that she is entitled to get everything without paying any price. She seems not to have any realization what kind of life many women lived at that time: how many were forced to work from the early age and how few could study, how many had to chose between work and family - and how many women had lost their husbands and lovers in the war.

 

 

 

[sistermagpie]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

In the episode Margaret says that she doesn't care for her title and position etc. and can abandon them for Peter, but when the choice is really put before her, it's Peter she gives away. That kind of hypocrisy makes it hard to me to feel sympathy for her.

Plus, Margaret seems to be a person who believes that she is entitled to get everything without paying any price. She seems not to have any realization what kind of life many women lived at that time: how many were forced to work from the early age and how few could study, how many had to chose between work and family - and how many women had lost their husbands and lovers in the war.

 

 

 

Margaret seems definitely like the kind of person who in the moment thinks she only cares about what she wants right then, but when it comes down to it that's just because she wants everything she wants. It's easy to say you don't care about the rest of it when the rest of it isn't threatened. Once it was, she wasn't really brave enough to walk away. Or just didn't see why she should.

[Lonesome Rhodes]

The girls' father, the King, did a really shitty thing to them when he took a moment after his brother screwed him over royally, to tell them to ignore duty and put family over all.  He knew full well he was about to give up his life and the family's for the good of ol' England.  It may have appeared to him he was doing them a great favor.  In reality, he condemned them to a certain falling out/chasm. 

David was such a turd in that phone conversation where he recounted how he had chosen love and would do it again, but his niece, the Queen, could not and must not.  David rejected his family fully and absolutely so he could have his love.  Then he has the temerity to tell his niece she did not have that right.  He is the true villain in this series, thus far.

Tommy is guilty of the deepest betrayal, as is Adeane.  Each put his loyalty to something other than the Crown incarnate.  This is in contrast to the earlier time when he was dead set against what the Queen was determined to do and clearly acquiesced to her right to make whatever decision she saw fit.  He ended up winning his point, anyway.  This time, he simply lied by omission, thus taking away the Queen's absolute right to err.   I hope they each get their comeuppance in a major way.

The acting in the scene between Peter and Margaret as he goes to embrace her when she returned from the Palace with the final "No" from the Queen, was bad even by American soap standards.  It looked like a skit from Carol Burnett who was intentionally over acting and emoting to the heavens.  All that was missing was the sharp staccato music, Duh Duh Duh.  

This was clearly the weakest ep thus far, imo.

I get that everything this season led to the ice cold/stoic/determined/resolute stance we saw in the last frames.  Elizabeth Windsor, Lisabet, was, indeed, dead.  Long live the Queen! 

Well done overall by all concerned.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Lonesome Rhodes