S01.E07: Scientia Potentia Est

[CeeBeeGee]

On 11/13/2016 at 0:26 AM, Brn2bwild said:

The irony was that during Queen Victoria's time, Prince Albert gave his daughters a really thorough education, more advanced than most women would have received.  Vicky, the Princess Royal, was supposed to be brilliant.  Yet less than 100 years later, the princesses are back to being viewed as ornaments.

The first Queen Elizabeth, Elizabeth Tudor. also received an excellent education--she and her half-brother Edward (VI), and their cousin Jane Grey, were brilliant and spoke 5-6 languages each, and studied the classics in their original language.

On 11/19/2016 at 9:33 AM, Clanstarling said:

It did take me out for a moment, because it was crude, particularly for this show. After thinking about it, I think it wasn't quite meant to be - his line before that was that she'd grown so "tall" that he would need stilts to get to her...or she could get on her knees - which I think was intended to mean to bring them to the same height. But if that is the case, then it was definitely written without anyone piping up saying "hey, you do realize what that phrase means these days, right?"

I thought so too, but then after thinking about it, I thought it didn't really hold much water, as his examples were all about Edward and the case in point was the promotion of secretaries (by natural right, really?) I think there might well be good arguments for how important it is for the next secretary in line to get the job, but he slipped right past that topic and brought up everyone's royal boogy man.

Those days as well! I'm sure the phrase had a sexual connotation back then as well--it's not as though BJs are a recent invention ;)

I thought Tommy's explanation was a little too neatly self-serving. By his reasoning there could never be any innovation whatsoever--including, say, the marriage of Bertie to the commoner who became the Queen Mother, the former Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. The Queen's personal secretary should be her decision--she has to work closely with him, she has to trust him.

On 12/7/2016 at 8:25 PM, Jan Spears said:

Princess Victoria (Vicky) was very well-educated during the 1840s and 1850s. Her letters to Queen Victoria have been published and they reveal just how intelligent and educated she really was.

The educations of Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret were a major point of contention between Queen Mary and her daughter-in-law, the future Queen Elizabeth. Queen Mary didn't hesitate to point out what she felt were the sizeable gaps in the two princesses' educations. For her part, Queen Elizabeth professed to be puzzled by Queen Mary's criticisms. She said something to the effect that neither she nor any of her sisters had had much in the way of formal education and that we all married well -- one of us very well. I'm not sure when Queen Elizabeth said this -- it may have been before the abdication crisis. But her attitude reveals just how little value she (and her husband) put on any kind of extensive education for young girls.

I've read that Margaret in particular resented her lack of education--she was quite intelligent and would've done well at university, given a more rigorous preparation. She might've enjoyed studying composition and performance, with her musical talent. Did Elizabeth really engage a private tutor to fill the gaps? Good for her. It's practically child neglect to deprive anyone exposure to English poetry and Shakespeare, some of the most glorious texts ever written, much less the heir to the British throne!

 I think it was Robert Massie, in Nicholas and Alexandra, who talked about Nicholas's similarly inadequate preparation for the throne of Russia which was motivated partly by his father's rather dim assessment of Nicholas's ability (which really is no excuse--even if you don't think he's all that bright, he is still going to inherit the throne so you'd better prepare him) but also because in a weird way it's tradition. Or at least it happens a LOT--this phenomenon of not really preparing your successor. There can be a lot of factors--denial of one's own inevitable death, jealousy of the young and healthy, even a subconscious wish to sabotage the beginning of the new regime to make your own look better. And it's not just monarchs--Truman was completely in the dark when he became President after Roosevelt died, and had to be told about the development of the A-bomb.

[Clanstarling]

4 hours ago, CeeBeeGee said:

Those days as well! I'm sure the phrase had a sexual connotation back then as well--it's not as though BJs are a recent invention ;)

Oh, I agree - BJs have been around since the beginning, but the connotation of that particular phrase may or may not have been the same at that time, as meaning and nuance does change from era to era. I've often found it amusing when reading old books.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

People Begin To Learn Their Places On The Crown

And for Churchill that means a comically small chair.

[Eyes High]

On 11/19/2016 at 9:33 AM, Clanstarling said:

I thought so too, but then after thinking about it, I thought it didn't really hold much water, as his examples were all about Edward and the case in point was the promotion of secretaries (by natural right, really?) I think there might well be good arguments for how important it is for the next secretary in line to get the job, but he slipped right past that topic and brought up everyone's royal boogy man.

Because the suggestion that she was in danger of turning out like Edward would cut Elizabeth to the quick, and Tommy knew it. Tommy knew Elizabeth wanted to be a good queen, so all he needed to do was characterize her refusal to honour the secretary succession as the sort of selfish, decadent indulgence that brought down Edward and endangered the monarchy, and he got precisely the result he wanted. She hemmed and hawed a bit more after his speech about the "rot" setting in, but it was clear she'd already lost.

Tommy's mastery of shade on a level unheard of outside of RuPaul's Drag Race gives me life. This was hilarious:

Elizabeth (about Martin): It's a more natural fit.

Tommy: *pause* If that is Your Majesty's wish. *bows curtly and leaves*

[snarktini]

I rewound so I could hear her a second time tell Churchill to consider his answer based on her rank and office, not her age and gender. About time! Taller, indeed.

My heart broke for her in the first scene with the professor. Awkward! Sad how she was so poorly educated. Even if you took the ornamental view of female monarchy, at a minimum have to converse with important people and heads of state and it only makes sense to be prepared! And poor Margaret, she got even less. Wise parenting doesn't appear to be a strong suit in those couple of generations.

Ugh, she went with Michael. Just once I wanted her to stick to her guns. I'm not sure the young guy was actually ready for it, but seniority is exactly the kind of dumb procedural rule that needs to be broken. (If Tommy had said something about the importance of institutional memory to being a good advisor, I could have bought that. But the moral laxity of selecting one's advisor as a straight line to abdication sucked.)

Edited December 14, 2016 by snarktini

[Crs97]

What bugged me was that apparently she is the only one who has to sacrifice.  Michael's reaction isn't that they should do whatever it takes to make sure she is comfortable in her role as queen; instead he goes whining to Tommy that the job is supposed to be his, his, his.  Well, now that he has got it I hope she makes him as uncomfortable as possible.

[Constantinople]

12 hours ago, snarktini said:

Ugh, she went with Michael. Just once I wanted her to stick to her guns. I'm not sure the young guy was actually ready for it, but seniority is exactly the kind of dumb procedural rule that needs to be broken. (If Tommy had said something about the importance of institutional memory to being a good advisor, I could have bought that. But the moral laxity of selecting one's advisor as a straight line to abdication sucked.)

I agree, there is something to be said for institutional memory.  Had Elizabeth stuck to her guns Micheal Adeane might have felt compelled to resign for being passed over.  That would have left a new Queen with a relatively inexperienced private secretary and two new assistant private secretaries.

[andromeda331]

21 hours ago, snarktini said:

I rewound so I could hear her a second time tell Churchill to consider his answer based on her rank and office, not her age and gender. About time! Taller, indeed.

My heart broke for her in the first scene with the professor. Awkward! Sad how she was so poorly educated. Even if you took the ornamental view of female monarchy, at a minimum have to converse with important people and heads of state and it only makes sense to be prepared! And poor Margaret, she got even less. Wise parenting doesn't appear to be a strong suit in those couple of generations.

Mine too. When the professor kept asking about which exam she taken and it was dawning on her how little she was educated. I really don't understand the lack of education the parents are wise enough to realize what a huge job being Queen is but then do nothing to prepare their heir for it. Yes, Elizabeth and George assumed he'd live longer, and hadn't assumed they'd end up King and Queen, and their daughter heir, but it happened and she was still young enough to give her a proper education and could have easily been continued to prepare her for the role as she grew older. But chose not to in both cases. Also, wouldn't the abdication have made all of them want to make sure the next heir was more prepared? I do really like how she decided to do something about her lack of education and hire a tutor.

[snarktini]

7 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Mine too. When the professor kept asking about which exam she taken and it was dawning on her how little she was educated. I really don't understand the lack of education the parents are wise enough to realize what a huge job being Queen is but then do nothing to prepare their heir for it. Yes, Elizabeth and George assumed he'd live longer, and hadn't assumed they'd end up King and Queen, and their daughter heir, but it happened and she was still young enough to give her a proper education and could have easily been continued to prepare her for the role as she grew older. But chose not to in both cases. Also, wouldn't the abdication have made all of them want to make sure the next heir was more prepared? I do really like how she decided to do something about her lack of education and hire a tutor.

The only way I can make sense of it it is to consider the Queen Mum's advice...the job is to stay quiet and do nothing. Apparently she means that literally. If that's how you view it, all a Queen needs to know is government.

Yet, it still escapes me how they thought you could understand government if you don't understand the topics governments make decisions about (economics, science, business, etc) nor how you could understand your subjects without understanding their history and passions (culture, arts, humanities). 

It sounds like former kings and queens were quite well educated -- I wonder what changed? Would a male heir have received the same education, or more?

[dubbel zout]

20 hours ago, snarktini said:

Would a male heir have received the same education, or more?

A male at least would have had a more thorough home schooling or attended a school like Eton.

Spoiler

Charles was the first heir to get a university degree (from Cambridge), so it's not as if it were a tradition to educate any royal all that comprehensively. For some, serving in the military took the place of higher education. Still true today, as the Duke of York and Prince Harry prove.

Edited December 16, 2016 by saoirse
Spoiler tagged current events

[Constantinople]

10 hours ago, snarktini said:

It sounds like former kings and queens were quite well educated -- I wonder what changed?

When the provost was lecturing to Elizabeth, he distinguished between the dignified and the efficient parts of government and emphasized that the crown belonged to the former.  At one point, the monarch belonged to both.  The King, or Queen, had real influence in selecting the Prime Minister and might actual veto a bill (I believe William IV, Victoria's uncle and predecessor, was the last to exercise the veto).  So perhaps as the role became more "dignified" (ceremonial), education was less important.  Just a guess.

I also wonder if WWII had an effect.  She was 13 when it started and 19 when it ended.  I suspect schools still ran, but it might have been seen as an indulgence to have a private tutor at the time.  Once again, just a guess.

Still, she didn't become Queen until she as 25 or 26.  There was still time.

[millk]

On 12/15/2016 at 0:59 AM, snarktini said:

It sounds like former kings and queens were quite well educated -- I wonder what changed? Would a male heir have received the same education, or more?

Most of the younger crop of royals have higher educations. King Felipe VI of Spain has a law degree and a Master of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown. King Philippe of Belgium has a MA in political science from Stanford. King Wilem-Alexander of Netherlands has his Masters in History. All of their wives have advanced degrees but they were all not born royal. I would expect their heirs (all girls 11, 13 & 15) to get good educations.

[Jan Spears]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 10:22 AM, Constantinople said:

I also wonder if WWII had an effect.  She was 13 when it started and 19 when it ended.  I suspect schools still ran, but it might have been seen as an indulgence to have a private tutor at the time.  Once again, just a guess.

Still, she didn't become Queen until she as 25 or 26.  There was still time.

I do think there's something to the idea that events overtook everyone. The abdication crisis came as a huge shock to the Royal Family not least to Princess Elizabeth's father, who considered himself completely inadequate to the task of being King. (As it turned out, he became a very good King and history has been kind to him.) Nazism continued to gain steam in the late-30s and then the War broke out in 1939. After the War ended in 1945, that might have been the ideal time to focus on Elizabeth's education but then she got engaged in 1946, married in 1947 and gave birth to Prince Charles in 1948 and Princess Anne in 1950. Her father's health also started to decline around this time. So, at least in part, Elizabeth's education -- or its lack -- may have been a victim of history. (I don't know what the excuse would be for Margaret, though.)

[kwnyc]

Quote

It sounds like former kings and queens were quite well educated -- I wonder what changed? 

That was so much up to their parents, and then it depended on the quality of the tutor/governess. Wasn't Charles the first prince of his line to go to an actual school? (And yes, he hated Gordonstoun.)

[BingeyKohan]

My favorite bit in this episode was the payoff to Elizabeth's lament that she could only steer the conversation to dogs and horses so many times--when she does that with her tutor, she's the one who is way more informed. I enjoyed the smile of self satisfaction on her face after that exchange. I'm becoming very attached to Claire Foy. A few seasons down the road a new actress will have a major task. (Maybe toward the end they could get Fred Armisen; I always enjoyed his portrayals of the Queen as a secret thug on SNL.)

[iMonrey]

I was really hoping Elizabeth wouldn't cave and hire the more senior under secretary like Tommy wanted. Poor Martin. I find it hard to believe that George III or William IV would have allowed their private secretaries to lecture them that way. And Henry VIII would have had him beheaded.

That said, it will be a great loss to the show when Tommy is no longer private secretary. The character is fascinating to watch and after looking up the real Lascelles on Wikipedia I see the casting was dead-on. 

[Guest]

On 12/20/2016 at 5:29 AM, BingeyKohan said:

My favorite bit in this episode was the payoff to Elizabeth's lament that she could only steer the conversation to dogs and horses so many times--when she does that with her tutor, she's the one who is way more informed. I enjoyed the smile of self satisfaction on her face after that exchange. 

Yes, between that and the tutor telling her she's more educated than anyone in matters of her own job, I took the message to be not that she didn't get a decent education but that her's was just very specific, and there's nothing wrong with that so she shouldn't feel unprepared to meet with the people she does.  

[dubbel zout]

50 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I took the message to be not that she didn't get a decent education but that her's was just very specific, and there's nothing wrong with that so she shouldn't feel unprepared to meet with the people she does.  

When she's doing meet-and-greets on walkabouts, at receptions, etc., I think she was prepared, as all that was needed was basic small talk and whatever appropriate tidbit her aides gave her beforehand. (This person won a gold medal at the Olympics for skiing; here's the new ambassador from the Ivory Coast; meet the farmer who bred the winning cow at the national fair; that sort of thing.) I thought her concerns were more when she meet with people who were giving her updates about policy and that sort of thing that she felt out of her league, because it was much more specific knowledge that was necessary.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

When she's doing meet-and-greets on walkabouts, at receptions, etc., I think she was prepared, as all that was needed was basic small talk and whatever appropriate tidbit her aides gave her beforehand. (This person won a gold medal at the Olympics for skiing; here's the new ambassador from the Ivory Coast; meet the farmer who bred the winning cow at the national fair; that sort of thing.) I thought her concerns were more when she meet with people who were giving her updates about policy and that sort of thing that she felt out of her league, because it was much more specific knowledge that was necessary.

Like earlier in the episode in her meeting with Churchill when he was talking about the Russians and the bomb. She didn't know what to say even though he was looking at her and expecting her to say something. 

[Inquisitionist]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 6:29 AM, BingeyKohan said:

My favorite bit in this episode was the payoff to Elizabeth's lament that she could only steer the conversation to dogs and horses so many times

Reminded me of Sarah Palin in Game Change always having to "pivot" to energy, as it's the only topic her advisers felt she had some command of.

[Guest]

On 1/2/2017 at 2:30 PM, andromeda331 said:

Like earlier in the episode in her meeting with Churchill when he was talking about the Russians and the bomb. She didn't know what to say even though he was looking at her and expecting her to say something. 

I took it that her being unable to converse knowledgeably on these things was just a mild personal embarrassment to her, not some job qualification she lacked.  I know nothing about this topic but the PM chats seemed more like a courtesy than for her to give any actual feedback, short of what little fell within her purview.  

[Milburn Stone]

On 11/6/2016 at 8:19 AM, WatchrTina said:

I found the conversation between the Queen and her tutor to be a bit unrealistic.

I love the tutor.

(Who's the actor? I now need to see everything he's ever done.)

Edited to add: After consulting the imdb, I think the name of the character is "Professor Hogg" and the actor who played him is Alan Williams. He has British film credits but the only one I recognize is Vera Drake. He's also been in some British TV shows which as far as I know never made it over here.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[TaurusRose]

On 11/7/2016 at 1:55 PM, PRgal said:

I felt so badly for Elizabeth in the early scene where she was with her tutor at Eton - she saw those math papers and asked if she could be taught that as well - only to be told no (inappropriate for someone like her). 

I thought Elizabeth's conversation with her mother (after discovering how inadequate her formal education really was) was hilarious.  From the question, "what does this have to do with me?" to the remark about Elizabeth surely not calling her out for her motherhood abilities, I was dying.  The queen mother's ability to just let things roll off her back is amazing.

[Roseanna]

On 12/14/2016 at 11:59 PM, snarktini said:

It sounds like former kings and queens were quite well educated -- I wonder what changed? Would a male heir have received the same education, or more?

I think it goes back to George V. He wasn't supposed to inherit as he had an older brother who then died (and whose bride he then married). So he was sent to the navy as young and was therefore poorly educated. For some reason, he sent his eldest son, the heir, as well his brother Bertie to the navy and both were more poorly educated than a country squire. And like his father, also George VI didn't consider that Elizabeth needed a proper education.

Maybe it was also the charcater: neither George V nor George VI were intellectually curious. The Duke of Windsor was, but he had no ability to concentrate and didn't even read state papers.

On 1/5/2017 at 0:58 PM, Winston9-DT3 said:

I took it that her being unable to converse knowledgeably on these things was just a mild personal embarrassment to her, not some job qualification she lacked.  I know nothing about this topic but the PM chats seemed more like a courtesy than for her to give any actual feedback, short of what little fell within her purview.  

They are not supposed to be mere courtesy. The Queen, although with no formal power, has a right to counsel, encourage and warn. Of course, one can't learn it from the books, one needs experience in able to do it.

And also a tact. One can do it by making an essential question - and a wise Prime Minister notices that there is a hole in his plan.   

[Jan Spears]

I tracked down Sarah Bradford's 1996 bio of Elizabeth II for the exact quotes about Elizabeth and Margaret's education that I referenced earlier in this thread. Here's what she wrote:

"The education of women was not considered important in royal and aristocratic circles, where it was regarded merely as a necessary tool for those unfortunates who would have to earn their living and irrelevant to the needs of girls whose destiny was marriage. Queen Mary seems to have been the only member of the family who was concerned that the girls should be well-educated. She remonstrated with her daughter-in-law over the fact that the children's education was confined to their governess. 'I don't know what she meant,' the Duchess of York told a friend. 'After all I and my sisters only had governesses and we all married well -- one of us very well . . ." (Bradford, p. 40)

And this about Queen Mary's role in Elizabeth and Margaret's education:

"To [governess] Crawfie's curriculum, which included the singing, dancing, music and drawing considered accomplishments suited to the education of a young lady . . . , Queen Mary insisted on adding subjects that she considered essential for royal children. 'Her Majesty felt that genealogies, historical and dynastic, were . . . for these children, really important. The Queen also suggested that the children should be taught the physical geography of the Dominions and India . . ." (Bradford, pp. 40-41)

Bradford also includes this tidbit about Queen Mary and her sense of duty:

"[Queen Mary's lady-in-waiting] Lady Airlie went so far as to say that her [Queen Mary's] sense of the duty of a monarch was so strong that she approved of Catherine the Great 'on the grounds that she loved her kingdom to the extent that she would go to any lengths for it, even commit terrible crimes'." (Bradford, p. 42]

[Calamity Jane]

On 12/12/2016 at 8:46 AM, CeeBeeGee said:

 I think it was Robert Massie, in Nicholas and Alexandra, who talked about Nicholas's similarly inadequate preparation for the throne of Russia which was motivated partly by his father's rather dim assessment of Nicholas's ability (which really is no excuse--even if you don't think he's all that bright, he is still going to inherit the throne so you'd better prepare him) but also because in a weird way it's tradition. 

Someone else who has read Nicholas and Alexandra!  I'm the only person I know who has.  I have lost my copy and am reluctant at age 67 to keep acquiring books, but it was so good, I may have to get it anyway.  Nicholas does not seem to have been very bright, but all the more reason to do what you can to get him ready.  And make sure he marries someone with a few wits instead of Alexandra the hysterical idiot....

[Clanstarling]

20 minutes ago, Calamity Jane said:

Someone else who has read Nicholas and Alexandra!  I'm the only person I know who has.  I have lost my copy and am reluctant at age 67 to keep acquiring books, but it was so good, I may have to get it anyway.  Nicholas does not seem to have been very bright, but all the more reason to do what you can to get him ready.  And make sure he marries someone with a few wits instead of Alexandra the hysterical idiot....

I read it too, but it's been so long that I don't remember details. These days I acquire my books on Kindle - which doesn't seem as much a waste, much more portable, and I can crank up the font size. :)

[Badger]

45 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

I read it too, but it's been so long that I don't remember details. These days I acquire my books on Kindle - which doesn't seem as much a waste, much more portable, and I can crank up the font size. :)

 

I love my KINDLE for just that reason.  I also read "Nicholas and Alexandra" many years ago.  One impression I got was that both Alexander III and Empress Marie Feodorovna were larger than life characters who fully embodied their roles as emperor and empress.  Nicholas and Alexandra could never have lived up to that.  

[dubbel zout]

I think if the tsarevich Alexei hadn't had hemophilia, things might have been very different for Alexandra. She was utterly consumed by guilt over passing it on to him. 

Victoria and Albert didn't have much faith in the Prince of Wales, who had a reputation as a playboy, but as Edward VII, he turned out to be a pretty effective king. So you never know.

[CeeBeeGee]

3 hours ago, Calamity Jane said:

Someone else who has read Nicholas and Alexandra!  I'm the only person I know who has.  I have lost my copy and am reluctant at age 67 to keep acquiring books, but it was so good, I may have to get it anyway.  Nicholas does not seem to have been very bright, but all the more reason to do what you can to get him ready.  And make sure he marries someone with a few wits instead of Alexandra the hysterical idiot....

Yes, I love N&A! One of my favorite historical books ever. Massie's sympathetic portrayal of them (due to his own son's hemophilia, which initially sparked his interest in the couple) greatly influenced me until I finally started reading some other books about them. I read a biography of Alix a few years ago that really solidified my annoyance with her--she was self-indulgent in the way her grandmother Queen Victoria was [

Spoiler

After Albert's early death Victoria retreated from public for a LONG time, to the point that there was some serious discussion about abolishing the monarchy again

]. If you're shy and don't like dealing with courtiers? Maybe don't marry an Emperor. 

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I love my KINDLE for just that reason.  I also read "Nicholas and Alexandra" many years ago.  One impression I got was that both Alexander III and Empress Marie Feodorovna were larger than life characters who fully embodied their roles as emperor and empress.  Nicholas and Alexandra could never have lived up to that.  

Very true. Marie especially was a very difficult act to follow--she LOVED court, loved gossip and being among people and the give and take. And Alix hated it.

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

I think if the tsarevich Alexei hadn't had hemophilia, things might have been very different for Alexandra. She was utterly consumed by guilt over passing it on to him. 

Victoria and Albert didn't have much faith in the Prince of Wales, who had a reputation as a playboy, but as Edward VII, he turned out to be a pretty effective king. So you never know.

I agree a lot of her difficulties had to do with the hemophilia, and bearing four daughters in a row for an Empire with a Salic law (so the daughters could not inherit--a pity, as either Tatiana or Olga would've made excellent rulers, IMO--I believe at some point they were considering naming Olga as Heir). But she was also painfully shy, openly did not want anyone other than family or close friends around, and was also German (немка) which became a huge problem when WWI came along. She just seemed to want everything the way she wanted it and didn't seem to respect that she had married into another culture, another court, another country. Frankly I'm surprised she converted!

[Calamity Jane]

Alix might have been a perfectly unobjectionable wife for a minor German nobleman, but she was never anywhere near the person she needed to be to assume the role of Empress of Russia.  The struggle caused by hemophilia exacerbated and highlighted her worst traits, but she might well have been just as blindly attached to all the wrong people, insistent on Nicholas never backing down, never giving in to demands, never doing anything to dilute "Baby"'s inheritance,  even without the nightmare of the disease and Rasputin.  Nicholas was also not well-suited to the job, not bright enough, not endowed with the ability to think with subtlety, not gifted with enough of his father's big personality - those two were quite possibly the worst possible people in that position in that time.  You can't read N&A without feeling compassion for them as humans, but I get so exasperated at their unforced errors when it came to public life. I seem to remember that Massie made the point that theirs would have been a lovely, successful family if they weren't the Imperial family.  

Anyway, it's a piece of history that is fascinating to play "what if" about, much as we do with the abdication of Edward VIII.  What would the outcome of WWII have been with him on the throne?  Would he have worked with the Nazis to get the UK out of the war?  He did try a deal whereby they would restore him to the throne if England was defeated, so one can only wonder if his known sympathies would have surfaced if he stayed on the throne.  

[dubbel zout]

11 hours ago, Calamity Jane said:

He did try a deal whereby they would restore him to the throne if England was defeated, so one can only wonder if his known sympathies would have surfaced if he stayed on the throne.  

I have a feeling Edward would have eventually chafed at the restrictions the Nazis would inevitably have put on him. I enjoy thinking about the exasperation his chief Nazi handler(s) would have dealing with such a petulant, selfish man.

Edited March 13, 2017 by dubbel zout

[Calamity Jane]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

I have a feeling Edward would have eventually chafed at the restrictions the Nazis would inevitably have put on him. I enjoy thinking about the exasperation his chief Nazi handler(s) would have dealing with such a petulant, selfish man.

Oh, no doubt at all it would have been a colossal disaster for all concerned.  I think pretty much anyone who made a deal with the Nazis regretted it.  Probably anybody who had dealings with Edward regretted it.  

Edited March 13, 2017 by Calamity Jane

[Milburn Stone]

12 hours ago, Calamity Jane said:

He did try a deal whereby they would restore him to the throne if England was defeated, so one can only wonder if his known sympathies would have surfaced if he stayed on the throne.  

This makes me wonder if his Nazi sympathies were more driven by his bitterness at being forced to abdicate and his determination for revenge against the royal family he loathed, than by an actual in-synchness with the Nazi philosophy. You know, like, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Just asking, cause I don't know.

[Calamity Jane]

16 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

This makes me wonder if his Nazi sympathies were more driven by his bitterness at being forced to abdicate and his determination for revenge against the royal family he loathed, than by an actual in-synchness with the Nazi philosophy. You know, like, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Just asking, cause I don't know.

Without checking, my impression is that he was part of the pro-Nazi culture in the 30's, so that making a deal was not completely antithetical to his beliefs to start with, but that as you say, his bitterness made it even easier.  I grew up with the romantic view of his giving up his throne for the woman he loved and thought he was just the most admirable person ever, and learning about his attempts to collude with the Nazis was a harsh dose of reality for me.  I cannot think of him without contempt now.  

[Arynm]

I know that in this show at least the line is that David was forced to abdicate because of Wallis, but I don't think that is necessarily true. I think he took the easy way out because being King was too hard! He loved the perks and money and deference, but the job was too much and took far too much time out of his day that was better spent screwing around. He just didn't have the work ethic and drive it takes to do the job. I think I read that he most of the time he never bothered to even open the red box with the paperwork for the day.

I think he did the entire world a favor by bowing out. If he changed his mind later and tried to make a deal with the Nazis to get his power back, it wouldn't surprise me.

[Hanahope]

I admire Queen Elizabeth at least realized her lacking education and sought to do something about it.  Too bad she couldn't have suggested the same to Margaret, it might have helped her feel less useless.

I understand Thomas' statement about changing tradition, and in some things, he may be right.  It probably was good to have the next secretary be someone who'd been around longer, knew more how things were done, to help Elizabeth in those early years.  His example of the 'slippery slope' of rot was a bit extreme, some things do need to be changed, given technology and the world, and surely Elizabeth was not going down the road David/Edward VIII did, but I see Thomas' point.

Besides, apparently she already has someone arguing to keep up with the tech in Phillip (and look where that got them).

[Jan Spears]

On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 6:20 PM, Badger said:

One impression I got was that both Alexander III and Empress Marie Feodorovna were larger than life characters who fully embodied their roles as emperor and empress.

Marie Feodorovna's daughter (and Nicholas' sister) Grand Duchess Olga said of her mother that, "She was born for court life."

 

On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:53 PM, CeeBeeGee said:

Very true. Marie especially was a very difficult act to follow--she LOVED court, loved gossip and being among people and the give and take. And Alix hated it.

But she was also painfully shy, openly did not want anyone other than family or close friends around, and was also German (немка) which became a huge problem when WWI came along. She just seemed to want everything the way she wanted it and didn't seem to respect that she had married into another culture, another court, another country. Frankly I'm surprised she converted!

Marie Feodorovna opposed allowing Nicholas to marry Alexandra for many years precisely because she thought Alexandra's shyness, inability to make conversation easily and natural introspection would make for a poor fit for an Empress of Russia. Marie understood that being Tsarina meant being seen out and about at the ballet and the opera and generally leading Russian society. She also understood that being active in the arts and other social activities was a way for the monarchy to keep constant track of what Russian society (or at least its highest levels) was thinking. We know from Marie's letters that she was already worried about Alexandra's tendency to isolate herself (and Nicholas) in the late-1890s, long before the birth of Alexei and the rise of Rasputin at court. And, as history proved, Marie was right to be worried.

[Roseanna]

On ‎13‎.‎3‎.‎2017 at 6:05 PM, Arynm said:

I know that in this show at least the line is that David was forced to abdicate because of Wallis, but I don't think that is necessarily true. I think he took the easy way out because being King was too hard! He loved the perks and money and deference, but the job was too much and took far too much time out of his day that was better spent screwing around. He just didn't have the work ethic and drive it takes to do the job. I think I read that he most of the time he never bothered to even open the red box with the paperwork for the day.

I think he did the entire world a favor by bowing out. If he changed his mind later and tried to make a deal with the Nazis to get his power back, it wouldn't surprise me.

I agree; Edward was not forced to abdicate, he could have stayed King without even loosing Wallis if he hadn't insisted to marry her.

I think one often forgets that Wallis wasn't only a commoner and a divorced woman but she was actually married to Ernest Simpson when the Prince of Wales and later the King openly dated with her, f.ex. cruising with her in the Mediterranean. If the King could be sued as a co-despondent for adultery, it would be a scandal the world had never seen. As it was, being a gentleman, Ernest Simpson took all the blame by arranging a hotel situation with an unknown lady.

Of course, Edward always denied that Wallis was his mistress. But they certainly behaved like she was.  

[dubbel zout]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Edward was not forced to abdicate, he could have stayed King without even loosing Wallis if he hadn't insisted to marry her.

I really don't think this was possible. The more of the times simply wouldn't have permitted an unwed king to have an affair, especially with an American divorcée.

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I really don't think this was possible. The more of the times simply wouldn't have permitted an unwed king to have an affair, especially with an American divorcée.

That's what Prime Minister Baldwin suggested to the King. But he would have to stop parading Wallis openly. 

[dubbel zout]

One duty of the monarch is to assure its succession, and it's highly unlikely Wallis would have borne a child. I know the Duke of York (as he was then) had two daughters, but the whole thing would have been really messy. The Abdication made a clean break for everyone, as traumatic as it was.

[chitowngirl]

He could have easily kept Wallis on the side while he married his virginal bride and had an heir and a spare, but he wouldn't do that to "the woman he loved". And being a King was hard work! Cuts into the social time!

[thuganomics85]

Damn, you messed up, Churchill!  Elizabeth dressing down both Salsbury and Churchill was great.  In particular, John Lithgow was fantastic in that he really made Churchill suddenly become a child who was upset that he disappointed "Nana."  Elizabeth couldn't have handle either one of those men any better.  I hope this changes their relationship going forward.

Surprised that Elizabeth went with Michael in the end over poor Martin (although, Martin really should have not told his wife until it was set in stone.)  I guess she decided that Tommy was right about keeping the tradition?  Not sure if he was playing her or was being truthful (or maybe both), but I liked the idea that the reason Tommy is such a stickler is because of what went down with David/Edward changing minor things at first and then dropping the big advocation bomb.  I could buy Tommy never getting over that.  Still, he is a pretty slimy character, but I'll miss him whenever his retirement becomes official.

Glad Elizabeth wants to educate herself more so she isn't at such a disadvantage when talking with the politicians.  Crazy to see what her actual education was.  Or the lack there of...

Mixed feelings on the Elizabeth/Philip moment at the end.  It was nice seeing them actually act like a normal couple again (hey, they are totally having sex!), but it felt a bit random and unearned, considering how they have been the past few episodes, especially Philip's attitude towards her.

[Black Knight]

On 9/11/2017 at 0:31 AM, thuganomics85 said:

Surprised that Elizabeth went with Michael in the end over poor Martin (although, Martin really should have not told his wife until it was set in stone.)  I guess she decided that Tommy was right about keeping the tradition?

A friend and I watched tonight and we thought her decision might've had a lot to do with the fact that she had such a supportive conversation with her tutor where he wholeheartedly encouraged her to dress down Salisbury and Churchill. She told Tommy that she wanted Martin because she wanted an ally, and she later found that she has an ally in her tutor. So she decided she didn't need Martin.

I noticed that Elizabeth never thought of, and of course Tommy wouldn't suggest, the solution that would have given Elizabeth the secretary she wanted while meeting (at least technically) Tommy's desire for following a strict order of succession: Get rid of Adeane first, before Tommy retires. Then the spare, Martin, becomes the heir. It's kind of funny that it never occurred to Elizabeth given the parallel to her own family.

[Inquisitionist]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 0:13 PM, Jan Spears said:

I tracked down Sarah Bradford's 1996 bio of Elizabeth II for the exact quotes about Elizabeth and Margaret's education that I referenced earlier in this thread. Here's what she wrote:

"The education of women was not considered important in royal and aristocratic circles, where it was regarded merely as a necessary tool for those unfortunates who would have to earn their living and irrelevant to the needs of girls whose destiny was marriage. Queen Mary seems to have been the only member of the family who was concerned that the girls should be well-educated. She remonstrated with her daughter-in-law over the fact that the children's education was confined to their governess. 'I don't know what she meant,' the Duchess of York told a friend. 'After all I and my sisters only had governesses and we all married well -- one of us very well . . ." (Bradford, p. 40)

This is quite a change from Victoria and Albert's attitude (mostly Albert's, I think) regarding their first-born, Vicki, who was very well-educated when she married Frederick of Prussia at age 17 in early 1858.  Albert hoped she would have some influence on Prussia/German policy, but in the end, she had very little effect.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

What I loved about this episode was Elizabeth using her power to her advantage. All her life she's been told what to do and how to do it. Since she became the queen, she was still being told what she could and could not do (like wanting to let her sister get married and then being told it would be a royal scandal). Regardless of whose fault it was that she didn't receive a traditional education, now she has the power to do something about it. Instead of continuing to feel inadequate, she hired a tutor which I totally applaud. I wish I could tell her that as someone with a college degree, I still sometimes feel the same way.

I felt just as bad for her when she confronted her mother who essentially shrugged her shoulders and said that she wasn't very smart and not to worry her pretty little head about book learning.

Elizabeth has been trying to uphold traditions as she's been advised to do, so I loved that she decided to forego tradition and make Martin her private secretary. Her reasons for choosing him were sound: they've worked together before, she feels comfortable with him, and it's a better fit. Since this is someone who she needs to trust completely and rely upon, it seems that she should be allowed to choose who fills this role instead of being handed someone who is next in line. I loved that she kept insisting Martin would be her next secretary so I was really disappointed in the last minute of the episode when she decided to go with Tommy's recommendation.

Edited December 1, 2017 by ElectricBoogaloo

[Scarlett45]

On 11/12/2016 at 7:05 PM, WatchrTina said:

I just re-watched the ep and Philip's line at the very end about how she could "get on her knees" bugged me as much this time as last time though I'm trying to accept that it's just normal sexual banter between a married couple. Clearly Elizabeth didn't mind the quip.  Still, I did wonder why it was even in the show, but now I realize it was so we could see her make the decision to skip her meeting with the new private secretary -- the one she didn't want.  She lost that battle but the dressing down she had just given Salisbury and Churchill gave her the confidence and gumption to blow-off her new secretary in favor of a roll in the sack with her husband -- something I doubt she would ever have done had "Tommy" been waiting to see her.

Yes, Philip was smiling and flirting with her when he said it and she smiled back at him... it was a suggestion not a command. Had Phillip said the sentence in anger or malice the scene would’ve played very differently. 

 

 I also think that scene was out in to juxtapose Lisbette the woman (who would be tempted to play hooky and get it on with her husband) with HM Queen Elizabeth. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by Scarlett45

[Roseanna]

On ‎5‎.‎11‎.‎2016 at 10:38 PM, SeanC said:

I like, by the way, that the series is able to give Lascelles an articulable viewpoint for why protocol should be followed so rigidly, since that's something most series never really manage to do for characters advocating for traditionalism.

 

On ‎15‎.‎11‎.‎2016 at 8:13 AM, Bec said:

And yes! I liked how Tommy has an actual explanation that makes sense for why he's such a stickler for protocol. I mean, I was on side with The Queen getting whichever secretary she damn well pleases because she is The Queen. But I still couldn't help but think: "Huh, Tommy has a point."

 

On ‎19‎.‎11‎.‎2016 at 10:18 PM, rubyred said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

What I found funny was that Michael Adeane seemed to hate the job (in the show). He braced himself every time he had to speak with her. Careful what you wish for, Michael!

Tommy Lascelles does come across as an officious, judgmental jackass, but he has his reasons and I give the show credit for letting him state his POV. (Also Pip Torrens has been fantastic in the role). However,  times were changing, and there was no stopping it. 

Yes, it's a really a sign of the good show that a person whose opinions and values are diffent than ours, isn't simply a villain or a fool, but we are made to understand why he thinks in the way he does. In Lascelles case, his besides background and education, the shock of the Abdication. 

Still, he was wrong: all reforms doesn't end badly. It may be that refusing to make any reforms in time ends badly. 

Dramatically, Lascelles's clinging to traditions is a good opposite to Philip's urging to modernize. Which has also dangers: as the journalist says, after the Queen let her coronation shown in the TV, the press couldn't become her dutiful servant by keeping silence about Margaret and Townsend, unlike it had about Edward and Mrs Simpson almost until to the end. 

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

 

 

Yes, it's a really a sign of the good show that a person whose opinions and values are diffent than ours, isn't simply a villain or a fool, but we are made to understand why he thinks in the way he does. In Lascelles case, his besides background and education, the shock of the Abdication. 

Still, he was wrong: all reforms doesn't end badly. It may be that refusing to make any reforms in time ends badly. 

Dramatically, Lascelles's clinging to traditions is a good opposite to Philip's urging to modernize. Which has also dangers: as the journalist says, after the Queen let her coronation shown in the TV, the press couldn't become her dutiful servant by keeping silence about Margaret and Townsend, unlike it had about Edward and Mrs Simpson almost until to the end. 

I like that we are shown his point of view. He does his job very well and its enjoyable watching him. But when he made it sound like all reforms end badly. Yes, that can happen. But thrones have also been lost by not reforming at all.