S01.E06: Gelignite

[formerlyfreedom]

Quote

Margaret and Peter come to Elizabeth with a request. With a royal scandal about to break in the newspapers, the Queen Mother intervenes.

 

[millk]

Margaret Rose was literally a spoiled brat Princess. She did her duty but behind the scenes she was reported to be a horror. Spoiler for real life

Spoiler

She marred Tony Jones aka Anthony Armstrong-Jones the Egyptian photographer guy

[SeanC]

I look forward to seeing Vanessa Kirby's Margaret having wild times in swinging 1960s London.

"May the future bring peace, contentedness, and true happiness to the people Northern Ireland." (I guess that whole mess will be picking up around Season 3?)

We're also getting setup for the Suez Canal Crisis now.

The whole issue with Margaret was the first of two big marital crises in Elizabeth's reign, before the institution came around to how this kind of suppressive action just backfired in the end.  Though the fact that pretty much everybody regards Edward VIII and Wallis as a bullet dodged makes it a bit easier to understand why many are firm on this at the time - incidentally, I enjoyed their cameo laughing at the family taking flak for actions so similar to what happened to them.  There's also, as the newspaper sequence shows, the beginnings of the much more intrusive behaviour of the press, which would continue to escalate (before the advent of smartphones turned everyone into a reporter).

The visual of Margaret's pink umbrella amidst the sea of black ones is very striking.

[VCRTracking]

Addressing the Queen by her childhood nickname was the wroooooong move, Peter.

Loved the device of the telephone operators connecting the sisters. The second time when they're trying to find the Queen. Also all the male operators shocked reactions listening in to Margaret's threat.

It's kind of amazing how Margaret's daughter Lady Sarah Chatto, from what I've seen in in the Elizabeth at 90 documentary, seems like the nicest, sweetest person in the family.

Edited November 7, 2016 by VCRTracking

[dubbel zout]

7 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

Addressing the Queen by her childhood nickname was the wroooooong move, Peter.

If it had been in a private situation, it might not have been such a blunder. He really should have known that.

[anna0852]

I have very little sympathy for Margaret here. If she is truly in love with Peter, then two years is not that long to wait. Elizabeth did have to wait a similar amount of time before she married Philip. And given that Margaret was raised as a member of the royal family and lived through the abdication crisis she should certainly understand the delicate hand that will be required for her to marry a divorced man. It really does speak to both her self-centeredness and a certain amount of naivete that she doesn't seem to realize this. It isn't as though Peter was sent into exile. They are able to write to each other and call each other. And if discreet, a few visits could probably be arranged too as well.

[PRgal]

12 minutes ago, anna0852 said:

I have very little sympathy for Margaret here. If she is truly in love with Peter, then two years is not that long to wait. Elizabeth did have to wait a similar amount of time before she married Philip. And given that Margaret was raised as a member of the royal family and lived through the abdication crisis she should certainly understand the delicate hand that will be required for her to marry a divorced man. It really does speak to both her self-centeredness and a certain amount of naivete that she doesn't seem to realize this. It isn't as though Peter was sent into exile. They are able to write to each other and call each other. And if discreet, a few visits could probably be arranged too as well.

She was six-ish when her uncle abdicated.  I don't know if she fully understood first hand what was going on at that time.  Learning about it later, when she was older isn't really the same thing. 

[VCRTracking]

Pip Torrens as Tommy Lascelles has unexpectedly turned out to be one of my favorite things about the show. Elizabeth and Phillip may have earlier lamented losing their former secretary "who had one foot in the real world" in exchange for someone "from the land that time forgot" but he ended up being very necessary to the new Queen. You always need someone working for  who'll be the "bad guy". The guy who'll do the dirty, unpleasant work without hesitation.

[Rinaldo]

5 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

Pip Torrens as Tommy Lascelles 

By the way, I was caught by that surname, which was familiar in other contexts, so I had to look him up. He was a cousin of the 6th Earl of Harewood (family name also Lascelles) who married Elizabeth II's aunt Mary, the Princess Royal, and thus a rather remote relative-by-marriage of the royal family. The 7th Earl of Harewood, the Queen's first cousin, died in 2011; he led a very visible life as an opera administrator and writer about opera. (He and I contributed to a couple of the same opera reference books, in fact.) His autobiography, The Tongs and the Bones, tells about all that, and also how he made a bit of a scandal with the Marriage Act himself, divorcing his first wife because he wanted to remarry, and having to wait years before getting royal permission to do so. (And even so, they had to go abroad to marry because of the legal/religious complications.) Meanwhile, as they weren't getting any younger, he and his wife decided to start their family before getting the permission, which means that his oldest son is not in the line of succession to the throne. 

[dubbel zout]

9 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

Meanwhile, as they weren't getting any younger, he and his wife decided to start their family before getting the permission, which means that his oldest son is not in the line of succession to the throne. 

Which I'm sure was crushing for all concerned, given how far down he'd be. ;-)

Pip Torrens is also playing dastardly George Warleggan's dastardly uncle on Poldark.

Edited November 7, 2016 by dubbel zout
"done" isn't "down"

[Rinaldo]

2 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Which I'm sure was crushing for all concerned, given how far down he'd be. ;-)

Indeed. The current Earl, the 8th is #54, and the number of grandchildren ahead of them keeps growing every day. Most online lists stop at about 50, if not sooner. But there's one dating from 2011 that's superbly and insanely complete, down beyond 5000 places. (In early days, Wikipedia had an easy-to-read one of similar length, which I greatly enjoyed. But I suppose it was against site policy to go on at such length, plus it would be impossible to maintain rigorously; who's going to tell you if #4375 dies, or #5003 has a new baby?)

[tennisgurl]

On 11/5/2016 at 4:01 PM, SeanC said:

I look forward to seeing Vanessa Kirby's Margaret having wild times in swinging 1960s London.

Oh me too! Normally I roll my eyes when I know a show is going to be going on for forever, but there is so much history here to look at, I am so there for it. 

[VCRTracking]

I can't wait for Margaret in the 60s too. I really like Vanessa Kirby as Margaret. She kind of reminds me of Aubrey Plaza from Parks and Rec, but more expressive and without the monotone voice. That phone call at the end with all that simmering rage was great.

Edited November 8, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Primetimer]

But they certainly do know how to give good face.

View the full article

[kathe5133]

When you think about it, it's really sad.  Margaret was unable to marry a divorced man, and a commoner at that. Slightly later, the queens daughter divorces and remarries a commoner.  Wasn't Diana considered a commoner?  You have Fergie having her toes sucked, Charles, the heir to the thrown, marrying a divorced woman, who need I add, he'd been boffing for years, while married to someone else. 

If there is an afterlife, the Duke of Windsor and Princess Margaret have got to be asking themselves, "what was it all for?"

Sad.

[Daisy]

48 minutes ago, kathe5133 said:

When you think about it, it's really sad.  Margaret was unable to marry a divorced man, and a commoner at that. Slightly later, the queens daughter divorces and remarries a commoner.  Wasn't Diana considered a commoner?  You have Fergie having her toes sucked, Charles, the heir to the thrown, marrying a divorced woman, who need I add, he'd been boffing for years, while married to someone else. 

If there is an afterlife, the Duke of Windsor and Princess Margaret have got to be asking themselves, "what was it all for?"

Sad.

Yeah - like most of the royals now marry "commoners" (and divorced ones at that too) and it's like. well. huh. 

Margaret though came off as a spoiled baby. Is she really copping a fit that she can't see Peter Townsend for 2 years? Write a damned letter. (i'd say call, but it looked like the men were listening in - or they forgot to plug in the secure line). I am curious what made Elizabeth ditch Townsend in the end - the fact that he was seen as super popular (and the first example about how tabloidly things would get - really wondering if she had flashbacks to this moment with Fergie/Toes and Diana/everything else) or if it was the Lillibet that pushed her over the edge. (really? I don't even think if Margaret + he were married if he could call her Lillibet LOL). 

but something that's happening is that Elizabeth constantly keeps making promises, and she ALWAYS has to break them (kinda emphasizing the Elizabeth Mountbatten vs. Elizabeth Regina that Mary wrote in her letter). you'd think at this point Elizabeth would know not to promise a blessed thing. 

[dubbel zout]

Peter Townsend being divorced, with a living ex-wife, was the issue, not him being a commoner.

[WatchrTina]

I just re-watched and I was struck by something new.  Margaret's speech about Rhodesia was really offensive to modern sensibilities:  all that talk about the whites "civilizing" the place -- yikes.  And then I noticed that when they all rose to sing "God Save the Queen" none of the black servants sang.  Perhaps the servant don't sing when they are on duty -- even white servants in a great house in England -- but the contrast between them standing silently at attention while the whites sang and sipped champagne in a toast to the Queen was quite striking.

[VCRTracking]

The speech was also celebrating Cecil Rhodes, the man who was basically responsible for apartheid.

[dubbel zout]

Margaret's speech about Rhodesia was really close to what Elizabeth said in Nairobi.

[WatchrTina]

Yup.  And I'll bet both speeches are lifted from real life.  It just goes to show how much sensibilities have changed in the last 60-somthing years.

[Bec]

My reaction was pretty much "What is Rhodesia and why have I never heard of this place?" I gotta think the show is purposefully giving us these history tidbits that get brushed under the rug, like the Nairobi speech about how it was a "savage place". This is probably the buildup to the sun setting on the British Empire. It's good that we're getting some context for it early on instead of having it just seem to happen out of nowhere when we get to those episodes.

I mean, get a load of the "gentlemen club" this episode laughing about running peasants over with their cars and the blatant disdain they showed towards native people when they were looking at that slideshow. And then they're sooo shocked (shocked!) at the "death to imperialists" graffiti.

This stuff is being presented in such a matter-of-fact way, which I really like.

I'm digging the relationshippy parts, too. Philip and Elizabeth's discussion about Peter Townsend was hilarious. Especially this part:

Philip: There's no such thing as a blameless party in a divorce.

QE: His wife had an affair with another man.

Philip: Because he was always around here, sniffing around your sister.

QE: He was looking after my father.

Philip: And sniffing around your sister.

Ha!

Seriously, as presented on this show, Peter bugs me. He was married when he started this thing with the princess, waited for his wife to get fed up enough to want a divorce (because he wouldn't want to look like the "bad guy" - gee, maybe don't cheat on your wife if you don't want to be a "bad guy"), then seem to believe he's some romantic hero, all "the public can sense the sincerity of our love!"

No, I think the public is just excited because the "brave soldier getting the princess" is the stuff of fairy tales. They more readily accept a divorced man like him and not a divorced woman like Wallis because "divorced man" was already a thing way back in the history of Henry VIII. Plus he did have the "war hero" thing going for him.

So as much as they bug me with their childish pouting about not getting to see each other, it seems like a PR mistake to separate the couple when it appears they're likely to bring more popularity to the monarchy. Though maybe QE is taking the long view and thinking they're both so fickle there would be trouble in their relationship eventually, and then the people are more likely to side with Peter, and that could spell disaster for the monarchy. That would explain why she looked so perturbed at his popularity.

Queen Mary is missed, but Tommy is stepping up into the "the character who suffers no fools and keeps delivering the best burns" void very nicely.

[Daisy]

29 minutes ago, Bec said:

My reaction was pretty much "What is Rhodesia and why have I never heard of this place?" I gotta think the show is purposefully giving us these history tidbits that get brushed under the rug, like the Nairobi speech about how it was a "savage place". This is probably the buildup to the sun setting on the British Empire. It's good that we're getting some context for it early on instead of having it just seem to happen out of nowhere when we get to those episodes.

I mean, get a load of the "gentlemen club" this episode laughing about running peasants over with their cars and the blatant disdain they showed towards native people when they were looking at that slideshow. And then they're sooo shocked (shocked!) at the "death to imperialists" graffiti.

This stuff is being presented in such a matter-of-fact way, which I really like.

I'm digging the relationshippy parts, too. Philip and Elizabeth's discussion about Peter Townsend was hilarious. Especially this part:

Philip: There's no such thing as a blameless party in a divorce.

QE: His wife had an affair with another man.

Philip: Because he was always around here, sniffing around your sister.

QE: He was looking after my father.

Philip: And sniffing around your sister.

Ha!

Seriously, as presented on this show, Peter bugs me. He was married when he started this thing with the princess, waited for his wife to get fed up enough to want a divorce (because he wouldn't want to look like the "bad guy" - gee, maybe don't cheat on your wife if you don't want to be a "bad guy"), then seem to believe he's some romantic hero, all "the public can sense the sincerity of our love!"

No, I think the public is just excited because the "brave soldier getting the princess" is the stuff of fairy tales. They more readily accept a divorced man like him and not a divorced woman like Wallis because "divorced man" was already a thing way back in the history of Henry VIII. Plus he did have the "war hero" thing going for him.

So as much as they bug me with their childish pouting about not getting to see each other, it seems like a PR mistake to separate the couple when it appears they're likely to bring more popularity to the monarchy. Though maybe QE is taking the long view and thinking they're both so fickle there would be trouble in their relationship eventually, and then the people are more likely to side with Peter, and that could spell disaster for the monarchy. That would explain why she looked so perturbed at his popularity.

Queen Mary is missed, but Tommy is stepping up into the "the character who suffers no fools and keeps delivering the best burns" void very nicely.

I was the same way. I'm like. What's Rhodesia? (which is Zambia + Zimbabwe now). But there is a lot of 'You were savage but we made you so awesome, yaay! Let's drink." going on. the little buildups is great too (like almost every episode, you keep hearing. "Well, it was Mountbatten who gave away India" They aren't looking at their actions/words, etc as causing the problem, but just, well. we had India, and some dummy gave it away, because why on earth would someone want to leave the Empire? 

That's what bugged me too. He was sniffing around Margaret (hahah Phillip we agree), to the point that Tommy realised it and tried to get him out of there to save face. they weren't obvious about it as everyone knew (within the household). He was a bit too bold for his britches. 

[ProudMary]

A little on the shallow side, but perhaps just a way to discuss the beauty of the costumes in this entire series.  I absolutely loved Margaret's gown that she wore to the dinner with QE2 and Phillip.  Stunning.  Margaret's clothes, even the simple things like blouses and pants are just beautiful.  I love the men's clothing too, especially formalwear.  I think we need a thread just to discuss the costumes!

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, Bec said:

And then they're sooo shocked (shocked!) at the "death to imperialists" graffiti.

This is also the establishment that years later was shaken to its core by the unmasking of Anthony Blunt as a Soviet spy. Their myopia and absolute trust in their superiority was astounding. 

2 hours ago, Bec said:

Queen Mary is missed, but Tommy is stepping up into the "the character who suffers no fools and keeps delivering the best burns" void very nicely.

He's the Dowager Countess of the series. Hee.

1 hour ago, Daisy said:

I'm like. What's Rhodesia?

Oh, dear, this makes me feel like a complete olds.

Edited November 13, 2016 by dubbel zout

[Clanstarling]

On 11/6/2016 at 11:27 PM, VCRTracking said:

Addressing the Queen by her childhood nickname was the wroooooong move, Peter.

It was the straw that broke the camel's back, I think.

On 11/7/2016 at 1:15 PM, VCRTracking said:

Pip Torrens as Tommy Lascelles has unexpectedly turned out to be one of my favorite things about the show. Elizabeth and Phillip may have earlier lamented losing their former secretary "who had one foot in the real world" in exchange for someone "from the land that time forgot" but he ended up being very necessary to the new Queen. You always need someone working for  who'll be the "bad guy". The guy who'll do the dirty, unpleasant work without hesitation.

I know, right? I kind of love him, even though he's exactly the kind of officious person I tend to hate.

On 11/13/2016 at 9:40 AM, dubbel zout said:

He's the Dowager Countess of the series. Hee.

On 11/13/2016 at 7:49 AM, Daisy said:

I'm like. What's Rhodesia?

Oh, dear, this makes me feel like a complete olds.

Dowager Countess HAH! - you nailed it!

Yes, that makes me feel pretty old too.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Clanstarling

[dubbel zout]

In the Fug Girl recaps, Heather calls Tommy Lascelles the Hammer, which is hilariously apt.

[roamyn]

I found this episode boring.  I knew that QEII wanted to give PssM her happiness,  but that the QM was very much against it and eventually QEII saw that it couldn't happen - even with a war hero.  

But it was still boring.

ETA:  I agree that Pip's portrayal of Tommy Lascalles is astounding, but wasn't he ousted right after the coronation? 

Edited November 17, 2016 by roamyn

[AnnieBananie]

I wish I'd kept count of the Queen's "Oh"s during this episode. I'd have to go back and watch, but props to Claire Foy for different inflections, and thus meanings,  for each one.

Vanessa Kirby is going to be a breakout star. This was a terrific Margaret episode.

[Clanstarling]

10 hours ago, AnnieBananie said:

I wish I'd kept count of the Queen's "Oh"s during this episode. I'd have to go back and watch, but props to Claire Foy for different inflections, and thus meanings,  for each one.

I know, right? Who knew "Oh" was as versatile as "dude"?

[dubbel zout]

Also, "I see."

[CeeBeeGee]

On 11/7/2016 at 2:27 AM, VCRTracking said:

Addressing the Queen by her childhood nickname was the wroooooong move, Peter.

Right?! I cannot fathom why he did that--he had to have known that was a huge breach of protocol.

On 11/7/2016 at 4:31 PM, Rinaldo said:

By the way, I was caught by that surname, which was familiar in other contexts, so I had to look him up. He was a cousin of the 6th Earl of Harewood (family name also Lascelles) who married Elizabeth II's aunt Mary, the Princess Royal, and thus a rather remote relative-by-marriage of the royal family. The 7th Earl of Harewood, the Queen's first cousin, died in 2011; he led a very visible life as an opera administrator and writer about opera. (He and I contributed to a couple of the same opera reference books, in fact.) His autobiography, The Tongs and the Bones, tells about all that, and also how he made a bit of a scandal with the Marriage Act himself, divorcing his first wife because he wanted to remarry, and having to wait years before getting royal permission to do so. (And even so, they had to go abroad to marry because of the legal/religious complications.) Meanwhile, as they weren't getting any younger, he and his wife decided to start their family before getting the permission, which means that his oldest son is not in the line of succession to the throne. 

The current Earl of Harewood, David Lascelles, is actually the oldest son (born to the first wife, Marion Stein--in fact they had two other sons after him). The son who was born out of wedlock, Mark, came later with the old Earl's second wife. You are right that he was fascinating--he was a POW who escaped and made his way to Italy where, as my mother said, "they hadn't even considered cancelling the Milan opera season!", war or no. Thus was born his love of opera. (The WP article contradicts that somewhat though, so I'm not sure of the truth, but it's a great story.)

On 11/8/2016 at 2:50 AM, VCRTracking said:

I can't wait for Margaret in the 60s too. I really like Vanessa Kirby as Margaret. She kind of reminds me of Aubrey Plaza from Parks and Rec, but more expressive and without the monotone voice. That phone call at the end with all that simmering rage was great.

She's really growing on me! I still think she's far too tall but I enjoy her performance.

On 11/12/2016 at 11:58 AM, kathe5133 said:

When you think about it, it's really sad.  Margaret was unable to marry a divorced man, and a commoner at that. Slightly later, the queens daughter divorces and remarries a commoner.  Wasn't Diana considered a commoner?  You have Fergie having her toes sucked, Charles, the heir to the thrown, marrying a divorced woman, who need I add, he'd been boffing for years, while married to someone else. 

If there is an afterlife, the Duke of Windsor and Princess Margaret have got to be asking themselves, "what was it all for?"

Sad.

I find Margaret's story absolutely tragic. Yes, she could definitely be a spoiled brat (I've always thought of her as someone I like to read about but I doubt I would like in real life), but their dynamic had been established for their entire lives, and their father even encouraged it. Lilbet the sensible older sister who as heiress naturally commanded more attention, and Margaret the sometimes charming, sometimes bratty, always entertaining younger sister. The performer, the court jester--who was never allowed actually to do anything with her life. She was very intelligent and criminally undereducated--I'm not even sure she had the equivalent of a high school education. She was also a very talented performer but of course, would never have been allowed to make a living that way. Finally she falls in love and she's blocked in this way too.

Spoiler

And then, after renouncing Townsend for her sister, she accepts Jones's proposal and thereafter follows an absolutely miserable, mismatched marriage--and she gets divorced ANYWAY. God, it's just such a waste.

On 11/18/2016 at 11:45 AM, dubbel zout said:

Also, "I see."

British subtext at its best!

[Rinaldo]

9 hours ago, CeeBeeGee said:

The current Earl of Harewood, David Lascelles, is actually the oldest son (born to the first wife, Marion Stein--in fact they had two other sons after him).

Yes, of course -- the part of my brain that wasn't tired when I typed knew that the previous Lord Harewood, the opera guy, had children from Marriage #1. When I was at the Aldeburgh Festival (the one founded by Benjamin Britten and featuring his music) in 1973, a lot of the intermission and shuttle-bus buzz was about how Marion (née Stein, her father having been a longtime colleague of Britten's) had now finally remarried and because of some newish Church of England ruling this was OK because she had been "the innocent party" in the divorce. (I undoubtedly have the nuances wrong, I was just a crude Yank in my 20s, and was rather bewildered by the nuances. The idea of singling out who was "guilty" in a divorce seemed quaintly Victorian to me.) Lord Harewood, by the way, became one of Britten's notorious "corpses" -- once-close friends who got dropped after some imagined affront (in this case, the divorce, which Britten wrote that he wasn't going to take sides in, and then promptly did). 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Rinaldo

[Badger]

The current Earl's two eldest children, Benjamin and Emily were born before their parents got married, so the title will go to the Earl's second son Alexander who is currently Viscount Lascelles.  Lord Lascelles has at least one son but is not married to the child's mother.  

[CeeBeeGee]

Coincidentally one of Lord Harwood's godparents was Britten! Perhaps he was preordained to love music :) There's a funny quotation my mother told me about him, his uncle David (that David) said "It’s very odd about George and music. You know his parents were quite normal — liked horses and dogs and the country." 

Oh, and I meant to add to my earlier post--the guy playing Townsend is a dead ringer for George Lazenby (played James Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service). I mean, they could be twins! I wonder if they're related?

[iMonrey]

Quote

Wasn't Diana considered a commoner?

No, she was the daughter of an Earl, and styled as Lady Diana. Sarah Ferguson, however, was considered a commoner. Her mother had been born into the aristocracy but her father was a commoner and that's what counts.

Quote

 I absolutely loved Margaret's gown that she wore to the dinner with QE2 and Phillip. 

I actually loved the one Elizabeth was wearing. Normally I hate those little jacket things that go around the shoulders but it matched her necklace perfectly and I loved the colors.

I loved Philip's remark about Peter, that he was "certain I've met more interesting plants." I find him rather dull myself.

[CeeBeeGee]

Technically Diana was a commoner, as she was not royal, just as the Queen Mother was also a commoner. Also (to be really technical) only the actual title holder himself (Diana's father, grandfather, brother. etc.) is a peer--Diana's style(s) (she was born the Honorable Diana, then became Lady Diana when her father became Earl) were courtesy styles. She was not a peer in her own right. However in the larger sense your point stands--Diana was certainly a member of the nobility, whereas Fergie was gentry but not nobility.

[Milburn Stone]

On 11/12/2016 at 5:45 PM, VCRTracking said:

The speech was also celebrating Cecil Rhodes, the man who was basically responsible for apartheid.

I never knew this is how Rhodesia got its name. No wonder they changed it to Zimbabwe.

I also (before just now, when I looked it up) never knew where Rhodesia was in Africa. I thought it was somewhere in the northern half, not all the way down there by South Africa.

I'm reminded (sadly) of the cartographer in the fantastic "Globesman" episode of Documentary Now, who said in his speech to the sales force, "There are so many countries in Africa, would anybody notice or care if I forgot one or two?"

Edited January 23, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[Thumper]

Again, Philip being a jerk -- going off on his boys weekend while his wife could use his support.

I recall they said Margaret was only 23 -- maybe 2 years to wait seemed interminable to her at that age?

[allonsyalice]

Yeah. at 22, I couldn't imagine waiting two years for a man, no matter how hot and how tragically romantic he seems, tbh. I'm sure they were hoping she'd wait two months, meet someone just hot but less tragically romantic and then forget about him and settle down.

[TaurusRose]

On 11/12/2016 at 6:33 PM, WatchrTina said:

I just re-watched and I was struck by something new.  Margaret's speech about Rhodesia was really offensive to modern sensibilities:  all that talk about the whites "civilizing" the place -- yikes.  And then I noticed that when they all rose to sing "God Save the Queen" none of the black servants sang.  Perhaps the servant don't sing when they are on duty -- even white servants in a great house in England -- but the contrast between them standing silently at attention while the whites sang and sipped champagne in a toast to the Queen was quite striking.

Margaret's speech was highly offensive and underscored the feeling of superiority and sense of entitlement England took with them everywhere they went.  Why would the African servants sing in praise of a foreign queen?  Foreigners were occupying their country, claiming it and its riches for their empire, and treating them with disrespect and contempt. Seriously, if they wanted "civilization" they should have kept their asses in England or wherever.  Sorry, that whole colonization of Africa and India really pisses me off.  

[Roseanna]

On 11/5/2016 at 3:01 PM, SeanC said:

The whole issue with Margaret was the first of two big marital crises in Elizabeth's reign, before the institution came around to how this kind of suppressive action just backfired in the end.  

I don't think one can condemn actions in the earlier time simply because something that was forbidden then is allowed nowadays.

Moreover, in this case, I think that the real mistake was made for not being suppressive enough and in time. The Queen should have said straight away that she wouldn't give her permission to marriage, not now, not ever. As the head of Anglican Church she couldn't act against its teachings and as a Queen she couldn't act against the advice of her government without endangering her own position.

Lascelles probably thought that Margaret would forget Townsend in two years but it proved to be a wrong tactics.

Even better, the Queen Mother should have interevened before Margaret' s affair with Townsend became serios and send him away. That would have spared them of most heartache.

On 11/13/2016 at 9:12 AM, Bec said:

I'm digging the relationshippy parts, too. Philip and Elizabeth's discussion about Peter Townsend was hilarious. Especially this part:

Philip: There's no such thing as a blameless party in a divorce.

QE: His wife had an affair with another man.

Philip: Because he was always around here, sniffing around your sister.

QE: He was looking after my father.

Philip: And sniffing around your sister.

Ha!

Seriously, as presented on this show, Peter bugs me. He was married when he started this thing with the princess, waited for his wife to get fed up enough to want a divorce (because he wouldn't want to look like the "bad guy" - gee, maybe don't cheat on your wife if you don't want to be a "bad guy"), then seem to believe he's some romantic hero, all "the public can sense the sincerity of our love!"

I agree, but I would put also Margaret is to blame. Peter had to serve at Court 24/7 and she wouldn't let him to be at home even in Christimas, although he had two sons. What a spoiled brat she was! But Peter wasn't seen in flattering light, either, bowing her will in all (not a good sign to marriage!).  

Philip is quite right: it's foolish to speak of "innocent party" as one can break marriage also in other ways than by adultery. 

In the series, as Margaret and Peter was alluded to sleep together, it was double hypocritical from their part.   

Edited February 24, 2017 by Roseanna

[Roseanna]

On ‎29‎.‎1‎.‎2017 at 8:27 PM, allonsyalice said:

Yeah. at 22, I couldn't imagine waiting two years for a man, no matter how hot and how tragically romantic he seems, tbh. I'm sure they were hoping she'd wait two months, meet someone just hot but less tragically romantic and then forget about him and settle down.

Yes, that was probably the reason.

But Crown Prince Harald of Norway waited nine years before he was allowed to marry Sonja, a commoner.   

[Hanahope]

Having to wait six months an ocean away for my now husband to get his fiancee visa, I can say its not easy to be separate, but it is doable.  At least in the 50s they did have telephones, and as some have pointed out, Townsend held out for a post not too far away from Margaret, they could have arranged some European meetings 'in the mean time.'

I can feel for Elizabeth.  As a sister, she wanted Mags to be happy, but she should have known to tell her that "as queen", since that was how Mags had to ask, Elizabeth needed to reserve permission.  And Townsend sure didn't help matters, by basking in the glow of 'celebrity' status and calling "The Queen" by her nickname.  Way to not read the room Pete.

I vagely remember hearing "Rhodesia" before, knew it was in Africa, and knew that it was now a different name (or names) when the Brits left.  I didn't know it was founded by the guy who started apartheid.  How appalling.  Certainly Mag's speech was cringeworthy to these 21st century ears.  I'm sure certain politicans would love to return to those years, back when they could exploit other countries more freely.

The work to make phone calls back then is amazing to watch.  And obviously nothing is private (I guess unless one is able to get a 'secure' line).  You really just have to look at history to argue that people have never had an expectation of privacy with telephone conversations, not then, so they really shouldn't now either.  I love how they could target the phone to ring in a particular room.  guess that's better than the phone ringing all over the palace and everyone yelling "I got it!!"

One thing that I always find interesting about royalty (and at least some nobility as well) is the separate bedrooms for the couples.

Also interesting how Mags sends all the servants out of the dining room to ask about the marriage, presumably to make sure there's no gossip, but Liz and Phil have no qualms talking all about it in front of their servants.  Guess the palace servants are better at keeping their mouths shut?

Finally, I think this is the first episode where we got to see Corgiis!!!!

ETA:  I learned a new word today!  Gelignite

Edited March 10, 2017 by Hanahope

[Rinaldo]

4 hours ago, Hanahope said:

One thing that I always find interesting about royalty (and at least some nobility as well) is the separate bedrooms for the couples.

One aspect of that, I would think (for anybody well up on the social ladder) is the ubiquity of being attended by one's maid or valet just before and after the time spent in bed. Even with both spouses having their own dressing rooms (as they always did), proprieties of sex-separation have to be observed.

4 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Liz and Phil have no qualms talking all about it in front of their servants.  Guess the palace servants are better at keeping their mouths shut?

Or one becomes all the more accustomed to thinking of the help as furniture.

[Roseanna]

14 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Having to wait six months an ocean away for my now husband to get his fiancee visa, I can say its not easy to be separate, but it is doable.  At least in the 50s they did have telephones, and as some have pointed out, Townsend held out for a post not too far away from Margaret, they could have arranged some European meetings 'in the mean time.'

I can feel for Elizabeth.  As a sister, she wanted Mags to be happy, but she should have known to tell her that "as queen", since that was how Mags had to ask, Elizabeth needed to reserve permission.  And Townsend sure didn't help matters, by basking in the glow of 'celebrity' status and calling "The Queen" by her nickname.  Way to not read the room Pete.

There is no guarantee that of one marries according to one's will, one will be happy. Sometimes parents/guardians of the former time were right that it was better to make their child to cry now, than let her or him cry all her or his life. 

From this POV, Elizabeth was too gentle towards her sister. If she or rather Queen Mother had sent Townsend away before his relationship with Margaret became serious, it would have caused less heartache that would be soon forgotten.

As for Margaret, she was shown selfish and self-centered. Although she knew that marrying a divorcee had made her uncle abdicate the crown, she never thought about Elizabeth's duties as Defender of Faith, which had been one of her solemn vows in her coronation. 

Now, I don't agree the attitudes with the Church of England about divorce. I also regard the English law at that time as hypocritical: if one rejects emotionally one's spouse who then finds another and has sex, it's wrong to condemn her or him as the guilty party in divorce.   

Still, I understand the crux of the morals at that time: if one has a privileged status, one must accept duties attached to it - or become a private citizen.    

[dubbel zout]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Still, I understand the crux of the morals at that time: if one has a privileged status, one must accept duties attached to it - or become a private citizen.

This is still somewhat true and is one reason both Princess Anne and Prince Edward decided not to give their children royal status. (Though technically Edward's children are royal, but everyone is fine with them having the status of an earl's offspring as far as that goes.)

Edited March 11, 2017 by dubbel zout

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

This is still somewhat true and is one reason both Princess Anne and Prince Edward decided not to give their children royal status. (Though technically Edward's children are royal, but everyone is fine with them having the status of an earl's offspring as far as that goes.)

I have learned sometime that Edward will be Duke of Edinburgh after Philip dies.  

[doodlebug]

15 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I have learned sometime that Edward will be Duke of Edinburgh after Philip dies.  

That is very likely what will happen, but his kids won't have royal status unless he allows it; which is not likely since they're low on the totem pole and are not going to be needed for royal duties.  Much easier to go through life without the title; everyone knows who they are anyway.

[Badger]

The situation with Edward is a little more complicated than that.  First of all, both the Queen and Philip must be deceased for anything to happen.  Secondly, it's really all up to Charles.  I'm sure he was consulted when the original plan was made, but he's under no legal obligation to follow through.