S01.E06: Gelignite

[thuganomics85]

Damn, that was some good old family drama!

Overall, I felt most for Elizabeth, but she admittedly did not handle all of this as well as she could of.  She really should have saw that taking Pete with her was going to backfire, and she was better off just keeping him out of sight for a bit.  And then agreeing with Tommy's idea to send Pete away quicker then expected would end up making her look like she's trying to keep apart "true love."  Of course, the big thing is that, really, she needs to not make promises of any kind, because it is obvious that being the Queen changes everything, and nothing will ever be set in stone, with all of the moving parts and rules.  Still, she is more or less still new at this, so I feel for her, because I really do think she was trying to satisfy everyone, and it backfired horribly.

As for Margaret, I feel for her too because it does suck to be separated from the man she loves due to some dated policies and "tradition", but she really came off childish and self-centered.  She has to realize how much pressure this was putting on Elizabeth and, like with Philip, she really needs to learn that her sister is no longer merely her sister, but the freaking Queen of England.  Thinks just aren't going to be the same, anymore.  Again, I guess she's young, so it is to be somewhat expected, but she really should have more prepared for all the issues this was going to cause.  Still, a good episode for the character and Vanessa Kirby shined in it.

All that said, if I'm going to give anyone real shit here, it is Peter.  Between him calling Elizabeth by her childhood name and him playing up with the cameras at the end (had he remained professional, he might have not made Elizabeth feel like she had no choice), he was in really dumb form tonight.  And even if he really felt he was being wronged, did he really think his speech was going to sway Tommy in any way?  Way to make me actually agree with Philip on some things, Pete.

So, it look like they are setting things up to have Philip have a bit of a wandering eye over the way he was looking at the waitress and then flight attendant?  And this stuff with the "gentleman's lunch club" is clearly setting up problems.

I do like how the show doesn't flinch from some of the horrible racism that the royal family and wealthy were a part of, like the whole slideshow bit and Margaret's condescending speech.

David is such a pratty dick, but I got a kick over his glee reading the papers tearing up the monarchy.

Comedy is usually not the first thing that pops into my head with this show, but the entire phone exchange between Margaret and Elizabeth in the beginning was hilarious.  Loved all of Claire Foy's variations of "Oh."

"I'm on my knees with gratitude." [/sarcasm.]  I know Tommy is a bastard, but I love him, badass moustache, droll line delivery, and all.  Pip Torrens is a national treasure.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I enjoyed seeing the switchboard process from Margaret calling all the way to Elizabeth receiving the call in the breakfast room. Ha, so "secure line" means "everyone is listening"?

Although I'm not a fan of gossipy newspapers, I had to give Bill credit for figuring out that Margaret and Peter were seeing each other based on the fluff picking incident. I also liked that when the chief didn't put much stock in it, he demonstrated how intimate an act it can be. I feel like I should point out that some people are just the type to do that to anyone they know.

Whenever I see shows like this, I'm always astounded by how freely these people speak about their personal lives in front of the servants and the help, so I was pleasantly surprised when Margaret asked everyone to leave the room so she could talk to Elizabeth about marrying Peter. But Margaret got some major demerits for saying "about Peter and I." I guess even the fancy folk fuck up object pronouns, but it's like nails on a chalkboard for me.

I have no problem with divorced people remarrying, but I enjoy Tommy's stone cold bitchiness SO MUCH. "Tick, tick, tick. Bon voyage."

Philip is back to annoying me. When someone asks where you were today, you don't say "nowhere" unless you're hiding something or being a dick. Withholding information from your wife is a dick move. She had it pegged when she knew they were talking about women, but leave it to Philip to get up on his high horse and say noooooooo, they were talking about IMPORTANT things like the revolution in Egypt and the unrest in other countries, so I had to laugh and roll my eyes when he then admitted that they did talk about women afterward. He is coming off so slimy. The more often he claims "it's just the bros, chill out!" and "dude, it's all innocent," the more I think he's being a dick. She's not freaking out because she thinks you're cheating on her. She's upset because you treat Buckingham Palace like a hotel where you come and go as you please instead of the place where you live with your wife.

For the record, both Mr. EB and I have lunch/dinner with friends of the opposite gender and it's never an issue, but that's because we aren't patronizing condescending evasive dickheads when we do. If he goes to lunch with a friend, he doesn't act like it was a big secret and then passive aggressively fake reassure me by saying, "Don't worry - there weren't any strippers there. I didn't have sex with someone else." Philip, on the other hand, is acting like a bratty child trying to get a rise out of his mom because he's mad at her. Really mature.

On 11/13/2016 at 7:12 AM, 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.

Same here. I'm glad they're not glossing over this stuff and then having Elizabeth et al react with wide eyed "who, me?" bewilderment when the sun begins setting on the British Empire.

Edited November 30, 2017 by ElectricBoogaloo

[graybrown bird]

By this time (after WWII) the sun has already set on the Empire but most people in power couldn't admit it yet.

Edited December 1, 2017 by graybrown bird
Correct the verb tense.

[Roseanna]

On ‎30‎.‎11‎.‎2017 at 1:40 PM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Philip is back to annoying me. When someone asks where you were today, you don't say "nowhere" unless you're hiding something or being a dick. Withholding information from your wife is a dick move. She had it pegged when she knew they were talking about women, but leave it to Philip to get up on his high horse and say noooooooo, they were talking about IMPORTANT things like the revolution in Egypt and the unrest in other countries, so I had to laugh and roll my eyes when he then admitted that they did talk about women afterward. He is coming off so slimy. The more often he claims "it's just the bros, chill out!" and "dude, it's all innocent," the more I think he's being a dick. She's not freaking out because she thinks you're cheating on her. She's upset because you treat Buckingham Palace like a hotel where you come and go as you please instead of the place where you live with your wife.

For the record, both Mr. EB and I have lunch/dinner with friends of the opposite gender and it's never an issue, but that's because we aren't patronizing condescending evasive dickheads when we do. If he goes to lunch with a friend, he doesn't act like it was a big secret and then passive aggressively fake reassure me by saying, "Don't worry - there weren't any strippers there. I didn't have sex with someone else." Philip, on the other hand, is acting like a bratty child trying to get a rise out of his mom because he's mad at her. Really mature.

I of course agree with you about the decent behavior but you and your husband are a modern, equal couple.

Although Philip's behaviour annoys also me, I can understand him. He was a career-oriented man and an alpha male with traditional gender values. When his wife became the Queen, he had to abandon both his naval career and his position as the head of family. Now he has nothing to do but amuse himself - it's his only area where he has any autonomy where he can do just as it pleases him. So, even questions "where were you" seem to him threaten that autonomy. 

[Clanstarling]

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I of course agree with you about the decent behavior but you and your husband are a modern, equal couple.

Although Philip's behaviour annoys also me, I can understand him. He was a career-oriented man and an alpha male with traditional gender values. When his wife became the Queen, he had to abandon both his naval career and his position as the head of family. Now he has nothing to do but amuse himself - it's his only area where he has any autonomy where he can do just as it pleases him. So, even questions "where were you" seem to him threaten that autonomy. 

I can't understand why he thought his role would be any different than it is. Sure, I can understand bristling against the strictures, so is Elizabeth, for that matter. But he actively pursued a young girl who would be Queen.  Expecting a distinguished naval career, expecting to call the shots, expecting to be given a substantive role of any kind, is self-deluded to an amazing degree. You can hand wave some of it to the fact King George died young, so he would have time in his career, but not all of it. Traditional gender values of the times were based on traditional relationships. Consort to the Crown is a different kind of traditional role, with very different values.

[Roseanna]

17 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

I can't understand why he thought his role would be any different than it is. Sure, I can understand bristling against the strictures, so is Elizabeth, for that matter. But he actively pursued a young girl who would be Queen.  Expecting a distinguished naval career, expecting to call the shots, expecting to be given a substantive role of any kind, is self-deluded to an amazing degree. You can hand wave some of it to the fact King George died young, so he would have time in his career, but not all of it. Traditional gender values of the times were based on traditional relationships. Consort to the Crown is a different kind of traditional role, with very different values.

The role of the consort depends on circumstances. Albert had influence, he read all state papers and evidently dominated Victoria.

At least one of the Philip and Mountbatten's demands was quite rational and normal: that his children should have his surname, like all children born of wedlock at that time in Britain. Of course, royal houses have always made rules of their own: f.ex. Romanovs.      

[Inquisitionist]

11 hours ago, Roseanna said:

At least one of the Philip and Mountbatten's demands was quite rational and normal: that his children should have his surname, like all children born of wedlock at that time in Britain. Of course, royal houses have always made rules of their own: f.ex. Romanovs.      

Ironically, "Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, the consort of Queen Elizabeth II, adopted the surname of Mountbatten from his mother's family in 1947, although he is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg by patrilineal descent."  Per the wikipedia entry on the name Mountbatten.  Both it and Windsor came into existence during WWI, the family names having both previously been of German origin.

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, Inquisitionist said:

Ironically, "Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, the consort of Queen Elizabeth II, adopted the surname of Mountbatten from his mother's family in 1947, although he is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg by patrilineal descent."  Per the wikipedia entry on the name Mountbatten.  Both it and Windsor came into existence during WWI, the family names having both previously been of German origin.

So, not really his surname as such - just the surname of his grasping uncle who wanted glory for his family name.

[biakbiak]

On 11/30/2017 at 3:40 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

enjoyed seeing the switchboard process from Margaret calling all the way to Elizabeth receiving the call in the breakfast room. Ha, so "secure line" means "everyone is listening"?

The thing that stuck me and I imagine it was meant to illustrate is that all the royal switchboards were staffed by men even though switchboard operators were overwhelmingly female.

[jjj]

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:18 PM, Clanstarling said:

So, not really his surname as such - just the surname of his grasping uncle who wanted glory for his family name.

Yes, and it was the uncle who really pushed Philip into the circle of Elizabeth, hoping for a match. 

Just saw this episode for the first time, and understand better the spate of recent articles about how significant it was to be so accepting the new fiancée of Prince Harry (His Royal Highness to the likes of me).  The Queen must periodically stop and consider this vast social history of divorces in her life: from the abdication and this episode with her sister to the very many family divorces more recently.  I'll have to read up on the real-live situation with Princess Margaret -- the Queen was certainly put in the most sympathetic light in this episode. 

[Anothermi]

On 2017-12-14 at 11:50 PM, jjj said:

Yes, and it was the uncle who really pushed Philip into the circle of Elizabeth, hoping for a match.

Very much a call back to Prince Albert whose Uncle had his heart set on THAT royal match.

[dubbel zout]

On 12/3/2017 at 5:18 PM, Clanstarling said:

So, not really his surname as such - just the surname of his grasping uncle who wanted glory for his family name.

Given that Philip was basically a royal orphan, Mountbatten as a surname was as good as any.

[Clanstarling]

9 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Given that Philip was basically a royal orphan, Mountbatten as a surname was as good as any.

True enough. But it's not the same as wanting to carry on your given family name with centuries of history behind it. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎4‎.‎12‎.‎2017 at 0:18 AM, Clanstarling said:

So, not really his surname as such - just the surname of his grasping uncle who wanted glory for his family name.

It was more than that - Mountbatten wanted a compensation for injustice done for his father, Prince Louis of Battenberg who had been First Sea Lord in the beginning of WW2 and forced to resign because his German backgroud although he had served the Royal Navy from the age of fourteen and was married to Queen Victoria's granddaughter. Louis's parents had a morganatic marriage because the wife wasn't royal.     

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

It was more than that - Mountbatten wanted a compensation for injustice done for his father, Prince Louis of Battenberg who had been First Sea Lord in the beginning of WW2 and forced to resign because his German backgroud although he had served the Royal Navy from the age of fourteen and was married to Queen Victoria's granddaughter. Louis's parents had a morganatic marriage because the wife wasn't royal.     

Yes, Mountbatten himself had plenty of reason to want the name to go on. Philip, on the other hand, not as much.

[Razzberry]

Favorite scene from the episode - no dialog needed.

[oakville]

On 11/13/2016 at 10:12 AM, 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.

Tommy is one of my favorite characters in the series.

[Zella]

To match my observation from episode 4, I'm pretty sure that Pip Torrens again pops up as the uncredited radio/television announcer in this episode, in which he lavishly documents all the attention Townsend and Margeret are getting. I see what you did there, show. 

[Luckylondon]

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.

Diana was from an aristocratic bloodline and was specifically picked for Charles. She was called Lady Diana because of her father, Earl Spencer, a descendant of King Henry VII (so they were 16th cousins). I think QETQM was good friends with Diana’s grandmother. They were determined to match the families and had Charles date Diana’s sister before her and it didn’t work out. He later “courted” Diana. He never loved her and barely talked to her before or after the proposal and she was too naive to know any better. She thought he would love her as his wife.

I think the first direct heir to the throne to be allowed to marry a commoner is William. Kate comes from self-made wealthy millionaires, yet not aristocracy, and it was pretty significant that he was allowed to choose her. I think after Margaret, the Queen did not want to deny people from marrying who they wanted to if they were not the direct heir like Charles, who could not marry Camilla at the time because it was still too conservative of times for the head of the Church of England to be married to a divorced woman. Obviously, they eventually changed this and finally allowed Charles to marry her after Diana died. From my perspective, that is why Harry’s quick approval from the Queen to marry a (twice) previously married American actress after a short period of dating is unusual and surprising. He clearly pushed for it and they want him to be happy. The Sussex(es?) were recently gifted (told) to move to Frogmore Cottage where Edward/David and Wallis Simpson are buried. They are rumored to haunt it.

ETA: iMroney and CeeBeeGee explained Royal and aristocracy more clearly! 

Edited March 12, 2019 by Luckylondon

[Minivanessa]

On 11/12/2016 at 9:58 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 don't consider 37 years to be "slightly later." Margaret's romance with Townsend occurred in the early 1950's; her announcement that it was over was issued in 1955.

Princess Anne married Mark Phillips in 1973; they divorced in 1992. A few months later, Anne married Commander Timothy Laurence. 

[dubbel zout]

11 hours ago, Luckylondon said:

Harry’s quick approval from the Queen to marry a (twice) previously married American actress

Markle has only one ex-husband.

[Pallas]

Quote

The Sussex(es?) were recently gifted (told) to move to Frogmore Cottage where Edward/David and Wallis Simpson are buried. They are rumored to haunt it.

Frogmore Cottage is on the grounds of Frogmore House within the Windsor estate. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert are interred in a mausoleum built at Frogmore. The Royal Cemetery at Frogmore is where many notable uncrowned royals are buried, including those four of George V's sons and their wives; Prince Philip will be buried there as well. 

If Wallis can't manage to ditch Edward in the afterlife, and if Edward's soul as well as his psyche is doomed to crave her through all eternity, I'm not sure why they would haunt Frogmore Cottage rather than Fort Belvedere. The Fort was Edward's (other) grande passion/great folly, and their erstwhile home. It was the last place the couple were together during Edward's reign; it was the scene of Edward's abdication, and the place where -- for the next decade -- the Duke of Windsor continued to hope that he and the Duchess might eventually live.

[Athena]

12 hours ago, Luckylondon said:

I think after Margaret, the Queen did not want to deny people from marrying who they wanted to if they were not the direct heir like Charles, who could not marry Camilla at the time because it was still too conservative of times for the head of the Church of England to be married to a divorced woman. 

It's been revealed after the show aired that the Queen was prepared for Margaret marrying Pete Townsend. In an article the QEII wrote a letter to the Eden that she would not stand in the way of her sister's happiness and the government would amend the Act blocking the marriage. 

[andromeda331]

14 hours ago, Pallas said:

Frogmore Cottage is on the grounds of Frogmore House within the Windsor estate. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert are interred in a mausoleum built at Frogmore. The Royal Cemetery at Frogmore is where many notable uncrowned royals are buried, including those four of George V's sons and their wives; Prince Philip will be buried there as well. 

If Wallis can't manage to ditch Edward in the afterlife, and if Edward's soul as well as his psyche is doomed to crave her through all eternity, I'm not sure why they would haunt Frogmore Cottage rather than Fort Belvedere. The Fort was Edward's (other) grande passion/great folly, and their erstwhile home. It was the last place the couple were together during Edward's reign; it was the scene of Edward's abdication, and the place where -- for the next decade -- the Duke of Windsor continued to hope that he and the Duchess might eventually live.

LOL! You'd think they'd haunt Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle instead. They'd finally get to be there, together and no one could get rid of them. Imaging the Queen Mother's reaction if Wallis showed up in ghost form after her death and no way to get rid of her.

[Luckylondon]

On 3/13/2019 at 12:41 AM, andromeda331 said:

LOL! You'd think they'd haunt Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle instead. They'd finally get to be there, together and no one could get rid of them. Imaging the Queen Mother's reaction if Wallis showed up in ghost form after her death and no way to get rid of her.

Ha. I have no way of knowing. Some Brits were saying it was haunted. I watched two separate psychics who talked about the upcoming move to Frogmore Cottage and that it was Edward who was still there, unsatisfied... not able to move on. Similar to how he was in life with one foot still in the royal family, not fitting in to either world. Both mentioned feeling no reading of the presence of Wallis Simpson being there at all; nor was she felt roaming around on grounds as Edward is rumored to be. I have no way of knowing if it’s possibly true or complete nonsense. I agree that it is really very funny.

 

On 3/12/2019 at 9:17 AM, dubbel zout said:

Markle has only one ex-husband.

Yes, officially. It is rumored that she has an annulment to a first husband too that she has managed to keep quiet. She seems to keep anyone who knew her from before recent times at a far distance and things vague, which is fine. It doesn’t matter to me past drawing the allusion to Wallis Simpson and Frogmore Cottage and the close brothers who now have a frosty rift, which likely has nothing to do with the women. 

[RedbirdNelly]

I can't get too wound up for Margaret. 2 years is not forever. Mr. RBN and I got engaged with the plan to wait for 3 years because we were geographically separated doing grad school and wanted to live in the same town when we got married. It ended up being 2 years because of some changes in geography but we were not crying about the original 3 year plan or actual 2 year plan. And that's without having access to money for the rest of our lives. And we were about her age.

[Zella]

On 9/4/2019 at 12:30 PM, RedbirdNelly said:

I can't get too wound up for Margaret. 2 years is not forever. Mr. RBN and I got engaged with the plan to wait for 3 years because we were geographically separated doing grad school and wanted to live in the same town when we got married. It ended up being 2 years because of some changes in geography but we were not crying about the original 3 year plan or actual 2 year plan. And that's without having access to money for the rest of our lives. And we were about her age.

I'm not predisposed to being very sympathetic to Margaret, either, but I think a 2-year-separation mutually agreed on for logistical reasons by both parties (that presumably still involved seeing each other when time/circumstances allowed) is very different from a 2-year-exile imposed upon you by disapproving outside forces and is, thus, not at all comparable.  

Edited September 14, 2019 by Zella

[Roseanna]

Margaret has been all the time shown more active than Peter in their relationship. She was so egoistical that she wanted him to spend Christmas with her and the royal family, not with his wife and young children. So it's no wonder that his wife finally got enough and left him for another man. That made her "the guilty party" in the divorce, which shows how odd the British divorce laws then were.

Whereas Peter seemed to understand what stigma in the society he would get as a divorced man (as he said, according to the usual practice he could no more to serve the royal family), it was again Margaret who made him sue for divorce and convinced that they they would eventually marry.

How could she really believe that, knowing that her uncle had to abdicate when he wanted to marry the twice divorced Wallis (who in fact was still legally married with Ernest Simpson)?

And how could it be that in the series it was only Elizabeth that at least tried to act according to the sisters' promise to put each other before everything whereas Margaret only thought about her own happiness, not caring of the consequences to her sister the Queen?   

In the whole series the Queen Mother is presented a great schemer, but actually she had been blind too long (didn't she really notice anything?) or unwilling to act in time (it had been easier to send Peter away much earlier).

In retrospect, it would have best not to give the couple hope but to tell directly the facts of the Royal Marriage Act.      

[PeterPirate]

In this episode, Peter Townsend was on his way to become a part of the BRF.  Then he called QE "Lilibet", and she decided to have him removed from the British Isles.  

Life imitates art at times.