S01.E05: Smoke and Mirrors

[Crs97]

Has anyone ever written about David/Edward growing up to explain why he was such a mess and his father would know he would screw up the country?

[Badger]

Pretty much every book about Edward VIII and/or his parents is about how his upbringing affected him.  No one has any doubt that George V and Queen Mary loved their children, but they had a very difficult time showing it.  

King George was a Navy man and he had what they call a quarterdeck manner, meaning lots and lots of very loud yelling especially when he disapproved of something.  And as he once said, "I was afraid of my father, my father was afraid of his mother, and I'm going to make damn sure my children are afraid of me!" (Paraphrasing somewhat, but you get the point.)  

As for Queen Mary, she was brought up to revere royalty as something almost sacred.  And as she once said, "I have always to remember that my children's father is also their King."  

[Crs97]

Okay, thanks, I seem only to find books dealing with the abdication.

[snarktini]

On 12/1/2016 at 11:37 AM, Eyes High said:

Edward: You know, Tommy, you're an embarrassment to the institution you serve and to the country that institution serves in turn.

Tommy: And I will take a lecture on national embarrassment from many people, sir, but not from you.

This line was perfect. Damn, son!

Edward/David is the worst, but so well acted. Phillip is right about democratizing royalty, but annoying about lots of other things. Entitled dudes are really getting on my nerves these days. ;)

[dubbel zout]

16 hours ago, Badger said:

Pretty much every book about Edward VIII and/or his parents is about how his upbringing affected him.  No one has any doubt that George V and Queen Mary loved their children, but they had a very difficult time showing it.  

And as the heir, David probably had things the worst, as he was being trained for his next role.

15 hours ago, Crs97 said:

Okay, thanks, I seem only to find books dealing with the abdication.

Try Philip Ziegler's biography, Edward VIII. It might be out of print, but a good library should have it. Even though it's an authorized account (i.e., he had access to official papers and the like), Ziegler is very even-handed with David's strong and weak points. One thing I found interesting was during David's upbringing, George used to take him to another room during parties and point to pictures of guests and have him ID them. David got so good at it he could later remember people he'd met years earlier, which was part of the point.

[Crs97]

Thanks!

[Tara Ariano]

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

'Smoke And Mirrors' Tests The Weight Of The Crown

Elizabeth feels the full weight of her duty in S01.E05. Also Philip finally does something right.

[iMonrey]

Quote

 I think, though may be wrong, that his was not the "path not taken" but the "path blocked by the powers that be" and then spun into his fairy tale of love. Those of you who know more, let me know if this is an incorrect perception.

I feel like this show is overly romanticizing the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, which is fairly common in dramatizations about them. I think most historians agree David never really wanted to become King, and Wallis Simpson was more or less a convenient excuse to abdicate. I find these scenes that show him remorseful about that decision highly suspicious. The bagpipe playing and the teardrops were viscerally effective but his overall inclusion in this story is probably highly fictionalized. 

I get why he's been so prominent though. The story is about "The Crown," and as a former king he plays a role in that story while he still lives.

Quote

Pip Torrens really steals the show as icy, terrifying pillar of rectitude Tommy Lascelles. A Twitter poster described his Tommy as a great portrait of "upright masculine bitchiness," and I think that sounds exactly right.  

He was in Versailles as well, although he looked completely different so I spent two episodes trying to figure out where I knew him from.

[Guest]

I didn't take his tears to be about sadness that he didn't get crowned but more that he wasn't even allowed to attend her coronation.

[magdalene]

On 11/12/2016 at 0:15 PM, dubbel zout said:

There's a theory that Wallis was kind of trapped into marrying the duke, in that their relationship got to the point where they had to marry or break up, and the duke was so besotted with her that everyone was genuinely afraid of what he might do if the marriage didn't happen.

See That Woman, by Anne Sebba, for more.

There was a documentary about her on PBS a while ago that got into how she was the duke's mistress while she was still married to that third(?)husband of hers. And that she didn't really want to divorce her husband but was in the end forced to by the whole scandal, and then forced to marry the duke.  It was heavily implied that for Wallis the duke was just another of her affairs. She certainly wasn't obsessed with him the way he was with her.

If I liked them I would feel sorry for them, but since I don't like her and find him despicable I say boo-hoo and bring on the world's smallest violins.

[Inquisitionist]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 8:16 PM, magdalene said:

There was a documentary about her on PBS a while ago that got into how she was the duke's mistress while she was still married to that third(?)husband of hers.

Second.  She had divorced her first husband, Earl Spencer, and was married to her second husband, Ernest Simpson, when she met David/Edward. 

Per Wikipedia: 

Quote

By the end of 1934, Edward was irretrievably besotted with Wallis, finding her domineering manner and abrasive irreverence toward his position appealing; in the words of his official biographer, he became "slavishly dependent" on her.

She must have had some personality and/or sexual prowess to make up for that face and lack of figure.

[Milburn Stone]

This show is so effin' good at subtext. That opening scene, where George VI asks little Elizabeth to help him rehearse his coronation--all the while we realize that what he's really doing is rehearsing her for her coronation. Not a word need be uttered to that effect to get this across to the audience. But it's there. Beautiful.

I love Tommy. Hated him at first, of course, when we see him through the brand-new queen's eyes in Episode 2. And then when he has his little "talk" with Margaret's boyfriend. But now the show has made clear in spades that he has but one agenda--devotion to the monarchy.

As a side note, just wanted to say that shows of such exceptional quality tend to attract previously.tv'ers of exceptional quality. It's a pleasure reading all your posts.

[Pallas]

On 1/20/2017 at 3:18 PM, Milburn Stone said:

I love Tommy. Hated him at first, of course, when we see him through the brand-new queen's eyes in Episode 2. And then when he has his little "talk" with Margaret's boyfriend. But now the show has made clear in spades that he has but one agenda--devotion to the monarchy.

Is it that, though, or is he devoted to his devotion to the monarchy? Possessed and ego-gratified by the idea of his being the staunch, unloved Defender of the Crown, the vizier of all its values?  The one thing he seems to prefer to servicing the monarch is being pained to suggest the superiority of his judgment, formed by rigorous and thankless study that only he is in a position to pursue. To me he has a whiff of the acolyte who knows he is more godly than the priest.

Of course Tommy could be both: a surpassingly expert and devoted advocate for precedent, and a self-admiring martyr.

[Milburn Stone]

19 minutes ago, Pallas said:

Of course Tommy could be both: a surpassingly expert and devoted advocate for precedent, and a self-admiring martyr.

He's a man who loves his work. :)

[Thumper]

Just now watching this series.  Philip really annoys me, and I'm not sure if it is the actor or the character.  I don't feel the love for Elizabeth, and he always looks like he is scheming.  It may actually be the actor; I don't feel he is believable.

[ChelleGame]

On 12/1/2016 at 11:37 AM, Eyes High said:

Pip Torrens really steals the show as icy, terrifying pillar of rectitude Tommy Lascelles. A Twitter poster described his Tommy as a great portrait of "upright masculine bitchiness," and I think that sounds exactly right. I loved his complete and utter lack of patience for Edward's weakness and self-pity. This was incredible:

He is perfection in this part. His physicality and movements are just great. The actors are impressively committed. I am mesmerized.

The tear-stained bag pipes even got to me.

[Roseanna]

On ‎13‎.‎11‎.‎2016 at 9:53 PM, ProudMary said:

 Is it always customary at a coronation for the spouse of the monarch to be required to kneel before them? 

It's not only keeling, it's making a vow of loyalty. 

If there is Prince is Wales, he as the heir to the throne is the first to make a vow. When George V was cowned, Edward as the Prince of Wales made the first to make a vow to his father, just as George as the Prince of Wales had made a vow to Edward VII. 

Then represantives of dukes, earls etc. make the same. 

As Prince Charles wasn't of age, the duke of Edinburg was the premier noble.

As for (male) spouses of the monarch, I doubt whether there was a precedent. Mary I, Elizabeth I, Victoria were unmarried when they were crowned. William and Mary II were crowned together as co-regents.

That leaves only Anne who was married but had no living children.   

Edited February 23, 2017 by Roseanna

[dubbel zout]

13 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

As Prince Charles wasn't of age, the duke of Edinburg was the premier noble.

Interestingly, making Philip the premier noble was something the Privy Council had to agree to. It wasn't automatic simply because he was married to the sovereign.

[Roseanna]

22 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Interestingly, making Philip the premier noble was something the Privy Council had to agree to. It wasn't automatic simply because he was married to the sovereign.

In that case, wasn't Elizabeth giving a great honor to Philip who (in the series) didn't understand it? 

[dubbel zout]

I think Philip understood it, but he wanted more.

[Hanahope]

So I knew Edward VIII abdicated, but I didn't know he was never crowned.  At the beginning of the episode, upon hearing the oath, I was wondering how in the heck Edward/David could abdicate after taking such a vow, but since he was never coronated, he never had to take the vow and thus could abdicate.   I suppose that's what I heard Charles is planning to do (since he also married a divorcee?), abdicate before  being crowned, in favor of his son, William.  I wonder if he'll change his name.

I'm sure there was a part of David that was sad as never been coronated, as well as not being able to attend Elizabeth's coronation.  I presume he didn't attend George VI's either.  And it is perfectly clear that David loved Wallis more than she loved him.  Those photos and interviews were painful.  

so good and bad about televising the coronation.  good to make the brits feel better about themselves and getting to see, at least some, of it.  bad in that it opened the monarchy up to 'celebrity status' that brought along those problems (as seen in the next episode).  I do hope to live to actually see the next coronation, of whomever that will be.

And yeah Phillip, you knew when you married her that you'd have to kneel to her during the coronation.  You got the "obey" out of the wife, but you must kneel to the queen.  suck it up.  A lesson Margaret needs as well.

On 2/23/2017 at 3:51 PM, Roseanna said:

Mary I, Elizabeth I, Victoria were unmarried when they were crowned.

This answered my question as to why Phillip had to give up his name and titles when he married Elizabeth, while Albert did not.  It makes all the difference in the world, I guess, when you're marrying the queen, as opposed to a princess/heir apparent.

[Roseanna]

15 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

This answered my question as to why Phillip had to give up his name and titles when he married Elizabeth, while Albert did not.  It makes all the difference in the world, I guess, when you're marrying the queen, as opposed to a princess/heir apparent.

I don't think so,. Rather, it was his German surname "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" that couldn't be accepted after WW2.

BTV, as Philip was also a Prince of Denmark, he was a member of the royal house that is over 1000 years old. By despising him as a parvenu Queen Mary showed herself not only without decent manners but also without elemental information.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Roseanna

[dubbel zout]

Mary knew exactly who Philip was. But she herself was a minor German princess, and like the convert who's more devout than those who grew up in the religion, marrying into the British royal family turned her more British than they were. 

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

I don't think so,. Rather, it was his German surname "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" that couldn't be accepted after WW2.

BTV, as Philip was also a Prince of Denmark, he was a member of the royal house that is over 1000 years old. By despising him as a parvenu Queen Mary showed herself not only without decent manners but also without elemental information.

There's an interesting documentary about Philip on Netflix that goes into pretty thorough detail about why certain decisions, demands were made of Phillip. I found myself both feeling a bit sympathetic towards him, and not so sympathetic as it also shows that the way he's portrayed here isn't far from the truth. It is worth it to watch, if only to see a young Elizabeth absolutely giddy in love. It was incredibly sweet.

[Inquisitionist]

1 hour ago, Clanstarling said:

There's an interesting documentary about Philip on Netflix

Do you recall its title?  Is it by chance Prince Philip: The Plot to Make a King?

[Clanstarling]

29 minutes ago, Inquisitionist said:

Do you recall its title?  Is it by chance Prince Philip: The Plot to Make a King?

Yes, that's it. It has a distinct point of view, of course. As most do.

[ChelleGame]

2 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

There's an interesting documentary about Philip on Netflix that goes into pretty thorough detail about why certain decisions, demands were made of Phillip. I found myself both feeling a bit sympathetic towards him, and not so sympathetic as it also shows that the way he's portrayed here isn't far from the truth. It is worth it to watch, if only to see a young Elizabeth absolutely giddy in love. It was incredibly sweet.

I just watched that too. It was very sweet to see her playfulness. Playing hide and go seek on the deck of that ship.

The actor (to me) isn't as handsome as the real Philip was in his youth.

[thuganomics85]

Loved the flashback to George/Bertie and young Elizabeth "practicing" the coronation.  Jared Harris is just amazing in the role and the show is doing a great job at showing what a great father he was and despite only be alive for two episode, why he is so significant to Elizabeth and the rest.

Oh, David.  He's such a petty little prick that it hard to even side with him even if I understand why he is pissed.  But Alex Jennings is just killing it in the role and makes me conflicted with the character at times.  Not too conflicted though: loved watching Tommy own him during that meeting.  Pip Torrens is equally on fire in this role.

Damn, Philip!  Elizabeth was pretty much on point about how insecure you are acting.  I mean I do get that this is all happening fast and I am willing to admit that probably a lot of men would have acted like this during that time period, but again: he knew this was bound to happen eventually, so to see him get so pissed any time he has to subvert to her when she's The Queen, is really making him look bad. 

The coronation scene was fantastic.  Claire Foy was great and looking stunning in the regal outfit.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Loved the flashback to George/Bertie and young Elizabeth "practicing" the coronation.  Jared Harris is just amazing in the role and the show is doing a great job at showing what a great father he was and despite only be alive for two episode, why he is so significant to Elizabeth and the rest.

Oh, David.  He's such a petty little prick that it hard to even side with him even if I understand why he is pissed.  But Alex Jennings is just killing it in the role and makes me conflicted with the character at times.  Not too conflicted though: loved watching Tommy own him during that meeting.  Pip Torrens is equally on fire in this role.

Damn, Philip!  Elizabeth was pretty much on point about how insecure you are acting.  I mean I do get that this is all happening fast and I am willing to admit that probably a lot of men would have acted like this during that time period, but again: he knew this was bound to happen eventually, so to see him get so pissed any time he has to subvert to her when she's The Queen, is really making him look bad. 

The coronation scene was fantastic.  Claire Foy was great and looking stunning in the regal outfit.

That's the problem I have with Philip. Yes I understand his feelings and a lot of men from that time period would have acted the same. But he's know the whole time that it was going to happen which makes it hard for me to be sympathetic. Sure it happened sooner then anyone thought but it was still always going to happen. If he didn't want to do any of these things or deal with it he should have married someone else. Instead of being supportive all he does is whine about what he's lost despite the fact it hasn't been a picnic for his wife.  

[ElectricBoogaloo]

In theory, I can understand why both Philip and David felt the way they did, but the way they are portrayed here makes it hard for me to sympathize with them. I mean, I agreed with David in theory when he told Tommy et al that it had been almost twenty years since he abdicated so they should just suck it up and let bygones be bygones. But he's such a whiny brat about Wallis and how DESTITUTE they are and how he thinks he deserves to do X, Y, Z that I just can't with him. Even as my brain is telling me that his words make sense, my emotional reaction is usually along the lines of STFU!

Same with Philip.I get that it's the 50s and gender roles were very rigid so it's challenging for him to accept being subordinate to his wife, her duties, etc. but he is such a brat about it. She tries to give him a position which will publicly show her trust in him and he makes MORE demands ("total control or I won't do it!"). Things like that make it really difficult for me to give two fucks about his feelings.

On 11/4/2016 at 7:50 PM, Bama said:

"Shall we fuck?" is the most British come-on I've ever heard.

I actually had to pause the episode because I was laughing at that!

On 11/5/2016 at 7:44 AM, Arynm said:

the Duke of Windsor had a very high opinion of himself didn't he. He has a lot of nerve thinking they are greedy and grasping, when he is the one sponging off the relatives. I actually thought Cookie was a cute nickname until he explained why they called her that. I looked it up and his measly 10,000 pound allowance is about 1 million pounds today. Poor thing!! However could they manage on such a pittance?

Yes, the hypocrisy of it all. Here he's bitching about his family being hyenas going after his mother's things when he is telling Elizabeth which pieces HE wants. As usual, it's only wrong when other people do it. Even before you did the math, I was rolling my eyes during previous episodes when he kept saying that he "only" received 10K and that it was hard to make ends meet. How did he and Wallis survive on ONLY a million pounds per year?

On 11/5/2016 at 9:17 AM, Lord Donia said:

I was glad to see that Elizabeth made Philip kneel to her. I'll accept the karmic deductions for my pettiness.

Heh, right there with you! I loved that Elizabeth pointed out that he was kneeling to the crown and God, just like everyone else.

On 12/1/2016 at 11:37 AM, Eyes High said:

Pip Torrens really steals the show as icy, terrifying pillar of rectitude Tommy Lascelles. A Twitter poster described his Tommy as a great portrait of "upright masculine bitchiness," and I think that sounds exactly right. I loved his complete and utter lack of patience for Edward's weakness and self-pity. This was incredible:

Perfect description! But as long as it's directed at David's pity parties, I'm all for Tommy's bitchiness.

[andromeda331]

11 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

In theory, I can understand why both Philip and David felt the way they did, but the way they are portrayed here makes it hard for me to sympathize with them. I mean, I agreed with David in theory when he told Tommy et al that it had been almost twenty years since he abdicated so they should just suck it up and let bygones be bygones. But he's such a whiny brat about Wallis and how DESTITUTE they are and how he thinks he deserves to do X, Y, Z that I just can't with him. Even as my brain is telling me that his words make sense, my emotional reaction is usually along the lines of STFU!

Same with Philip.I get that it's the 50s and gender roles were very rigid so it's challenging for him to accept being subordinate to his wife, her duties, etc. but he is such a brat about it. She tries to give him a position which will publicly show her trust in him and he makes MORE demands ("total control or I won't do it!"). Things like that make it really difficult for me to give two fucks about his feelings.

I actually had to pause the episode because I was laughing at that!

 

This yes! Both men could be sympathetic and have sympathetic reasons but the way the both act cancels out the sympathy. I almost enjoy David more because he does get the push back. He has Tommy putting him in his place, his mother, the clergy. David's an asshole but everyone knows he's an asshole and pretty much treats him like one. Philip just whines constantly. He gets what he wants and he still whines.  

[Roseanna]

On ‎30‎.‎11‎.‎2017 at 11:34 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

In theory, I can understand why both Philip and David felt the way they did, but the way they are portrayed here makes it hard for me to sympathize with them. I mean, I agreed with David in theory when he told Tommy et al that it had been almost twenty years since he abdicated so they should just suck it up and let bygones be bygones. 

He forgets that the consequences of Abdication are still present: the Queen Mother thinks that it was because of the heavy durties as the King George VI died too early (completely forgetting his smoking, although  it may be that he smoked more to relieve tension before public performances) and Elizabeth thinks that the Abdication robbed her of the private life (completely providing that he would have produced an heir, or partly if he hadn't).

The quarrel can't be forgiven and forgotten because both parties think that they are absolutely right and can't understand the POV of the other party. The duke can't forgive that his wife wasn't made HRH and received by his family whereas his family can't forgive that he put his love before his duty to his family and his country, and thereby damaged the authority of both which George VI succeeded to repair with the heavy cost to himself. 

But because he is "family", they had made Wallis the greater scapecoat: she seduced him and made him abdicate, instead of seeing that his own charactrer made him to fall in love with a woman  like Wallis and become so completely dependend on her that he couldn't live without her.

Although even that wasn't the case: he could have quite well have kept her as his mistress, as was recommended even by Prime Minister Baldwin. But his complete lack of caring for the others' opinions was seen how he appeared publicly with the wife of the other man during their Mediterranean holidays. If he hadn't been the King and Mr Simpson such a gentleman, he could have been sued to the co-defendant in the divorce court.           

[Clanstarling]

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

He forgets that the consequences of Abdication are still present: the Queen Mother thinks that it was because of the heavy durties as the King George VI died too early (completely forgetting his smoking, although  it may be that he smoked more to relieve tension before public performances) and Elizabeth thinks that the Abdication robbed her of the private life (completely providing that he would have produced an heir, or partly if he hadn't).

The quarrel can't be forgiven and forgotten because both parties think that they are absolutely right and can't understand the POV of the other party. The duke can't forgive that his wife wasn't made HRH and received by his family whereas his family can't forgive that he put his love before his duty to his family and his country, and thereby damaged the authority of both which George VI succeeded to repair with the heavy cost to himself. 

But because he is "family", they had made Wallis the greater scapecoat: she seduced him and made him abdicate, instead of seeing that his own charactrer made him to fall in love with a woman  like Wallis and become so completely dependend on her that he couldn't live without her.

Although even that wasn't the case: he could have quite well have kept her as his mistress, as was recommended even by Prime Minister Baldwin. But his complete lack of caring for the others' opinions was seen how he appeared publicly with the wife of the other man during their Mediterranean holidays. If he hadn't been the King and Mr Simpson such a gentleman, he could have been sued to the co-defendant in the divorce court.           

Very well put. You made excellent points.

[jjj]

Only getting to these episodes now, a year later.  I know a lot about the structure and liturgy of the British coronation ceremony, and was unprepared for how very movingly they portrayed the sacred/anointing aspect of the ceremony.  I actually thought the ceremony might be the culminating episode for the first season.  For me, John Lithgow earned his awards for his role in the one shot of him observing the anointing; the expression on his face was just full of awe and emotion.  So glad I saved this for when I had time to really absorb the series. 

And that scene where Elizabeth tries on the Crown, and looks at her father in the Crown, and he looks back at her, but never in the same shot -- what a lovely moment for both characters, and what a wonderful dramatic choice.

This is so late to the coronation party, but here is a little background information on this episode, down to the type of oil they used in the series (olive!), the garments, and the setting:  https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/06/the-crown-queen-elizabeth-coronation 

And it was not Prince Philip who introduced the idea of televising the ceremony, but the BBC, who initially was turned down by the Palace, and there was an outcry from the public and in newspapers when the BBC leaked the news that it would not be allowed to televise it.   https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/queen-elizabeth-II-decided-to-televise-coronation/

[Clanstarling]

4 hours ago, jjj said:

This is so late to the coronation party, but here is a little background information on this episode, down to the type of oil they used in the series (olive!), the garments, and the setting:  https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/06/the-crown-queen-elizabeth-coronation 

And it was not Prince Philip who introduced the idea of televising the ceremony, but the BBC, who initially was turned down by the Palace, and there was an outcry from the public and in newspapers when the BBC leaked the news that it would not be allowed to televise it.   https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/queen-elizabeth-II-decided-to-televise-coronation/

They do play a little fast and loose with particular facts - one which I can't mention in this episode's feed. To be fair, though, Phillip did indeed want to modernize things, and I imagine he would have been a voice urging her to say yes.

[Paloma]

On 12/27/2016 at 4:03 PM, iMonrey said:

I feel like this show is overly romanticizing the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, which is fairly common in dramatizations about them. I think most historians agree David never really wanted to become King, and Wallis Simpson was more or less a convenient excuse to abdicate. I find these scenes that show him remorseful about that decision highly suspicious. The bagpipe playing and the teardrops were viscerally effective but his overall inclusion in this story is probably highly fictionalized. 

I get why he's been so prominent though. The story is about "The Crown," and as a former king he plays a role in that story while he still lives.

Funny, I get the opposite feeling--that the D and D of W are being shown as loathsome, especially in this episode. I felt a tiny bit of sympathy for David in the previous episodes but now I just get annoyed every time he  is in a scene. I guess I understand that he does still have a role in the story, but did we really need him narrating the coronation at the party at their home in France, with Wallis sneering along? 

[Roseanna]

21 hours ago, Paloma said:

but did we really need him narrating the coronation at the party at their home in France, with Wallis sneering along? 

Yes, because it told two things. First, David told what the coronation and especially anoitment realigiously mean (and how George VI and Elizabeth understood it) - otherwise it would have seemed to most of us only a spectacular pageantry. 

Secondly, although David tried to sneer at the ceremony like Wallis, he couldn't as he was raised inside the system whose core beliefs still lived inside him. That's why he would have wanted to be that day in Westminister Abbey with his family.

[qtpye]

On 9/10/2017 at 5:56 AM, andromeda331 said:

That's the problem I have with Philip. Yes I understand his feelings and a lot of men from that time period would have acted the same. But he's know the whole time that it was going to happen which makes it hard for me to be sympathetic. Sure it happened sooner then anyone thought but it was still always going to happen. If he didn't want to do any of these things or deal with it he should have married someone else. Instead of being supportive all he does is whine about what he's lost despite the fact it hasn't been a picnic for his wife.  

He could of just stayed a penniless prince if he hated it so much. I sometimes feel like Phillip thinks his family is more prestigious and that this kinda plain princess was lucky to have his gorgeous self as a spouse. I do think he grew to love her but probably would not have married her in the first place if it did not mean a giant come up for him in prestige and money. I know he is a man of his time but he really is whining about the very life he actively pursued.

On 12/4/2017 at 6:15 AM, Roseanna said:

He forgets that the consequences of Abdication are still present: the Queen Mother thinks that it was because of the heavy durties as the King George VI died too early (completely forgetting his smoking, although  it may be that he smoked more to relieve tension before public performances) and Elizabeth thinks that the Abdication robbed her of the private life (completely providing that he would have produced an heir, or partly if he hadn't).

The quarrel can't be forgiven and forgotten because both parties think that they are absolutely right and can't understand the POV of the other party. The duke can't forgive that his wife wasn't made HRH and received by his family whereas his family can't forgive that he put his love before his duty to his family and his country, and thereby damaged the authority of both which George VI succeeded to repair with the heavy cost to himself. 

But because he is "family", they had made Wallis the greater scapecoat: she seduced him and made him abdicate, instead of seeing that his own charactrer made him to fall in love with a woman  like Wallis and become so completely dependend on her that he couldn't live without her.

Although even that wasn't the case: he could have quite well have kept her as his mistress, as was recommended even by Prime Minister Baldwin. But his complete lack of caring for the others' opinions was seen how he appeared publicly with the wife of the other man during their Mediterranean holidays. If he hadn't been the King and Mr Simpson such a gentleman, he could have been sued to the co-defendant in the divorce court.           

Wallis also said nasty things about the queen mother being in love with David and him rejecting her for being too fat, so she had to settle for the “lesser” brother. Both Wallis and her moronic duke could be quite nasty characters.

Edited October 26, 2019 by qtpye

[Constantinople]

On 11/5/2016 at 10:44 AM, Arynm said:

the Duke of Windsor had a very high opinion of himself didn't he. He has a lot of nerve thinking they are greedy and grasping, when he is the one sponging off the relatives...

On 11/5/2016 at 4:49 PM, SeanC said:

While it's never terribly flattering to be worrying about money while living as he does, I would say he's on solid enough ground when he says that if the family wants him to forego commercial opportunities (which they did; nobody at Buckingham Palace wanted a former sovereign shilling for Coca Cola), trying to weasel out of paying his allowance is unfair.

Of course he shouldn't shill for Coca Cola. Coke is rather plebeian.

Royal Crown Cola on the other hand

[irisheyes]

On 9/10/2017 at 5:56 AM, andromeda331 said:

On 9/10/2017 at 1:04 AM, thuganomics85 said:

That's the problem I have with Philip. Yes I understand his feelings and a lot of men from that time period would have acted the same. But he's know the whole time that it was going to happen which makes it hard for me to be sympathetic. Sure it happened sooner then anyone thought but it was still always going to happen. If he didn't want to do any of these things or deal with it he should have married someone else. Instead of being supportive all he does is whine about what he's lost despite the fact it hasn't been a picnic for his wife.  

I think Philip expected that he would have a long naval career and when Elizabeth eventually became Queen, he’d get a cushy Naval office job. Instead, he’s given nothing to do. As someone with an immense amount of energy, I’m sure that was hard for him. He’s a jerk about it, but I can sense his frustration. 

[Roseanna]

On 11/30/2017 at 11:34 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

he kept saying that he "only" received 10K and that it was hard to make ends meet. How did he and Wallis survive on ONLY a million pounds per year?

For all his talk about "modernizing the monarchy", he had used to live in luxury - he could despise it when he was the Prince of Wales and the King and have a "modest" week-end home, Fort Belvedere, and his servants didn't use royal liveries. But once he lost his position, it all mattered the more - he wanted to live like a royal and offer it to Wallis.

Obviously, because her former life, Wallis was mortally afraid to become poor. It didn't help that she had got from him expensive jewels and  huge sums in foreign banks (savings from his duchy of Cornwall) already when she was Mrs Simpson. 

[Roseanna]

Continuing:

Money was one of main reasons to the rift between brothers. When George V died, he left most of his private property to his younger sons, thinking that his eldest son had as the Prince of Wales had during 25 years collected a fortune from his duchy of Cornwall and would get enough as the king. Edward VIII was disappointed and angry as he had hoped to give Wallis even more jewelry and money he already had.   

When he abdicated, the family fortunes had to be settled. Edward VIII had inherited from his father a life interest to his private landed property, such as Sandringham and Balmoral, but because the British people had used to them as places where the king lived, George VI paid compensation for them. 

However, when the issue had been negotiated, Edward VIII lied about the quantity of his savings which were in fact much bigger. Perhaps the lie was caused by the huge distress Edward felt at the time: Wallis urged him in the phone not to abdicate, he had promised her the crown of a Queen and failed, and because he had already promised to abdicate before the terms were agreed, he had a disadvantage in the negotiations. Any case, when George VI learned about the lie of his eldest brother who he had adored all his life and whose duty he had forced to take although he felt it exceeded his abilities, he had disappointed and hurt beyond the words. Could his brother be trusted at all?  

The duke of Windsor never showed any gratitude towards his brother about his huge allowance which meant that his brother's private income became much less (the state didn't give the duke anything), but always wanted to get more. 

Of course, he had lived in the time of revolutions and seen how many people lost their positions and fortunes (even middle-class Frenchmen who had invested in Russian shares before the Revolution or middle-class Germans whose savings vanished during the hyperinflation). But the fear of becoming "poor" he and Wallis felt didn't cease after the WW2, nor did they change their luxurious lifestyle they felt they were entitled by his birth.

Which makes one respect Philip who as a young man was ready to earn his living and rise in the ranks of the British Navy by his own merits (although he of course had best connections because of his Lord Mountbatten). Maybe it was because he had to emigrate as a baby and had never lived in luxury, but the difference with the duke of Windsor is clear.

Many have compared Philip and the duke of Windsor because both were dissatisfied with their positions and showed it by complaining. But there is also a big difference. Philip is a plain-speaking man of action who is unused to intrigues and without connections except Lord Mountbatten. He only way is to demand from his wife what he wants but when he can't get it, he sulks 

Spoiler

and later flees

He can't lie nor conspire, go behind people's back and use other's weaknesses and mutual disputes to get what he wants. Instead, the duke is a born charmer (and charm and connections is all he has left) who does precisely that.  

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Who knows about all the actual dialogues between Elizabeth and Philip.   But, as portrayed, where was her anger?!  She warned him sternly to not go mad.  Then, he does.  And here comes Churchill who was so out of sorts, he had to take a seat for the first time at the audience????  That character would have been furious with hubby.  At least we saw her icy determination as to the kneel and pledge.

How much did David and Wallis charge for the hosting and play-by-play?  

The showdown at Lambeth was delicious.  I did wonder about the Archbishop showing weakness by abandoning the room.  It's been a minute since I've seen so much umbrage taken in a scene.  Of course, Tommy holding all the cards did not make for a fair fight.

My favorite non-flashback moment was when the Queen Mum was giving Tommy his marching orders.  I was imagining the time when Elizabeth will be doing much the same (I'm unspoiled so this is merely a hope).  

The scene in the courtyard of all the gorgeous vehicles and Philip's jaunty arrival in that beautiful sports car was serious eye candy.