S02.E10: Mystery Man

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, Magnumfangirl said:

I just wish the show would portray the Queen and the rest of them having a little fun once in a while.

The questions one has to ask with each scene: is it needed for the plot and does it tell something essential about the central themes of the show?

We have seen scenes where Elizabeth watches her children play outside which tells that she put her work before her children - partly because it's necessary but partly because she choses to do it as a perfectionist aleays thinks that she must do all, instead of concentrating only on the most important matters.

But we have also seen her showing Charles and Anne on the globe where their father is and watching his film from Antarctis with their children and talking about the school with Charles.   

Spoiler

I guess we are going see in S3 how the famous TV program about the royal family was made.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Epic Old-School Recap of the episode!

Season 2 Of The Crown Takes A Bow

And we finally get a real, emotional conversation between Philip and Elizabeth.

[CousinAmy]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

The questions one has to ask with each scene: is it needed for the plot and does it tell something essential about the central themes of the show?

We have seen scenes where Elizabeth watches her children play outside which tells that she put her work before her children - partly because it's necessary but partly because she choses to do it as a perfectionist aleays thinks that she must do all, instead of concentrating only on the most important matters.

But we have also seen her showing Charles and Anne on the globe where their father is and watching his film from Antarctis with their children and talking about the school with Charles.   

  Reveal hidden contents

I guess we are going see in S3 how the famous TV program about the royal family was made.

They haven't really shown much about her horses (just that one time when she was reading a book about breeding) even though I found a contemporaneous reference to her spending too much time at the racetrack; or the corgis, who she loved as if they were children. Maybe it doesn't make good drama, but it was indeed part of her personal life .

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, CousinAmy said:

They haven't really shown much about her horses (just that one time when she was reading a book about breeding) even though I found a contemporaneous reference to her spending too much time at the racetrack; or the corgis, who she loved as if they were children. Maybe it doesn't make good drama, but it was indeed part of her personal life .

In S1 there was a whole episode about her interest in the horse breeding and her relationship with Porchy who shares it. One of the problems in her marriage is that she and Philip have different hobbies. 

Instead, Elizabeth is irl a very good rider but we haven't seen her riding in the show, unlike Margaret - probably Claire Foy can't ride and they didn't want to use a stunt.

[CousinAmy]

10 hours ago, Roseanna said:

In S1 there was a whole episode about her interest in the horse breeding and her relationship with Porchy who shares it. One of the problems in her marriage is that she and Philip have different hobbies. 

Instead, Elizabeth is irl a very good rider but we haven't seen her riding in the show, unlike Margaret - probably Claire Foy can't ride and they didn't want to use a stunt.

I need to re-watch Season 1 again!

[katha]

The whole problem with the show is this IMO: Obviously they have rejected things like "historical accuracy" and "keeping to the facts". Okay. Sure. Why not. No one is forcing them to to do it that way, and a fictional story with people that look vaguely like the royals and are named like them is totally fine. It also doesn't need to be a hagiography. If they want to portray these fictional characters they created in a negative way, go right ahead. As long as it's interesting and entertaining...

But IMO over long stretches it isn't entertaining. Since barely anyone in this series seems to have any sort of agency or interesting, complex motivations for their actions it's just...dull. It's not that Margaret and Elizabeth and Philip are portrayed in a negative way...it's that it's all so boring. Which is also why I don't understand why they rejected the actual historical realities so much and instead focused on made-up soap opera nonsense. They still could have been critical of the people and their actions, but the material would have been more interesting IMO.

[Tim McD]

Did Macmillan actually attend a performance of Beyond the Fringe, and did the cast really mock him from the stage? I've been unable to find anything definite on that.

[Broderbits]

On 1/9/2018 at 6:06 PM, Tim McD said:

 

Did Macmillan actually attend a performance of Beyond the Fringe, and did the cast really mock him from the stage? I've been unable to find anything definite on that.

 

He did indeed according to this article in The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/342409

[CeeBeeGee]

On 12/23/2017 at 0:45 PM, WatchrTina said:

That, to me, was a glaring plot-hole because HOW does she have that?  When last we saw it she spotted it in Philips carry-on as he was preparing to leave for that extended tour YEARs earlier.  She put it back in the case, as I recall.  I guess we're supposed to imagine that she went rifling through his possessions at some point in the last few years and took it and then, for reasons surpassing all understanding, has it with her when she goes into seclusion in the guest house.  Yeah, that one's a stretch.

But the reason I put the episode on pause and got up to come comment was this:  did I just see Margaret day-drinking scotch literally moments after telling her sister she was pregnant?  That has bugged me every time I watch ( think I'm on round 3).  I know that attitudes about drinking while pregnant keep changing (some now say the occasional glass of wine is fine) but if someone is drinking the hard stuff in the middle of the day then that's NOT the only alcohol she'll be consuming that day.  This is the 60's.  Was the link between fetal abnormalities and drinking not yet known?

2nd random observation from the episode:  Anthony Eden's wife was a bitch.

 

On 12/23/2017 at 1:00 PM, dubbel zout said:

According to Prof. Wiki, fetal alcohol syndrome wasn't named and recognized until around 1973, though studies had been conducted as early as 1968. Margaret's son was born in 1961, her daughter in 1964. A definitive link was still in the future.

Yeah, I mean--that's just how it was back then. I know damn well my mother drank through both her pregnancies--we were WASPs. I'm sure Margaret did as well. FAS just wasn't on the radar then (and really wasn't until the late '80s or so, yeah?).

 

On 1/3/2018 at 4:09 AM, VCRTracking said:

There were movies from the 50s of Charles and Anne as children playing at the beach.

and at Balmoral. Charles V.O.d that this took place the first summer she was queen:

I think her treating Edward and Andrew differently was because by that point she became more comfortable at her job and balancing her duties and being a mother. Also in the home movies Elizabeth is also very maternal toward her niece Sarah, especially since her mother Margaret seemed to be away somewhere. Sarah(Lady Chatto) was also one of the Royals watching old footage she seems like a very sweet person and one of the most down-to-earth people in the family. Very different from her mother!

Word is Lady Sarah is one of the most popular members of the BRF.

[Clanstarling]

8 hours ago, CeeBeeGee said:

Yeah, I mean--that's just how it was back then. I know damn well my mother drank through both her pregnancies--we were WASPs. I'm sure Margaret did as well. FAS just wasn't on the radar then (and really wasn't until the late '80s or so, yeah?).

There was a school of thought at the time that the fetus was safe from "outside" influences in it's own bubble. My mother didn't drink, but smoked like a chimney, which was probably a factor in my premature birth. Fortunately for me, she didn't take drugs like thalidomide and DES. 

It's one of those things that we now know far more about, which always shades our reactions to seeing historical shows. Watching shows about doctors in the Civil War, and their lack of hygiene, gives me the heebee jeebees and it is hard to detach from that knowledge.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Clanstarling

[txhorns79]

Quote

There was a school of thought at the time that the fetus was safe from "outside" influences in it's own bubble. My mother didn't drink, but smoked like a chimney, which was probably a factor in my premature birth.

I've always been curious about that.  My grandmother smoked heavily, and enjoyed her liquor, but none of her pregnancies had any issues.  The way people talk about these things now, you'd think millions of children were dying in utero every year or being born with severe defects because their parents smoked or drank during pregnancy, when that wasn't the case.  I'm not pretending any of that stuff is good for the fetus, but I do sometimes wonder if we haven't over-corrected.   

Quote

In S1 there was a whole episode about her interest in the horse breeding and her relationship with Porchy who shares it. One of the problems in her marriage is that she and Philip have different hobbies.

 

True. Phillip's hobby appeared to be having affairs with other women.  Imagine the possibilities if QE2 had been open to it!

[PinkRibbons]

I think people had an inkling that smoking and drinking during pregnancy wasn't the best idea earlier than we generally think. When Lucille Ball was pregnant on I Love Lucy, the sponsors (Philip Morris, a cigarette company) were pretty adamant that she not be shown smoking, and earlier then that, there's a whole passage in Gone With the Wind that mentions Scarlett drinking during her second pregnancy. IIRC, it actually says that if she'd asked her doctor he would have told her not to drink hard liquor, but it never occurred to him that she would drink anything stronger than weak wine. And the implication is that it led to her daughter being, er...intellectually challenged. Gone With the Wind was written in 1936. Margaret Mitchell may not have understood exactly the kind of damage drinking alcohol could do to a fetus, but she knew it wasn't a good idea.

[secnarf]

7 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I've always been curious about that.  My grandmother smoked heavily, and enjoyed her liquor, but none of her pregnancies had any issues.  The way people talk about these things now, you'd think millions of children were dying in utero every year or being born with severe defects because their parents smoked or drank during pregnancy, when that wasn't the case.  I'm not pretending any of that stuff is good for the fetus, but I do sometimes wonder if we haven't over-corrected.  

I don't know how we can "over-correct".

Bottom line is that we don't know what is a safe amount to consume alcohol or smoke during pregnancy - although, it's generally regarded as safe to have a sip or two at a time of alcohol during pregnancy. We also don't know why some people have adverse effects and others don't - we only know that smoking and alcohol increase the risk of bad outcomes for the baby. And since there's no real "need" for alcohol or smoking (of course I am typing this with my glass of wine right beside me!), the safest course of action is to avoid both during pregnancy. Having said, that, plenty of people smoke during pregnancy, and a smaller (but not insignificant number) have some amount of alcohol that they are unlikely to ever admit to.

And let's not forget all of the pregnant women who continue to use cocaine and heroin.

[Ujio]

After the glorious first season, I didn't think the show could top it, but I was very pleasantly surprised. I am now saddened by the fact that we will no longer see this wonderful cast on this show again -- except in flashbacks (a la Tommy/Churchill in season 2). 

Claire Foy is fantastic in every way. How she can communicate with a subtle raise of an eyebrow or a clenched jaw is beyond amazing. I know Olivia Colman will be great as QEII, but I will truly and dearly miss Foy's Elizabeth.

Last but not least, I was surprised myself that I would come to like MacMillan so much -- even more than I did John Lithgow's Churchill. Anton Lesser was simply superb in the role, IMO, and this last episode broke my heart. It's not my imagination that Phillip called him "treacherous," right??? That would be the last adjective I'd use to describe (at least Lesser's version of) MacMillan. I found solace in the fact that MacMillan outlived his gawd-awful wife and everyone else and died at almost the age of 93. What an amazing casting job that this show did to make me care so much about a character. Well done, show!

[Clanstarling]

2 hours ago, Ujio said:

Last but not least, I was surprised myself that I would come to like MacMillan so much -- even more than I did John Lithgow's Churchill. Anton Lesser was simply superb in the role, IMO, and this last episode broke my heart. It's not my imagination that Phillip called him "treacherous," right??? That would be the last adjective I'd use to describe (at least Lesser's version of) MacMillan. I found solace in the fact that MacMillan outlived his gawd-awful wife and everyone else and died at almost the age of 93. What an amazing casting job that this show did to make me care so much about a character. Well done, show!

I have no idea what the real MacMillan was like, so I have no idea how well Lesser did in portraying the actual man. I wouldn't say I liked MacMillan, but I did have some sympathy for him.

[Roseanna]

23 hours ago, Ujio said:

Last but not least, I was surprised myself that I would come to like MacMillan so much -- even more than I did John Lithgow's Churchill. Anton Lesser was simply superb in the role, IMO, and this last episode broke my heart. It's not my imagination that Phillip called him "treacherous," right??? That would be the last adjective I'd use to describe (at least Lesser's version of) MacMillan. I found solace in the fact that MacMillan outlived his gawd-awful wife and everyone else and died at almost the age of 93. What an amazing casting job that this show did to make me care so much about a character. Well done, show!

In the show Macmillan was treacherous: he urged Eden to go to Suez and afterwards stabbed to his back in order to steal his place as a prime minister, saying smugly that there is no justice in politics. Of course Eden was also treacherous: he made a secret deal with Israel and afterwards lied to Parliament.

It's noteworthy that Elizabeth was very sympathic towards Eden when he resigned although he had failed in Suez, but she openly resented Macmillan, in the beginning for his illoyalty towards Eden and in the end for letting her down. 

It's curious that in the Profumo affair Macmillan was too loyal: he naively believed Profumo's word and backed him. If he had fired him, he would have saved himself.

On the other hand, Macmillan was also presented  sympathic because his wife not only had an affair, but openly despised him. But that he had tolerated it for years showed him also as a weak man and/or willing to pay anything for his ambition.

As for the real Macmillan, Barbara Leaming's books Mrs Kennedy and Jack Kennedy: The Making of a President show him in a very sympathic light.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Roseanna
correcting spelling

[Milburn Stone]

On 12/18/2017 at 10:13 PM, Rinaldo said:

They didn't name it, but it was clearly Beyond the Fringe...

Like you, I instantly recognized the show as Beyond the Fringe, long before the shot of the theatrical program in someone's hand--a shot that almost felt like cheating. :) I mean, what fun is there in having this abstruse knowledge if they're just going to reveal it to everybody?

The Dudley Moore wasn't such a close resemblance, but the Peter Cook was a dead ringer, at least in wide shot.

[Pallas]

So why couldn't Philip shut up, close his eyes, stand two steps back and think of England? Why not be a partner to his better half? 

Because Philip was "modern-thinking" but he was no radical. For him as for a lot of people, male and female, then and now, the term "romantic partner" would be an oxymoron. Even "marriage partner" as a concept makes more sense when the couple needs to support themselves and engage in the daily care of children, a household, and a place in the community. Not so, here at the palace. Meanwhile, nowhere in Western society were husbands put on earth to enhance their wives' confidence, independence, and success out in the world.

Especially not within the British monarchy. The Queen Consort, by tradition -- in a culture that reveres tradition -- holds a place in the heart of the U.K. She is not only wife to the King, or mother to the heir. She is mother to the nation, and honored as such; even revered. The Royal Duke interloper is not. If he were father to the nation, he would be King. In a way, he is that thankless thing: he-who-is-my-mother's-husband-but-not-my-dad. In the regard of the realm he is awarded all the stature, all the affection and trust of a step-father.

Young Princess Elizabeth was dazzled by young Cadet Mountbatten. She also found in Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark someone marriageable who she could still look up to, as I believe felt right to her. Someone with the charisma made of drive, inherent confidence, multiple abilities, and real achievement: qualities lacking in the men she knew best, the Windsor males of her father's generation. Elizabeth adored her father, but she didn't marry him. 

Part of the intent of the season seems to be to contrast Elizabeth's mate and his flaws, with those of Elizabeth's ministers and family. Philip's faults are bald and by no means either unique or beguiling. There's Philip (or, "Where's Philip?") complaining, frat-housing or flirting. But does he show up for the show and play the part? He does. And is he, say, a vainglorious armchair general or a beleaguered quitter? Is he either an irresponsible light-weight -- a petulant playboy or playgirl -- or a staunch but incurious, steely but insular Establishment snob with a cherubic veneer? He is not. He is a partly thwarted man of parts. But he is his own person, still. Someone who has a liege limb to offer you. 

[Milburn Stone]

I think I could loathe Mrs. Macmillan less if her only crime were unfaithfulness to her husband. I think even if her crime merely included flaunting her unfaithfulness in public, I could loathe her less than I do. But telling her husband that he must go see Beyond the Fringe, knowing how humiliated he'd be by the experience? I don't understand (and can't forgive) that kind of sadism. 

[J-Man]

On 12/23/2017 at 9:45 AM, WatchrTina said:

2nd random observation from the episode:  Anthony Eden's wife was a bitch.

Neither Anthony Eden nor his wife was in this episode, and I don't recall them showing anything negative about the wife in previous episodes.

My favorite shot of the entire series (so far) was the aerial shot in the "Beyond the Fringe" theater after Peter Cook (I think) points out that Macmillan is in the audience. The heads of all the audience members turn, almost in unison, to look at him.  

[WatchrTina]

Whoops.  I dissed Anthony Eden's wife in my earlier post (which it is too old for me to change.)  But obviously the prime minister's wife I meant to criticize is the one depicted in this episode -- the same one other people are criticizing -- Mrs. Macmillan.

[Roseanna]

On ‎21‎.‎1‎.‎2018 at 8:06 PM, Pallas said:

So why couldn't Philip shut up, close his eyes, stand two steps back and think of England? Why not be a partner to his better half? 

Because Philip was "modern-thinking" but he was no radical. For him as for a lot of people, male and female, then and now, the term "romantic partner" would be an oxymoron. Even "marriage partner" as a concept makes more sense when the couple needs to support themselves and engage in the daily care of children, a household, and a place in the community. Not so, here at the palace. Meanwhile, nowhere in Western society were husbands put on earth to enhance their wives' confidence, independence, and success out in the world.

Especially not within the British monarchy. The Queen Consort, by tradition -- in a culture that reveres tradition -- holds a place in the heart of the U.K. She is not only wife to the King, or mother to the heir. She is mother to the nation, and honored as such; even revered. The Royal Duke interloper is not. If he were father to the nation, he would be King. In a way, he is that thankless thing: he-who-is-my-mother's-husband-but-not-my-dad. In the regard of the realm he is awarded all the stature, all the affection and trust of a step-father.

Young Princess Elizabeth was dazzled by young Cadet Mountbatten. She also found in Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark someone marriageable who she could still look up to, as I believe felt right to her. Someone with the charisma made of drive, inherent confidence, multiple abilities, and real achievement: qualities lacking in the men she knew best, the Windsor males of her father's generation. Elizabeth adored her father, but she didn't marry him. 

Part of the intent of the season seems to be to contrast Elizabeth's mate and his flaws, with those of Elizabeth's ministers and family. Philip's faults are bald and by no means either unique or beguiling. There's Philip (or, "Where's Philip?") complaining, frat-housing or flirting. But does he show up for the show and play the part? He does. And is he, say, a vainglorious armchair general or a beleaguered quitter? Is he either an irresponsible light-weight -- a petulant playboy or playgirl -- or a staunch but incurious, steely but insular Establishment snob with a cherubic veneer? He is not. He is a partly thwarted man of parts. But he is his own person, still. Someone who has a liege limb to offer you. 

That's a splendid analysis. 

I think Philip has been too severely critiziced. Letting aside his age and background, all people have a weakness that is often the backside of his gretest strenth. Some men are by nature empathic, nurturing, prudent and non-compentive and therefore suitable to support his wife and remain always in her shadow, but it was difficult to men like Philip who are strong, extrovert, impulsive, competive and plain-speaking. 

I recently read a novel about a  granddaughter who read her grandparents' letters during the WW2. She was greatly annoyed By her grandmother who always complained about trivial matters of her own even during the most fateful happenings and I agreed with her. But the father-in-law of her grandmother understood that people are different - some have got guts and others haven't. Even the latter try their best even if it doesn't seem so to others. They simply can't do better.   

Also, I think that definition of power: power is A's ability to make B to do something that B wouldn't do othewise. All power was taken from Philip when his wife became the Queen., except power over his children. Therefore he simply couldn't give Elizabeth to overrule him about Charles's school, however distasteful the scene was to us, used to egalitarian marriage. To Philip, giving in would have mean complete emasculation. Plus, he earnestly belived that the school would be good to Charles as it has been to him. 

[teddysmom]

On 12/22/2017 at 12:53 PM, Roseanna said:

A long marriage can't be described as a romance (although it can include romantic and passionate moments).  I think that Peter Morgan failed because, although he hinted at Philip's straying, didn't dare to deal the issue,, perhaps due to the respect towards the Sovereign. 

Or he simply didn't understand that at that time the morality was different: in the upper class couple's traditional marriage other things were more important than sexual fidelity. As Elizabeth said, what hurt her most was that she wasn't told the truth.

Morgan brought it up in The Queen - Phillip & E are discussing how things went sour with Diana, and E pointed out that Phillip liked her in the beginning. He replies "she was a nice girl back then, and I thought he'd let the other go, or keep his wife in line. Isn't that what everyone does?"

E gives him a side eye that would rival Michelle Obama, and replies "Do they". 

Full disclosure: I have watched The Queen way too much. 

[Pallas]

1 hour ago, teddysmom said:

Morgan brought it up in The Queen - Phillip & E are discussing how things went sour with Diana, and E pointed out that Phillip liked her in the beginning. He replies "she was a nice girl back then, and I thought he'd let the other go, or keep his wife in line. Isn't that what everyone does?"

It's a marvelous movie. But Morgan's rigid, waspish Philip in The Queen (and as over-played by James Cromwell) was given an even more benighted role. With the family isolated at Balmoral, someone had to stand in for the whole Buck House apparatus, as well as the worst of Windsor reliance on precedence as next to godliness. Someone had to stand against history as it was being made, and between the Queen and her doing the right thing. Someone, it seems, had to play antagonist, against the (then) current Prime Minister, the Prince of Wales and Her Majesty. Morgan chose the Old Gordonstounian with no clout.  

[Roseanna]

On ‎13‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 7:12 PM, Pallas said:

It's a marvelous movie. But Morgan's rigid, waspish Philip in The Queen (and as over-played by James Cromwell) was given an even more benighted role. With the family isolated at Balmoral, someone had to stand in for the whole Buck House apparatus, as well as the worst of Windsor reliance on precedence as next to godliness. Someone had to stand against history as it was being made, and between the Queen and her doing the right thing. Someone, it seems, had to play antagonist, against the (then) current Prime Minister, the Prince of Wales and Her Majesty. Morgan chose the Old Gordonstounian with no clout.  

But what was the right thing? Was the public, or rather a part of it and the media, really right to demand that the Queen put them before her grandsons whose sorrow and loss was greatest. 

If I remember right, in the civil funeral of the Swedish prime minister Olof Palme who was murdered in 1986, his widow and family wasn't even shown in the TV.  

[Aliferously]

I thought the quitters speech was odd too. But then they were also elderly, infirm and/or had complicated personal lives (McMillan, anyway).  When they wheeled McMillan in, I thought they'd amputated his legs. I guess the wheelchairs were all taken.

I am going to miss Claire Foy and Matt Smith. I didn't even realise that this was their last episode until I was 3/4 of the way through.

So, nobody bothered to elaborate why Philip spent that much time in Switzerland? Nobody for the whole five months? What did they tell his children if they asked?

Tony is such a runt. I'd have kicked him in the ribs.

It wasn't quite the emotional rollercoaster ride I expected but a fine closing chapter to two excellent seasons.

[Bcharmer]

I'll miss Claire Foy, too... but Olivia Coleman is the goddess of everything, so I can't wait for that. She'll slay....

I spent most of the finale being totally confused by the timeline. Ep 8 ends at the Kennedy assassination (Nov '63). The finale begins with a flashback to April '62, then jumps to "one year later." So, I kept expecting yet a third time jump, that would place the "present" far beyond Nov '63.  And as someone way upthread noticed, if the baby was born in spring of '64, the Queen should have been 5 months pregnant at the time of the assassination. Macmillan resigned in October '63. So, I am confused.   It's quite likely I'm totally missing something, so if someone can set me straight, I'd be grateful.  I guess because episodes 8 and 10 each spanned a few years, they did it this way, but to have ep 10 end a month or so BEFORE the ending of ep 8 was a bit weird.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Bcharmer

[CousinAmy]

On 3/18/2018 at 3:44 PM, Bcharmer said:

I'll miss Claire Foy, too... but Olivia Coleman is the goddess of everything, so I can't wait for that. She'll slay....

I spent most of the finale being totally confused by the timeline. Ep 8 ends at the Kennedy assassination (Nov '63). The finale begins with a flashback to April '62, then jumps to "one year later." So, I kept expecting yet a third time jump, that would place the "present" far beyond Nov '63.  And as someone way upthread noticed, if the baby was born in spring of '64, the Queen should have been 5 months pregnant at the time of the assassination. Macmillan resigned in October '63. So, I am confused.   It's quite likely I'm totally missing something, so if someone can set me straight, I'd be grateful.  I guess because episodes 8 and 10 each spanned a few years, they did it this way, but to have ep 10 end a month or so BEFORE the ending of ep 8 was a bit weird.

The Kennedy episode spanned several years. (I don't know why they decided to do this - it wasn't a flashback, but simply a self-contained episode.) I guess in November 1963 she was 5 months pregnant but not showing yet.

[beanyk]

On 3/25/2018 at 5:55 PM, CousinAmy said:

The Kennedy episode spanned several years. (I don't know why they decided to do this - it wasn't a flashback, but simply a self-contained episode.) I guess in November 1963 she was 5 months pregnant but not showing yet.

I took the end of the Kennedy episode as a sort of coda, a time-jump to the assassination to bring closure to the Jackie story. I wasn't surprised to see we'd moved back in time for the next episode. But I admit, I wasn't looking for signs of pregnancy consistency.

[CTrent29]

I don't think Peter Morgan really understood Prince Philip or how difficult his role as prince consort truly was.  I could tell by watching this episode.  Some of the assumptions that Morgan made struck me as ludicrous.

[atlantaloves]

I recommend that everybody just re-watch the entire series, until we get the new one. I enjoyed it even more the second time around. And yes, Olivia will totally KILL IT as Elizabeth in series III. She is the Goddess of all Things, up there with Mirren as far as I am concerned. 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 8/20/2018 at 6:00 PM, atlantaloves said:

up there with Mirren as far as I am concerned.

And she should play the Queen in the final 2 seasons!

[atlantaloves]

Totally works for moi. 

[bijoux]

That’s a very strong end for this segment of the story. While Philip has vexed me for about 95% of the time, that final scene was marvelous. When he got everybody to calm down, I was totally eying him like Elizabeth was during his Antarctica video. Then of course I fell over laughing as Cecil continued to drone on. I’m amazed pandemonium didn’t break out during it.

I honestly don’t know whether I liked Elizabeth more in her confrontation with Philip or setting down Macmillan. If season three continues the tradition of her scolding pompous PMs like naughty school boys, that would be swell. At least one should sit like a kid waiting to see the principal like Churchill did.

[Constantinople]

Elizabeth criticized Churchill and Eden in Season 1 for trying to hold onto office by hiding the state of their health from her.  Now she criticizes Macmillan for being honest with her about the state of his health, and why that required him to resign. Consistency much?

It's also a bit rich for her to refer to Churchill, Eden and Macmillan as a confederacy of quitters. That's the nature of parliamentary democracy. Sometimes Prime Ministers get thrown out of office due to losing an election, but as often as not Prime Ministers resign because their political position is untenable, their health is too poor or both. Would she rather have prime ministers whose political or physical health is so decrepit they can no longer govern?

Stability is, after all, one of the standard justifications for retaining the monarchy. Prime Ministers come and go for whatever reason, snaps elections are called, government policy changes. But the monarchy carries on to provide a sense of continuity in a changing world.

So suck it up buttercup.

Edited November 24, 2019 by Constantinople

[Roseanna]

15 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

Elizabeth criticized Churchill and Eden in Season 1 for trying to hold onto office by hiding the state of their health from her.  Now she criticizes Macmillan for being honest with her about the state of his health, and why that required him to resign. Consistency much?

It's also a bit rich for her to refer to Churchill, Eden and Macmillan as a confederacy of quitters. That's the nature of parliamentary democracy. Sometimes Prime Ministers get thrown out of office due to losing an election, but as often as not Prime Ministers resign because their political position is untenable, their health is too poor or both. Would she rather have prime ministers whose political or physical health is so decrepit they can no longer govern?

Stability is, after all, one of the standard justifications for retaining the monarchy. Prime Ministers come and go for whatever reason, snaps elections are called, government policy changes. But the monarchy carries on to provide a sense of continuity in a changing world.

So suck it up buttercup.

Macmillan had no severe health problems, his tumor was benign. He clearly resigned because he was depressed - he had supported Profumo against accusation and believed his reassurance that he was innocent and his wife continued to cheat him and made him feel himself ridiculed. The latter reason Elizabeth probably didn't know (unless Tommy Lascelles told her gossip), but she clearly thought Macmillan a failure for resigning as she herself couldn't do it. 

[Umbelina]

Also, as well shown by the episode, one was a CONSTITUTIONAL issue, and she was duty bound, it was her job, they had prevented her from doing her job, and the other was simply a cowardly ineffectual slacker.

[Constantinople]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Macmillan had no severe health problems, his tumor was benign. He clearly resigned because he was depressed - he had supported Profumo against accusation and believed his reassurance that he was innocent and his wife continued to cheat him and made him feel himself ridiculed. The latter reason Elizabeth probably didn't know (unless Tommy Lascelles told her gossip), but she clearly thought Macmillan a failure for resigning as she herself couldn't do it. 

Macmillan said the tumor was benign.  He also said, It was the size of an orange. While that causes inconvenience and discomfort...I'll still require a long period of convalescence, not be in a fit state to undertake the arduous duties as PM.

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Also, as well shown by the episode, one was a CONSTITUTIONAL issue, and she was duty bound, it was her job, they had prevented her from doing her job, and the other was simply a cowardly ineffectual slacker.

I wouldn't call someone who was wounded 3 times while serving in the front lines in France during WWI a coward.

In any case, even if Macmillan was in perfect health, after the Profumo affair, Macmillan's position was politically untenable. Under those circumstances it's not the place of the Queen to carry on come what may.

[Roseanna]

15 hours ago, Constantinople said:

I wouldn't call someone who was wounded 3 times while serving in the front lines in France during WWI a coward.

In any case, even if Macmillan was in perfect health, after the Profumo affair, Macmillan's position was politically untenable. Under those circumstances it's not the place of the Queen to carry on come what may.

Physical courage (in war) isn't the same as moral courage (to chose right over wrong despite consequences). 

It may be that Macmilan had lost confidence of this party and if he hadn't resigned himself, he would be forced to do so, because then somebody else than his favorite would have become his successor.   

[Blackie]

On 12/23/2017 at 4:04 PM, dubbel zout said:

On 12/23/2017 at 3:53 PM, Roseanna said:

think Elizabeth meant it literally: neither Churchill, Eden or Macmillan served their full term but resigned in the middle of it.

I also like to think Elizabeth was saying-without-really-saying, "Hey, Harold! I can't quit—the last time a monarch did, there was practically a constitutional crisis. For realsies. I'm in this for life, remember? The least you can do is bloody serve out your elected term." (I paraphrase.)

Then add my paraphrase "and about your orange -sized man-tumour, check out this basketball I'm carrying around and am going to have to push out between my legs.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Blackie
clarity

[Rt66vintage]

I'm late to the Crown party, just finished season two. In the last episode Stephen Ward committed suicide. I'm confused. Was he the man lying on the floor, his abdomen with two large protruding masses? He was carried out of the house on a stretcher with his face uncovered. So was this man was McMillan and not Ward?

I've enjoyed reading these interesting posts. 

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Weak sauce, this was.  Probably the shakiest manifestation of the times and events by Morgan thus far.

There was a wonderful opportunity eschewed to bring in Tommy L. when Elizabeth was panicked about the Philip/Lunch Club/Ward/Profumo deal.  Michael assured her that his people were quashing all of it.  Yes - but I wanted to see Tommy leading that charge!  

With the understanding that all conversations were imagined, I still blanched at the PM quitters retort.  Having thought some more about it, I really like it.  She knew it wasn't really true but she was so desperate in the moment, she chose to use its shock value to get Macmillan to relent and stay on.  This was a rare occasion in the series thus far.  Her pregnancy added to her overall distress.  Well done, Morgan.

The other fantastic choice was, not surprisingly, dialogue unspoken.  Soooooo much of royal communication is the unsaid, eh?  Anyway, Philip tells his wife that he loves her.  She did not reciprocate that sentiment.  What fertile ground for thought and discussion!  Goodness.  She ultimately responded with warm intimacy.  But, the magic words did not cross her lips.

Another small moment with Footmen was a nice touch.  While she was in a good mood, she encountered the servants in a vast hallway and made it a point to say hello.  That was a first AFAIK in the series.   Again, a lot was conveyed in a minimal scene.

The biggest off note, for me, was the seeming unimportance of Philip's WWF patronage to Elizabeth, who has been shown on several occasions to be allll about animal care.  The jungle encounter was presented as a seminal moment in her life.  I get that Morgan needed dramatic tension.  I think he chose poorly this device.

Philip may not have been the infamous "Mystery Man," but the point is it very well could have been on at least one occasion.  Fair game for the show.

Overall, this season was not as thrilling as the first.  Then again, how could it be?  However, TPTB took on some very tough royal and societal issues, thus displaying some courage in their convictions, and more so, their suspicions.  Bravo to all concerned.