S02.E10: Mystery Man

[CousinAmy]

On 12/22/2017 at 0:24 PM, teddysmom said:

Men were never around for the birth of their children back then, so it's not on Phillip that he wasn't there until the last child. We can't keep comparing Phillip to what men do now. It's 60-70 years ago.

 

I was born nearly 70 years ago (Yikes! 1949) and while my dad wasn't in the delivery room, you can bet he never left the hospital except for cigarette breaks - well, since it was 1949 I don't think he had to even step outside the hospital! He certainly didn't go off and play a set of tennis! There were husbands like Philip, but there were husbands like my dad, too.

 

As for recognizing (the real) Philip from the back, he seems to be the tallest man in every room. He has to angle his head down to speak to an average-height person. Along with his blond hair, I'd guess he had one of the most recognizable backs Margaret was likely to see.

[Pallas]

3 hours ago, secnarf said:

What speech are you referring to?

Cecil Beaton's quoting Shakespeare to the assembled royals as he poses them. 

"This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."

-- Richard II, Act 2, scene 1. 

[AimingforYoko]

I posted this in another forum, years ago, but it applies here. In an interview with Sir Ben Kingsley, he was asked what the main difference was between acting on stage vs. film and he said, "Stillness. Many times on film you are required to act while being very still." The best example of this was Claire Foy in the snow. She's not moving, not changing expression, not even moving her eyes, yet you get everything she's feeling in that moment.

I'm fairly excited to see her Lisbeth Salender.

[VCRTracking]

12 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

I posted this in another forum, years ago, but it applies here. In an interview with Sir Ben Kingsley, he was asked what the main difference was between acting on stage vs. film and he said, "Stillness. Many times on film you are required to act while being very still." The best example of this was Claire Foy in the snow. She's not moving, not changing expression, not even moving her eyes, yet you get everything she's feeling in that moment.

I'm fairly excited to see her Lisbeth Salender.

When Adaene told Elizabeth that portraits of Phillip were found at Ward's and that Ward was a member of the Thursday Club, the only time I've seen such rage in a person's eyes was in Godfather Part II when Kay tells Michael she had an abortion!

[LilJen]

Elizabeth seemed very alone in the birth scene--why was Philip standing like 10 feet away??

They should have recruited Chummy and Sister Evangelina.

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, LilJen said:

Elizabeth seemed very alone in the birth scene--why was Philip standing like 10 feet away??

Fathers rarely participated in their child's birth back then.

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

Fathers rarely participated in their child's birth back then.

No, but I was surprised that he wasn't pacing the hallway when Andrew was born. I'm more used to the fathers pacing the hallway outside waiting for their baby to be born back then. So it was a surprise to see him off playing at the time. But maybe that was normal for Philip and others?  

[dubbel zout]

I think that was probably to show that the relationship between Elizabeth and Philip had gotten closer and stronger.

[Athena]

According to the Independent and a book about the royal marriage, Prince Philip was there for Prince Edward's birth:

Quote

"The Duke of Edinburgh was actually holding his wife's hand as their youngest was born on March 10, 1964. The Queen, by then aged 37, had asked him to be there; she'd been keenly reading women's magazines that stressed the importance of involving fathers in childbirth and had become fascinated by the idea. Thus Philip became the first royal father in modern history to witness the arrival of one of his children ... Compassion comes from the Queen. And the duty and discipline comes from him Philip

I wish they had held hands on the show now.

[CousinAmy]

18 minutes ago, Athena said:

According to the Independent and a book about the royal marriage, Prince Philip was there for Prince Edward's birth:

I wish they had held hands on the show now.

I'm not sure we should believe this - who else was in the room while Elizabeth was giving birth to state this? Doctors, nurses; who blabbed? 

 

After three childbirths, I wonder if she gave birth in a bed, or if there was a delivery room specifically set up in the Castle? I think Diana had the right idea, opting for a hospital birth.

[Cara]

2 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

No, but I was surprised that he wasn't pacing the hallway when Andrew was born. I'm more used to the fathers pacing the hallway outside waiting for their baby to be born back then. So it was a surprise to see him off playing at the time. But maybe that was normal for Philip and others?  

Most likely the Squash Court was located inside the palace. So he was probably just downstairs. I think playing  squash is a more effective way to burn nervous energy than just pacing.

[biakbiak]

4 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

I'm not sure we should believe this - who else was in the room while Elizabeth was giving birth to state this? Doctors, nurses; who blabbed? 

 

After three childbirths, I wonder if she gave birth in a bed, or if there was a delivery room specifically set up in the Castle? I think Diana had the right idea, opting for a hospital birth.

Yes, there was a special delivery room set up at the palace. Charles was apparently the first birth that the Home Secretary didn't attend. The squash detail is apparently from Charles's birth and the court was inside the palace.

Edited December 28, 2017 by biakbiak

[Blakeston]

While I certainly understand the disadvantages to putting an expectant mother to sleep and using forceps, the technique had its fans.

My friend's mother had several kids in the early '50s. She then had my friend in the mid-'60s, and it was definitely not a planned pregnancy.

She loved the old way. She would say, "It was the most wonderful thing - you'd go to sleep, and then you'd wake up with a baby!" When she realized that she was going to be awake for her final delivery, her reaction was "I'm 42 years old - get me out of here!"

She passed away last year, and she was adamant until the end that it was cruel to make her experience that delivery while conscious.

[CousinAmy]

5 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Yes, there was a special delivery room set up at the palace. Charles was apparently the first birth that the Home Secretary didn't attend. The squash detail is apparently from Charles's birth and the court was inside the palace.

I was reading articles on Wikipedia this evening (I know! But I just wanted a quick overview of the Royal castles) and came across the fact that Alexandra (daughter of Marina) was the first Royal birth at which the HS was not present, in the mid-1930s. At the time she was born, Alexandra was 6th in line to the throne.

2 hours ago, Blakeston said:

While I certainly understand the disadvantages to putting an expectant mother to sleep and using forceps, the technique had its fans.

My friend's mother had several kids in the early '50s. She then had my friend in the mid-'60s, and it was definitely not a planned pregnancy.

She loved the old way. She would say, "It was the most wonderful thing - you'd go to sleep, and then you'd wake up with a baby!" When she realized that she was going to be awake for her final delivery, her reaction was "I'm 42 years old - get me out of here!"

She passed away last year, and she was adamant until the end that it was cruel to make her experience that delivery while conscious.

My mom had Twilight Sleep for both my brother and me, in 1946 & 1949, and she told me that she experienced excruciating pain, but when she woke up she didn't remember any of it. 

[kimberwatch]

Jumping in to say thank you so much for these Old School Recaps. I very happily read each after the corresponding episode and they not only agreed with my own emotional reaction (oh, the man pain) but also did my historical research for me and filled in the dialogue that I couldn't make out on my own. Fug Girls, you continue to amaze and delight! I'm one happy campaign contributor!

[MJ Frog]

On 12/23/2017 at 9:44 AM, Clanstarling said:

I can't remember the moment now, but I think it was in the confrontation with Phillip, Claire Foy was so brilliant. Not a word, and her face fell, broke, and tightened up again. So many emotions.

I am completely fascinated by her ability to convey so much seemingly without doing anything. With little to no apparent change in expression, we somehow see all these shadows passing under the surface before she breaks. Vanessa Kirby did something similar in the first season when Elizabeth delayed her marriage to Peter Townsend for the umpteenth time. Again, her expression barely changed, but there was this undeniable transformation where every emotion was fully visible. 

"How do they do this?" I asks myself. Surely it must be witchcraft.

Also, Philip, if Elizabeth is your job, I would be inclined to give you a shitty performance review.

After putting it off for weeks I have finally watched the last episode. Damn. Now what?

Edited December 29, 2017 by MJ Frog
Word order matters.

[CousinAmy]

2 hours ago, MJ Frog said:

I am completely fascinated by her ability to convey so much without seemingly doing anything. With little to no apparent change in expression, we somehow see all these shadows passing under the surface before she breaks. Vanessa Kirby did something similar in the first season when Elizabeth delayed her marriage to Peter Townsend for the umpteenth time. Again, her expression barely changed, but there was this undeniable transformation where every emotion was fully visible. 

"How do they do this?" I asks myself. Surely it must be witchcraft.

Also, Philip, if Elizabeth is your job, I would be inclined to give you a shitty performance review.

After putting it off for weeks I have finally watched the last episode. Damn. Now what?

Victoria starts on PBS in a few weeks. They are rerunning the first season now.

[MJ Frog]

1 hour ago, CousinAmy said:

Victoria starts on PBS in a few weeks. They are rerunning the first season now.

Ah, very good. I enjoyed the first season.

[PeterPirate]

11 hours ago, MJ Frog said:

After putting it off for weeks I have finally watched the last episode. Damn. Now what?

My niece suggested I watch Reign.  After watching a few episodes I gave up, because it's for girls.   Today I chanced upon The Last Kingdom, which is better suited for pirates.  Both are on Netflix.  

Edited December 30, 2017 by PeterPirate

[katha]

What makes me kinda angry about this show is that it seems like one giant missed opportunity IMO. It seems like they didn't know what to do with Elizabeth, so for large parts of two seasons she was just reacting passively to things. Margaret got the soap opera spoilt brat storyline without any nuance. I think Philip's narrative could have been interesting, since the phenomenon they're trying to describe has taken its visible toll on many royal spouses, particularly those with stricter protocol. You think giving up your job is something you can do, but then the reality is different than the theory and your whole existence seems useless to you and you try to cope. In the Netherlands, the husband fell into a depression, it's known that the spouse in Denmark hasn't taken to his role with very good grace. The horror of what happened in Japan with Masako (though of course their protocol seems to be really, really unforgiving...), Letizia of Spain for years looking as if all life had been drained out of her (and though she seems to be doing much better now and has found purpose for herself, IMO she still seems very careful and restrained in her actions as a queen). So it's an interesting story to tell: A man coping with what he perceives as giving up his very existence and trying to keep busy etc. since he comes from a generation that didn't take kindly to men showing "emotional weakness". But did we get that? Not really. Instead there was a lot of petty, frivolous nonsense.

[Pallas]

6 hours ago, katha said:

I think Philip's narrative could have been interesting, since the phenomenon they're trying to describe has taken its visible toll on many royal spouses, particularly those with stricter protocol. You think giving up your job is something you can do, but then the reality is different than the theory and your whole existence seems useless to you and you try to cope. In the Netherlands, the husband fell into a depression, it's known that the spouse in Denmark hasn't taken to his role with very good grace. The horror of what happened in Japan with Masako (though of course their protocol seems to be really, really unforgiving...), Letizia of Spain for years looking as if all life had been drained out of her (and though she seems to be doing much better now and has found purpose for herself, IMO she still seems very careful and restrained in her actions as a queen). So it's an interesting story to tell: A man coping with what he perceives as giving up his very existence and trying to keep busy etc. since he comes from a generation that didn't take kindly to men showing "emotional weakness". But did we get that? Not really. Instead there was a lot of petty, frivolous nonsense.

Well said. George VI was in his mid-forties when Philip began to court Elizabeth, and not yet 56 when he died: Philip had every reason to believe he would be able to make a full career of the navy, perhaps achieving the rank of First Sea Lord like his uncle and great-uncle before him. And for him the navy was no "no-show" job. At 19 he had graduated as the best cadet in his course at the Royal Naval College, and immediately went on to a distinguished wartime service in combat, eventually followed by his posting to Malta and command of a frigate with a crew of 192. Then, as he turned 30: mothballed before his first gray hair.

As katha points out, retirement is frequently, famously, no picnic.  Not then, not now. To have held executive power and real life-and-death responsibility when young --- and as part of a common effort -- then to look forward to a lifetime as an exquisite escort and host? Many of the women who had contributed to the war effort, then were cashiered into domesticity during the careerist, comformist 1950's, were also daunted.

The show rightfully makes much of how Elizabeth (and her father) had been left unprepared for the responsibilities she assumed. What of her spouse, who held no official responsibilities, and whose role seems to have been given no thought by the Royal Household who rule the Royal House? No thought, perhaps, but what seems to have been a inflexible, tacit motto -- No Albert on My Watch -- and a reflexive opposition to a royal yet royally non-Establishment figure.

Katha details how Philip was not at all the last heir or consort to find himself unsupported in his supportive role, including those born into The Firm. There's only one top job; in fact, there's really only one real job, at all. The freedom to create your own is in direct proportion to your remove from the crown and/or line of succession (i.e., the Princess Royal), and the approval or disinterest of those ahead in line. And it seems that the Household has historically decided that defining the role of consort is not only unseemly, it's undesirable. 

As for the marriage? I suspect many people married for decades would agree that in hindsight, the first ten years were a shake-down cruise, one that often nearly ran aground. On that journey, Philip seems to have found his sea-legs.

[latetotheparty]

On 12/28/2017 at 10:43 PM, kimberwatch said:

Jumping in to say thank you so much for these Old School Recaps. I very happily read each after the corresponding episode and they not only agreed with my own emotional reaction (oh, the man pain) but also did my historical research for me and filled in the dialogue that I couldn't make out on my own. Fug Girls, you continue to amaze and delight! I'm one happy campaign contributor!

Same. I actually like podcasts but have hearing issues so I always need a transcript. It the best of both worlds. Thank you!

[CousinAmy]

1 hour ago, Pallas said:

Well said. George VI was in his mid-forties when Philip began to court Elizabeth, and not yet 56 when he died: Philip had every reason to believe he would be able to make a full career of the navy, perhaps achieving the rank of First Sea Lord like his uncle and great-uncle before him. And for him the navy was no "no-show" job. At 19 he had graduated as the best cadet in his course at the Royal Naval College, and immediately went on to a distinguished wartime service in combat, eventually followed by his posting to Malta and command of a frigate with a crew of 192. Then, as he turned 30: mothballed before his first gray hair.

As katha points out, retirement is frequently, famously, no picnic.  Not then, not now. To have held executive power and real life-and-death responsibility when young --- and as part of a common effort -- then to look forward to a lifetime as an exquisite escort and host? Many of the women who had contributed to the war effort, then were cashiered into domesticity during the careerist, comformist 1950's, were also daunted.

The show rightfully makes much of how Elizabeth (and her father) had been left unprepared for the responsibilities she assumed. What of her spouse, who held no official responsibilities, and whose role seems to have been given no thought by the Royal Household who rule the Royal House? No thought, perhaps, but what seems to have been a inflexible, tacit motto -- No Albert on My Watch -- and a reflexive opposition to a royal yet royally non-Establishment figure.

Katha details how Philip was not at all the last heir or consort to find himself unsupported in his supportive role, including those born into The Firm. There's only one top job; in fact, there's really only one real job, at all. The freedom to create your own is in direct proportion to your remove from the crown and/or line of succession (i.e., the Princess Royal), and the approval or disinterest of those ahead in line. And it seems that the Household has historically decided that defining the role of consort is not only unseemly, it's undesirable. 

As for the marriage? I suspect many people married for decades would agree that in hindsight, the first ten years were a shake-down cruise, one that often nearly ran aground. On that journey, Philip seems to have found his sea-legs.

For a man of his times, King George lived a fairly long life. (Remember when FDR created Social Security, people weren't expected to live past 65.) Neither of my grandfather's, born in the 19th Century, lived long enough to collect. My dad and his 3 brothers died at 39, 49, 55, and 56.) And Philip was no stranger to Court life. He lived at Windsor Castle with his grandmother for a time! He would have known all about Kings, Queens, Princesses and Consorts.

I think Charles changed what a Royal was "supposed to do." Personal life aside, he's been extremely active in his causes, especially environmental issues. If he ever makes it to King - I think Liz will outlast him - I can see him keeping that up as a vision for the future.

Too bad Philip was such a complainer. That trip he was sent on was the adventure of a lifetime. And he had freedom and plenty of money. I think he should have had more Grace, and treated his lovely young wife better.

[dubbel zout]

3 hours ago, Pallas said:

Many of the women who had contributed to the war effort, then were cashiered into domesticity during the careerist, comformist 1950's, were also daunted.

Able bodies were so desperately needed for the war effort that even—gasp!—women had to go to work. And as soon as the war was over, those women were unceremoniously dumped to make room for the returning men.

I know Philip had a big adjustment, but there were things he could do as prince consort. He just seemed to be unwilling to do those things, especially in the beginning. Instead he focused way too much on what he wasn't able to do, which probably made it difficult for anyone to be open to him pushing the envelope a bit.

[tennisgurl]

I still dont think Philip actually cheated, but I think the show wanted to throw out the idea that he might have had a wandering eye. More dramatic I guess. Really, I think I tend to be more sympathetic to Philip than a lot of people, but I think there was a real missed opportunity with him this season. They clearly wanted to do a story about a man whos only job is supporting his wife (basically) and how that affected him, they focused WAY too much on him complaining and sulking and bitching to his wife about every damn thing to make the audience really feel for him. I thought his best stuff was when it focused on his past, or his more playful interactions with Elizabeth, or how he tried to live up to the ideals of being a father and husband, but clearly struggled with it. Unfortunately, they focused so much on the complaining, that it hurt his character overall. I wish they had this conversation at the end of last year, instead of now, so we can focus more on those aspects of Philip, and not the complaining. 

The reconciliation scene between Elizabeth and Philip was really well acted though. I know they have to cut ahead in time now, but I wish we could spend next season with the same actors, being allowed to be more connected. 

On the other hand, Margaret is just being ridiculous, and I loved when Elizabeth called her selfish. Yeah, they're all just jealous of your nice apartment, Margarte. Its not that your bothering everyone with your huge ass renovations thats making a huge mess and tons of noise at all times of day/night. Alright then. And she and Tony are already pretty much bored with each other. What a surprise. 

I've always thought that MacMillian was rather wormy (ever since he threw Eden under the bus for the whole Egypt debacle), so him quitting when things got too hard wasn't surprising. However, his wife is still FAR worse than he is. What an awful slime ball she is. 

I did love the ending where the whole royal family was taking a picture, and it really seemed like any family trying to take a family portrait. Kids fidgeting, babies crying, everyone moving around arguing about where people are standing and how everyone looks, until someone finally yells "just take the stupid picture already!" or something. Except, with Shakespeare quotes. Which makes it better. 

I will really miss this cast, and while I am still looking forward to the next season and seeing more of the modernization of the monarchy (which will hopefully give Philip something to do!) it just wont seem like The Crown without Claire Foy and the rest of the cast.  

[CousinAmy]

9 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I still dont think Philip actually cheated, but I think the show wanted to throw out the idea that he might have had a wandering eye. More dramatic I guess. Really, I think I tend to be more sympathetic to Philip than a lot of people, but I think there was a real missed opportunity with him this season. They clearly wanted to do a story about a man whos only job is supporting his wife (basically) and how that affected him, they focused WAY too much on him complaining and sulking and bitching to his wife about every damn thing to make the audience really feel for him. I thought his best stuff was when it focused on his past, or his more playful interactions with Elizabeth, or how he tried to live up to the ideals of being a father and husband, but clearly struggled with it. Unfortunately, they focused so much on the complaining, that it hurt his character overall. I wish they had this conversation at the end of last year, instead of now, so we can focus more on those aspects of Philip, and not the complaining. 

The reconciliation scene between Elizabeth and Philip was really well acted though. I know they have to cut ahead in time now, but I wish we could spend next season with the same actors, being allowed to be more connected. 

On the other hand, Margaret is just being ridiculous, and I loved when Elizabeth called her selfish. Yeah, they're all just jealous of your nice apartment, Margarte. Its not that your bothering everyone with your huge ass renovations thats making a huge mess and tons of noise at all times of day/night. Alright then. And she and Tony are already pretty much bored with each other. What a surprise. 

I've always thought that MacMillian was rather wormy (ever since he threw Eden under the bus for the whole Egypt debacle), so him quitting when things got too hard wasn't surprising. However, his wife is still FAR worse than he is. What an awful slime ball she is. 

I did love the ending where the whole royal family was taking a picture, and it really seemed like any family trying to take a family portrait. Kids fidgeting, babies crying, everyone moving around arguing about where people are standing and how everyone looks, until someone finally yells "just take the stupid picture already!" or something. Except, with Shakespeare quotes. Which makes it better. 

I will really miss this cast, and while I am still looking forward to the next season and seeing more of the modernization of the monarchy (which will hopefully give Philip something to do!) it just wont seem like The Crown without Claire Foy and the rest of the cast.  

Sometimes these historical fiction series lose me when their "history" bumps up against my own. We reached a point in Mad Men - 1967-68 - when I could remember what I was doing during those episodes. And with The Crown, I have memories of the Queen as a young mom, like mine, in the 1950s, but I'm not really fascinated by the late 1960s. Been there, done that. Can't wait for Victoria on PBS next week.

[katha]

13 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

Too bad Philip was such a complainer. That trip he was sent on was the adventure of a lifetime. And he had freedom and plenty of money. I think he should have had more Grace, and treated his lovely young wife better.

That was my point, the show IMO totally wasted an opportunity here. All we saw was Philip having a hissy fit. It's too bad that apparently the writers don't have enough imagination to think up how an internal conflict might play out that goes beyond just shallow nonsense like that. I think all the characters were really let down by the writing, but here it was especially stark. When you read accounts of the royal family during that time, it's clear that Philip was very much an outsider in the household, faced a lot of hostility and many of his efforts to change, modernize things were rebuffed. Ditto with him trying to find a role for himself. As time went on, I think his sheer relentlessness ground some of that resistance down and he found a role for himself that satisfied him. But it was tough going at the beginning. I think the reality was actually way more interesting than what they have presented here in fictional form, is my point, I guess.

[Roseanna]

13 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Really, I think I tend to be more sympathetic to Philip than a lot of people, but I think there was a real missed opportunity with him this season. They clearly wanted to do a story about a man whos only job is supporting his wife (basically) and how that affected him, they focused WAY too much on him complaining and sulking and bitching to his wife about every damn thing to make the audience really feel for him. I thought his best stuff was when it focused on his past, or his more playful interactions with Elizabeth, or how he tried to live up to the ideals of being a father and husband, but clearly struggled with it. Unfortunately, they focused so much on the complaining, that it hurt his character overall. I wish they had this conversation at the end of last year, instead of now, so we can focus more on those aspects of Philip, and not the complaining. 

 

2 hours ago, katha said:

That was my point, the show IMO totally wasted an opportunity here. All we saw was Philip having a hissy fit. It's too bad that apparently the writers don't have enough imagination to think up how an internal conflict might play out that goes beyond just shallow nonsense like that. I think all the characters were really let down by the writing, but here it was especially stark. When you read accounts of the royal family during that time, it's clear that Philip was very much an outsider in the household, faced a lot of hostility and many of his efforts to change, modernize things were rebuffed. Ditto with him trying to find a role for himself. As time went on, I think his sheer relentlessness ground some of that resistance down and he found a role for himself that satisfied him. But it was tough going at the beginning. I think the reality was actually way more interesting than what they have presented here in fictional form, is my point, I guess.

I agree with you both. 

However, I want to add that S1 was better written. We saw the wedding ceremony where Elizabeth had insisted to use the word "obey" and their happy early marriage according to the traditional gender roles. And then the sudden change when Elizabeth became the Queen and Philip tried to make suggestions, indeed demands (surname, staying in the palace that he had decorated ) but was won by Churchill, the Queen Mother and Tommy Lascelles. And before the Coronation Philip didn't want to kneel before his wife and Elizabeth, finding her spine, made him do it. So Philip's development to a man who had nothing to do than complain and enjoy himself was in S1 motivated.

But in S2 we saw no fighting between Philip and "Moustaches", except the humilating way he was ordered to behave in Lisbon. But when Elizabeth accepted his terms and made him a Prince, we was not shosw, whether "Moustaches" treated him better after this. Before all, there was any reason why Philip in ep10 he behaved like his realationship with his wife was so bad that he didn't tell her beforehand about his journey to Switzerland.  It was as if the end of Vergangenheit where paid tribute to his wife's abilities had never existed!        

[Clanstarling]

6 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

Sometimes these historical fiction series lose me when their "history" bumps up against my own. We reached a point in Mad Men - 1967-68 - when I could remember what I was doing during those episodes. And with The Crown, I have memories of the Queen as a young mom, like mine, in the 1950s, but I'm not really fascinated by the late 1960s. Been there, done that. Can't wait for Victoria on PBS next week.

For me it's just the opposite. When it comes to Mad Men, for example, I'm Sally Draper's age, so I was fascinated to see a different take on "my" experiences than mine. Of course, I had a really odd childhood, and was out of the country for most of the 60's - so even though I know the news highlights, the societal norms were foreign to me. So very little of watching shows about the 60's and 70's (when I was back in the US) feels like been there done that to me.

In The Crown, the differences in perspective regarding world events are also interesting to me (not so much the Kennedys, which many of us have complained about, but more the opinions of Churchill and Eden on the US and the fight for the control of global dominance.)

[dubbel zout]

15 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

For me it's just the opposite. When it comes to Mad Men, for example, I'm Sally Draper's age, so I was fascinated to see a different take on "my" experiences than mine. Of course, I had a really odd childhood, and was out of the country for most of the 60's - so even though I know the news highlights, the societal norms were foreign to me. So very little of watching shows about the 60's and 70's (when I was back in the US) feels like been there done that to me.

@Clanstarling, are you me? I was out of the country for first through fifth grades (late '60s/early '70s) and had the same experience. My family could have stayed overseas longer, but my parents started getting concerned about us kids completely losing touch when we didn't know what nickels and dimes were anymore. At that point they decided we'd be better off back in the States and reconnecting with our Americanness, so we packed up and returned. (It also made sense because my older brother was soon to enter high school, and there was a terrible hard-drug problem. Boarding school wouldn't have been an option.)

In a weird way, the British cultural references are more vaguely familiar to me than the American ones, as Britain was the English-speaking country closer to where we lived.

[tennisgurl]

That’s so interesting, because I’m only now getting to the point where things in my childhood I remember are showing up as historical fiction (I was born in 1990) and I think it’s fascinating! I’ve always loved historical fiction, especially from the 1940s-1960s, because it all seemed to be so different than what I’ve experienced, and I love getting different perspectives on things I didn’t live through, but have heard a lot about. I kinda can’t wait for more historical pieces from the 90s/00s to come out so I can see what it’s like to actually be all “yeah, I remember that...”

[CousinAmy]

20 hours ago, Stacey1014 said:

Is this the same series that aired on the Smithsonian Channel earlier this year?

 

1 hour ago, tennisgurl said:

That’s so interesting, because I’m only now getting to the point where things in my childhood I remember are showing up as historical fiction (I was born in 1990) and I think it’s fascinating! I’ve always loved historical fiction, especially from the 1940s-1960s, because it all seemed to be so different than what I’ve experienced, and I love getting different perspectives on things I didn’t live through, but have heard a lot about. I kinda can’t wait for more historical pieces from the 90s/00s to come out so I can see what it’s like to actually be all “yeah, I remember that...”

Just remember it's fiction so make sure you double-check anything you see! (We knew within an hour that Kennedy had died, for example, so there's no way that Elizabeth and famiky had to wait for hours to confirm.)

[Magnumfangirl]

I just finished series 2 and I have to agree with others here that it was not as good as series 1.  Series 2 just made everybody seem so miserable.  By the end, the Queen was the only one left with any likeablity; and she was unhappy most of the time.  When you look at pictures from this era, they all have big smiles on their faces and look like they are having fun.  I know a lot of that was for PR purposes, but some of the pics are candid shots!  This show just wants us to see them as a bunch of pathetic sad sacks.  Even at 91, when the Queen is seen in public she looks like a happy upbeat person.  It's always been said that the Queen has a wicked sense of humor and laughs a lot, but we've seen none of that on the show.  They've made it all so dreary, the last 4 episodes were boring.  

[Clanstarling]

2 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

@Clanstarling, are you me? I was out of the country for first through fifth grades (late '60s/early '70s) and had the same experience. My family could have stayed overseas longer, but my parents started getting concerned about us kids completely losing touch when we didn't know what nickels and dimes were anymore. At that point they decided we'd be better off back in the States and reconnecting with our Americanness, so we packed up and returned. (It also made sense because my older brother was soon to enter high school, and there was a terrible hard-drug problem. Boarding school wouldn't have been an option.)

In a weird way, the British cultural references are more vaguely familiar to me than the American ones, as Britain was the English-speaking country closer to where we lived.

More like your older brother. :) I left in the 4th grade and came back when I was in the 10th (mid-60's - 1970).  America was a completely different place by the time we returned, wasn't it? We were a military family, so we never lost touch with nickels and dimes (small and large popcorn at the base theater).

[dubbel zout]

My dad was a businessman, so we didn't have PX privileges and were massively jealous of those who did. Peanut butter! Hi-C! Chocolate chips! We missed the weirdest things, but they were things that reminded us of home.

[Anothermi]

7 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

Just remember it's fiction so make sure you double-check anything you see! (We knew within an hour that Kennedy had died, for example, so there's no way that Elizabeth and family had to wait for hours to confirm.)

Here is an article the explains why British TV was so slow to deliver the news.  This WAS, after all, the 1st crisis news story where people expected television to deliver the facts to them. And it seems it broadsided the new medium.

[VCRTracking]

On 12/30/2017 at 1:21 PM, dubbel zout said:

On 12/30/2017 at 9:59 AM, Pallas said:

Many of the women who had contributed to the war effort, then were cashiered into domesticity during the careerist, comformist 1950's, were also daunted.

Able bodies were so desperately needed for the war effort that even—gasp!—women had to go to work. And as soon as the war was over, those women were unceremoniously dumped to make room for the returning men.

Men returning with PTSD. The 50s slogan should be "Let's all pretend everything's fine when it's not."

Edited January 1, 2018 by VCRTracking

[VCRTracking]

On 12/31/2017 at 9:15 AM, Magnumfangirl said:

I just finished series 2 and I have to agree with others here that it was not as good as series 1.  Series 2 just made everybody seem so miserable.  By the end, the Queen was the only one left with any likeablity; and she was unhappy most of the time.  When you look at pictures from this era, they all have big smiles on their faces and look like they are having fun.  I know a lot of that was for PR purposes, but some of the pics are candid shots!  This show just wants us to see them as a bunch of pathetic sad sacks.  Even at 91, when the Queen is seen in public she looks like a happy upbeat person.  It's always been said that the Queen has a wicked sense of humor and laughs a lot, but we've seen none of that on the show.  They've made it all so dreary, the last 4 episodes were boring. 

There's that Elizabeth at 90 documentary where Elizabeth and Charles, Anne, William and Henry look at old home movies and videos and they seem like a regular family.

Edited January 1, 2018 by VCRTracking

[Mystical chick]

On 12/29/2017 at 11:55 AM, MJ Frog said:

Also, Philip, if Elizabeth is your job, I would be inclined to give you a shitty performance review. 

YES! Seriously, could he have been shittier if he tried? No love here at all for Philip. All love for the Queen. (And Claire Foy who owned this role with her perfection.)

[Magnumfangirl]

10 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

There's that Elizabeth at 90 documentary where Elizabeth and Charles, Anne, William and Henry look at old home movies and videos and they seem like a regular family.

Yes, they should put some of that sort of thing in the show.  As it is, they aren't doing much to humanize the queen or any of them.

[CousinAmy]

The Netflix docu-series on The Royal House of Windsor is a great fact-checker to this series. Apparently there were many efforts on the part of Philip to modernize the Monarchy, and he did go up against the Queen Mum and the Palace Guard. But he also was an intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-spoken man, with matinee idol's looks, and not quite the whiny child that Matt Smith portrayed. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎30‎.‎12‎.‎2017 at 11:54 PM, tennisgurl said:

I still dont think Philip actually cheated, but I think the show wanted to throw out the idea that he might have had a wandering eye. 

Well, there has been a lot of rumours irl.

As for the show, the last scene didn't at all convince me that he hadn't cheated. In S1 Elizabeth asked whether he can say that he hadn't loved anybody but her - and he was silent, not saying "Not since we married". And Philip's jealousy to Porchy could be explained that a person who cheats suspects that others do it also.

The strongest indication is IMO his 5-month journey. There are men who can be faithful when being even longer time apart from their wives, but I don't think that Philip was such a man.  Also, the morality of the time accepted men's affairs.

I don't like the defence "it was only sex", but I think that to a man like Philip it was true.    

[Blakeston]

On 12/30/2017 at 2:45 PM, CousinAmy said:

For a man of his times, King George lived a fairly long life. (Remember when FDR created Social Security, people weren't expected to live past 65.) Neither of my grandfather's, born in the 19th Century, lived long enough to collect. My dad and his 3 brothers died at 39, 49, 55, and 56.) And Philip was no stranger to Court life. He lived at Windsor Castle with his grandmother for a time! He would have known all about Kings, Queens, Princesses and Consorts.

I think he was generally expected to live significantly longer than he did. Unlike most men of his time, he had limitless means, and access to the world's top doctors (even though some of them weren't as good as they were cracked up to be). His father lived to 70, his mother lived to 85, his brother David lived to be 77, and his wife lived to be 101.

[TexasGal]

On 12/29/2017 at 10:08 PM, PeterPirate said:

My niece suggested I watch Reign.  After watching a few episodes I gave up, because it's for girls.   Today I chanced upon The Last Kingdom, which is better suited for pirates.  Both are on Netflix.  

I may have to watch some of that, just to see what pirates prefer in royal series.

[Scarlett45]

14 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Well, there has been a lot of rumours irl.

As for the show, the last scene didn't at all convince me that he hadn't cheated. In S1 Elizabeth asked whether he can say that he hadn't loved anybody but her - and he was silent, not saying "Not since we married". And Philip's jealousy to Porchy could be explained that a person who cheats suspects that others do it also.

The strongest indication is IMO his 5-month journey. There are men who can be faithful when being even longer time apart from their wives, but I don't think that Philip was such a man.  Also, the morality of the time accepted men's affairs.

I don't like the defence "it was only sex", but I think that to a man like Philip it was true.    

I’m not someone who believes ALL men cheat, or all married people cheat- but statistically I think it’s likely he had sex with women that weren’t Elizabeth after they were married. Rich, powerful men have tons of options for good looking glamorous women, AND he was away from his wife for months at a time. Yeah he probably had a raunchy good time with women (including some prostitutes) while on his trip.

Do I think he ever loved any of his sex partners? No I don’t. Do I think he may had long term mistresses and emotional attachment to them (but not love)? No I don’t think that either. Yeah I think there as probably just sex and that’s all it was; not as a defense but as a fact.

In the case of his friend, the technical reason for his divorce was adultery, but the big social crime was getting caught (if you loved and respected your wife you didn’t embarrass her like that) AND neglecting your home/wife so much she cared that you had casual sex elsewhere. Men were allowed to screw around but that didn’t excuse their responsibilities towards their wife/home. Not saying I want to live this way just stating how it was. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎1‎.‎1‎.‎2018 at 8:38 PM, VCRTracking said:

There's that Elizabeth at 90 documentary where Elizabeth and Charles, Anne, William and Henry look at old home movies and videos and they seem like a regular family.

But didn't those films happen in the 60ies? Philip long journeys in the late 50ies show that there were difficulties in the marriage before Andrew and Edward were born. And Elizabeth treated them in the different matter than Charles and Anne. 

[VCRTracking]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

But didn't those films happen in the 60ies? Philip long journeys in the late 50ies show that there were difficulties in the marriage before Andrew and Edward were born. And Elizabeth treated them in the different matter than Charles and Anne. 

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!

Edited January 3, 2018 by VCRTracking

[CousinAmy]

As a child the same age as Charles and Anne, I remember seeing pictures and even film clips of the young family. Now I can see it's possible this was part of Philip's plan to make the Queen look more contemporary and "modern." Or maybe these were all candid photos that the Royal photographer just happened to "catch."

It's so hard being a cynic. I do want to believe in the fairytale.

[Scarlett45]

7 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

As a child the same age as Charles and Anne, I remember seeing pictures and even film clips of the young family. Now I can see it's possible this was part of Philip's plan to make the Queen look more contemporary and "modern." Or maybe these were all candid photos that the Royal photographer just happened to "catch."

It's so hard being a cynic. I do want to believe in the fairytale.

I think the Queen probably did have happy carefree moments with her kids (like shown) but day to day they were raised (both nurtured and disciplined) by the staff. I’m sure Charles and Anne knew their parents loved and cared about them but parenting them was a priority AFTER royal duties (not saying Charles and Anne were neglected in anyway). 

[TomServo]

On 12/23/2017 at 2:27 PM, WatchrTina said:

I have to disagree.  I just re-watched the episode where Elizabeth finds the photo of the ballerina and while her hands (and her purse and the briefcase) cannot be seen due to the close-up shot, my interpretation was that she put the photo back in the briefcase where she found it -- not in her purse.  The recap for that episode agrees.  It says:

So my question posted earlier still stands.  I have to wonder how that photo came to be in that drawer in that place (a Balmoral guest-house) at that climactic moment.  I'll hand-wave it away for the sake of good drama but you have to get into some willful suspension of disbelief to credit its being there.

The short answer is because it would have been really boring to watch all those minutes of Philip sitting around waiting for Elizabeth to walk down to the main house, retrieve the photo, and walk back, so all that was edited out for time.  :)

It's been several years and a child and a half since Elizabeth took that photo out of the briefcase.  There's no reason to think it would still be in the briefcase. or that he even uses the same briefcase.  Philip or Elizabeth could have put it in that drawer at the guest house at some point.