S02.E09: Paterfamilias

[PeterPirate]

I can well imagine that we'll be seeing Young Philip and Young Elizabeth again, in flashbacks about how they met.  Although the two actors who have played them already might be a tad too young.  

Edited December 16, 2017 by PeterPirate

[kaygeeret]

This was such a horrible episode on a couple of levels - both Philip and Charles had horrific childhoods albeit in different ways.

I have been feeling a bit softer towards Philip whom I have always thought of as yet another royal dolt, but I do think he was one of the folks who like to keep moving and have things to do - we all know people like that. I enjoy lots of private and 'still time', but that is not true of everyone.  The folks who need stuff to do all the time, really need to have stuff to do all the time - stuff that matters a bit.

Instead he is married to a woman who apparently never even talks to him about 'stuff'.  While I get that gigantic state secrets can't be shared surely the ordinary stuff of day to day issues can be talked over.  The queen is presented as one of the iciest people in her private life I have ever seen on a screen. So he has nothing to do and his wife is busy all the time doing stuff he can't be involved in and they apparently never talk because...well..what can they talk about.  I'm surprised there weren't bigger scandals.

And Phil is left with, it appears, literally nothing to do and all day to do it in.  He was bound to get into trouble and be a ginormous pain in the ass.

Charles is a victim of both his mother's remoteness and iciness and Phil's discontent.  Phil's authority finally proved in sentencing Charles to that horrific place for 6 miserable years.  Edward and Andrew are different people and perhaps the school had learned it's lesson with Charles.  Anyway Andrew by all accounts is almost too dumb to tie his own shoes so he may not  have noticed anything.

I have been a bit surprised and shocked by the very real entitlement and arrogance shown by various members of the royal family and other members of the aristocracy.  I guess they really believe they deserve all of their 'stuff'.  Basically they are all just a bunch of "trust fund babies".

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, kaygeeret said:

and they apparently never talk because...well..what can they talk about. 

About their hobbies. Unfortunately, Philip isn't interested in horses and Elizabeth doesn't like the sea. 

[Calvada]

I thought the Queen Mother was the recipient of Charles' anguish about the hell that was Gordonstoun.  I thought it odd they didn't show her, but instead Uncle Dickie.

An inaccuracy that bugs me - Charles and Anne (and I presume Andrew and Edward) did not call Philip Daddy.  They call him Papa.  If you watch the documentary about the Queen at 90, she is shown watching old family movies with Charles and constantly referring to Philip as Papa.

In that documentary, they show a woman Charles refers to as Aunt Tiny (or maybe Teeny?), who was one of Philip's sisters, probably in the mid 1950s.  Her son, Karl, was shown playing with a young Charles.  Karl appeared to be 16-20, somewhere in that age range, a blond kid who looked a lot like the actor playing the young Philip.  So it seems that the Royal Family had some interaction with Philip's family.  Didn't his mother spend her last years at Buckingham Palace?

[dubbel zout]

Philip didn't hate his sisters; they didn't have much of a relationship simply because of the age differences. His four sisters were 7, 10, 15, and 16 years older than he. Plus, all of them married pretty young, so they were out of the house by the time he was beyond young childhood. After the war I think everyone could afford to relax a bit, and as long as the sisters and their families made private visits, I don't think anyone reacted too harshly. (It's also possible the husbands stayed away.)

The queen and Philip invited his mother to live with them after the 1967 coup in Greece, and she died at Buckingham Palace in 1969. She also attended their wedding, so it's not as if he were estranged from her. Again, it was circumstances (her health problems, the war, etc.) more than anything else than kept them apart. 

Alice is a fascinating woman in her own right. A good biography of her is Alice, Princess Andrew of Greece, by Hugo Vickers.

[andromeda331]

22 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Philip didn't hate his sisters; they didn't have much of a relationship simply because of the age differences. His four sisters were 7, 10, 15, and 16 years older than he. Plus, all of them married pretty young, so they were out of the house by the time he was beyond young childhood. After the war I think everyone could afford to relax a bit, and as long as the sisters and their families made private visits, I don't think anyone reacted too harshly. (It's also possible the husbands stayed away.)

The queen and Philip invited his mother to live with them after the 1967 coup in Greece, and she died at Buckingham Palace in 1969. She also attended their wedding, so it's not as if he were estranged from her. Again, it was circumstances (her health problems, the war, etc.) more than anything else than kept them apart. 

Alice is a fascinating woman in her own right. A good biography of her is Alice, Princess Andrew of Greece, by Hugo Vickers.

I read that book. I agree its a good book and she was fascinating.

[Inquisitionist]

This is the kind of story The Crown does extremely well.  Much better than the last episode.

BTW, according to wikipedia:

Quote

Though he reportedly characterised the latter school, noted for its especially rigorous curriculum, as "Colditz in kilts",[17] Charles subsequently praised Gordonstoun, stating it had taught him "a great deal about myself and my own abilities and disabilities. It taught me to accept challenges and take the initiative." In a 1975 interview, he said he was "glad" he had attended Gordonstoun and that the "toughness of the place" was "much exaggerated".[18] 

[Rinaldo]

I saw that in Wikipedia, and wondered if he really had acquired a different perspective about it, if he just felt like being generous about it, if he had been persuaded that he ought not to bad-mouth the place, or what.

Speaking for myself: I went through Army basic combat training in 1970 (and I am not, to put it mildly, the type to thrive there). Horrible as it was for me, I could see that they did know what they're doing: 200 young guys, divided (on the verge of fighting) along every conceivable social line, became a cohesive group devoted to supporting each other, in the course of 8 weeks.

For me, it had a specific beneficial effect, but not the one they had in mind. I had always been eager to be liked by everyone, never to give offense about anything. And after being reviled, cursed at, dropped for pushups, run to exhaustion, etc., etc., for weeks, I just realized "Who is this person to me? What do I care what he thinks of me? The hell with him, life goes on." Which was something I needed to learn. So it was indeed helpful to me, in an unpredicted backhanded way.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Rinaldo

[biakbiak]

7 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

saw that in Wikipedia, and wondered if he really had acquired a different perspective about it, if he just felt like being generous about it, if he had been persuaded that he ought not to bad-mouth the place, or what.

The quotes about liking it are from the mid-70s.

[dubbel zout]

46 minutes ago, Inquisitionist said:

Though he reportedly characterised the latter school, noted for its especially rigorous curriculum, as "Colditz in kilts",[17] Charles subsequently praised Gordonstoun, stating it had taught him "a great deal about myself and my own abilities and disabilities. It taught me to accept challenges and take the initiative." In a 1975 interview, he said he was "glad" he had attended Gordonstoun and that the "toughness of the place" was "much exaggerated".[18] 

This is the sort of thing you can't know when you're in the middle of it, so it doesn't surprise me that Charles could find something positive to say about Gordonstoun. Also, badmouthing the place just sounds like whining after a certain point.

[GaT]

Season 2 has way too much Phillip in it for me, I think he's an asshole, & have no interest in him at all.

[Roseanna]

Unlike others here, I don't feel any particular pity towards Charles.  

First, as far as I know, many upper-class children had even more hard childhood. Charles at least had a stable home and servants took care of him and were close to him. 

Second, 
 

Spoiler

 

was only after his marriage with Diane failed that Charles began to blame his parents. No doubt he believed that he would get sympathy with "poor me". But that worked with Diana, but not with him. 

Philip is represented in the show as a whiner, but irl Clarles was that.  

 

 

Quote

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Roseanna
quote changed to spoiler

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Dickie can be a pill, but I loved how enthusiastic and supportive he was of Charles going to Eton. I don't understand why Elizabeth gave in to Philip's temper tantrum about Charles going to his alma mater.

I guess when you're the heir to the throne, you're allowed to just return tailored uniforms to Savile Row.

Philip's attitude was so annoying. He reminded me of one of those fraternity bros who insists that because he was hazed, everyone else who pledges after him has to be hazed too and then tries to pretend that it's character building and good for everyone. I was also rolling my eyes that Phillip insisted on Charles wearing his old ill fitting sweater. Just what every kid wants when he starts at a new school - 30 year old clothes that are too big.

I felt for Charles. I am coordinated (I danced all the way through college) but  loathe running, which I was forced to do beginning in sixth grade through high school. It was THE WORST. I swear they just made us do it for lack of anything better to do so we had to run up and down cement ramps for an entire period at least once a week. But my hatred of running never meant that I wasn't in good physical shape. I just hated the pointlessness of running laps.

I did not feel sorry for Philip. A snotty little brat telling his classmates that he knows he's better than they are and that he's too good to do manual labor - no wonder he got his ass kicked. And no, Philip, the struggle is NOT a gift. That's just the kind of bull shit that people say to make themselves feel better about having shitty things happen to them.

Philip's attitude was so hypocritical. He got mad because Elizabeth wanted to bring Charles home, claiming that their agreement was that there would be some equality in their marriage, yet he's the one who made the decision to send Charles there. How is that considered equality in their marriage? He knows his kid is miserable and his attitude is to make him stay there just because he was miserable there too. Oh yeah, and "because I said so." If he says that Elizabeth can't always fall back on the crown as an excuse to do what she wants, then he can't always fall back on "I'll make trouble for the royal family" to get his way.

It was sad to see that Charles was closer to the staff than to his own parents. Then again, the staff wasn't yelling at him to toughen up and stop being so weak. If Philip was so dead set on Charles not being a spoiled boy, he could have started with practical things like not having the staff cut his toast.

If Cecile was at the airfield when she spoke with Philip on the phone, how did Philip call her there from the school phone since he didn't know she was flying to the wedding?

Philip's father was an ass for blaming Philip for Cecile's death. You know whose fault it really was? Whoever was getting married! If not for that cousin's wedding, she wouldn't have had any reason to get on the plane at all. If Philip had fit into the school right away, he might not have wanted to go home for his midterm break so his sister would have gotten on the plane anyway.

Edited December 17, 2017 by ElectricBoogaloo
Noticed a typo

[Roseanna]

29 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Philip's attitude was so hypocritical. He got mad because Elizabeth wanted to bring Charles home, claiming that their agreement was that there would be some equality in their marriage, yet he's the one who made the decision to send Charles there. How is that considered equality in their marriage? 

Easily: Philip thinks that because Elizabeth has the realm to reign, he should have a right to make the decisions at home and about their children.

One must remember that "equality" wasn't an ideal in marriage at that time but the husband and father did most decisions alone. simply because he had money. 

[Rinaldo]

34 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Philip's attitude was so hypocritical. He got mad because Elizabeth wanted to bring Charles home, claiming that their agreement was that there would be some equality in their marriage, yet he's the one who made the decision to send Charles there. How is that considered equality in their marriage?

The situation seemed to be that since her position gave her the final word about most things in their life, they had agreed that choice of schools for the children rested with him -- that there was one specific area where he couldn't be overruled, as he could everywhere else.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I guess as long as Philip got his way, it didn't matter how fucking miserable his child was. It's the principle of the matter that he get what he wanted, and that was obviously more important than his child's happiness. Besides, he still had Anne happily throwing herself at him so he didn't need to worry about Charles.

When Philip woke up with a crick in his neck, I thought hey, that's what your get for always tilting your head to the side with your chin dipped down!

[txhorns79]

Quote

I think it's interesting that to many viewers, Gordonstoun seems like child abuse, but the idea of the school was to teach the boys to be self-reliant, that everyone has worth, and to be tough. Running in all kinds of weather, cold showers, there are a lot of people today who could benefit from a regimen like that. 

I think teaching self-reliance and that everyone has worth is great.  I think that having students run in light clothing in cold weather, take cold showers or make them sleep in a soaked bed because the window next to the bed lets in rain, only serves to harm the kid. 

I did enjoy the photograph of glowering Phillip that the school put up behind him on the stage.  I'm not sure if that was meant as comedy, but I did laugh at it.

 

One thing I was a little confused about was that they showed flashback Philip mixing cement and putting that wall together in the rain.  I thought cement won't set in the rain?    

Edited December 17, 2017 by txhorns79

[Inquisitionist]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Unlike others here, I don't feel any particular pity towards Charles.  

First, as far as I know, many upper-class children had even more hard childhood. Charles at least had a stable home and servants took care of him and were close to him. 

To each his/her own, but I do feel for children who are forced to do things that are against their nature without appropriate support.  Elizabeth received sound counsel about Charles's psychological makeup and why Eton would be the better choice in his circumstances.  If Philip even heard this information, he clearly didn't give a f*ck and pre-teen Charles suffered as a result.

1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Philip's father was an ass for blaming Philip for Cecile's death. You know whose fault it really was? Whoever was getting married! If not for that cousin's wedding, she wouldn't have had any reason to get on the plane at all. 

So if a drunk driver hits your friend's car while she's on her way to your wedding, it's your fault if your friend dies?  ;-)  I suspect Cecile perished because of the pilot and the weather, just as JFK's sister Kathleen did about 11 years later.

14 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I think teaching self-reliance and that everyone has worth is great.  I think that having students run in light clothing in cold weather, take cold showers or make them sleep in a soaked bed because the window next to the bed lets in rain, only serves to harm the kid. 

Indeed.  It also bugged me that while the boys were told not to give Charles special treatment, in the sense of "going easy" on him, they instead seemed to single him out for special abuse and humiliation because he was the prince.  

[ElectricBoogaloo]

11 minutes ago, Inquisitionist said:

So if a drunk driver hits your friend's car while she's on her way to your wedding, it's your fault if your friend dies?  ;-)  I suspect Cecile perished because of the pilot and the weather, just as JFK's sister Kathleen did about 11 years later.

I was kidding about Cecile's death being the cousin's fault. I don't think it's the cousin's fault any more than it's Philip's fault, but using Andrew's logic, it could be anyone's fault! I find it so sad/weird that after Andrew abandoned his family and blamed Philip for Cecile's death, Philip still named his son after him.

[Inquisitionist]

20 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I was kidding about Cecile's death being the cousin's fault.

Ha-ha -- okey-dokey!

[WatchrTina]

44 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I find it so sad/weird that after Andrew abandoned his family and blamed Philip for Cecile's death, Philip still named his son after him.

I think that's just a window into the screwed up world of Prince Philip.  I presume he didn't have much say in the naming of his first son, the heir to the throne.  I presume Charles' names had to be approved by the sovereign, which was King George VI at that time.  So I think Philip was just taking the opportunity to demonstrate his authority as the husband of the Queen by insisting that his second son be named after HIS father (whom he probably despised.)  It was the  appearance of the thing that mattered to Philip -- a demonstration of his authority and a bit of reflected glory on HIM (I don't think he cared about it reflecting anything favorable on his father who, I presume, was dead at that point.)

I know I should probably try to keep an open mind and not judge Philip too harshly since he found himself in a strikingly unusual situation -- a 1950s marriage in which the husband did not rule the roost. There were so many areas of his life in which he had to yield decision-making authority to Elizabeth (or more specifically, "The Crown"), I guess can understand why he would so jealously guard those few spheres where he could have final authority.  But I'm thankful that there WERE so few areas where he had final authority because it seems clear that, due to his fractured upbringing, the had shockingly bad judgement when it came to his children.

It is SO interesting to reflect on how differently Charles' sons were reared.

Edited December 17, 2017 by WatchrTina

[PRgal]

I don't know how much of the episode was artistic licence and how much is actual history, but his screwed up childhood seems to have contributed a great deal to his issues as an adult.  I can understand WHY he liked his school - it's a place which gave him some stability, something he didn't get at home.  

 

And to @WatchrTina:  William and Harry were raised differently because the 80s and 90s were a radically DIFFERENT time.   

[WatchrTina]

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

William and Harry were raised differently because the 80s and 90s were a radically DIFFERENT time.   

I moved my reply to the Monarchy thread.

[Athena5217]

Maybe this is a case of different attitudes for different times, but I can’t believe the only person worried about Charles not coming back with the others was the detective. Any child lost alone in the woods seems like cause for alarm, but the heir to the throne?????  Did no one ever consider that Charles might be kidnapped or fall and break his neck?

[jumper sage]

On 12/17/2017 at 9:28 AM, Inquisitionist said:

I suspect Cecile perished because of the pilot and the weather

I just looked it up and it seems that the plane hit a factory smoke stack - YIKES, they all burned to death.

On 12/17/2017 at 10:55 AM, PRgal said:

but his screwed up childhood seems to have contributed a great deal to his issues as an adult. 

As is with most of us to some degree.

On 12/17/2017 at 0:10 PM, Athena5217 said:

Maybe this is a case of different attitudes for different times, but I can’t believe the only person worried about Charles not coming back with the others was the detective. Any child lost alone in the woods seems like cause for alarm, but the heir to the throne?????  Did no one ever consider that Charles might be kidnapped or fall and break his neck?

That's why he had his own detective and that detective took off after him and brought him back.

Edited December 18, 2017 by jumper sage

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

To each his/her own, but I do feel for children who are forced to do things that are against their nature without appropriate support.  Elizabeth received sound counsel about Charles's psychological makeup and why Eton would be the better choice in his circumstances.  If Philip even heard this information, he clearly didn't give a f*ck and pre-teen Charles suffered as a result.

In this show he didn't hear it. 

I think that the crux of the matter is than our age is radically different. As far as I know, Philip wasn't worse than upper class fathers at that time. They didn't think "is my son now happy or not" but "what my son needs in order to doing his duty as an adult". Some ignored their son completely, like Winston Churchill's father.

Phlip thought that Charles was too shy and timid in order to succeed in his future role, so he needed to be toughened. And because Gordonstoun had helped him, he believed it would help also his son.  

As for Elizabeth, she hadn't gone to school but Philip had. In addition she had no knowledge about little boys and Philip was a man. So naturally she believed that Philip knew best.

On the other hand, Philip knew that those who had gone to Eton (Mustaches) believed they were better than others and hold to traditions.        

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

I don't know how much of the episode was artistic licence and how much is actual history, but his screwed up childhood seems to have contributed a great deal to his issues as an adult.  I can understand WHY he liked his school - it's a place which gave him some stability, something he didn't get at home.  

And to @WatchrTina:  William and Harry were raised differently because the 80s and 90s were a radically DIFFERENT time.   

I agree in both matters.

[dubbel zout]

3 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

It also bugged me that while the boys were told not to give Charles special treatment, in the sense of "going easy" on him, they instead seemed to single him out for special abuse and humiliation because he was the prince.  

I think that was going to happen no matter where Charles ended up. Bullies are everywhere. I also think he would have been somewhat lonely anywhere because it would be seen as sucking up if anyone showed more than passing niceness to him. 

I cut Philip a bit of slack as a father because the example he had was so poor. Add that to his favorite sister dying in a horribly awful manner, his mother having emotional issues, and bouncing around various stately manors of England, and it's sort of a miracle he is even a moderately functioning adult. His blindness to Charles's personality not being suited to Gordonstoun was unfortunate, to say the least, but it's not so illogical that Philip thought it would toughen up Charles.

I still think it took Philip way too long to accept his position as the prince consort.

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I did not feel sorry for Philip. A snotty little brat telling his classmates that he knows he's better than they are and that he's too good to do manual labor - no wonder he got his ass kicked. And no, Philip, the struggle is NOT a gift. That's just the kind of bull shit that people say to make themselves feel better about having shitty things happen to them.

That was what Philip had learnt by his relatives (basically the same what schoolboys in Eton believed - remember what Eden said to them). But in Gordonstoun Philip learned values of other kind.

Also, Philip arrogance was his only way defend himself as boys knew about the breakup of his family. Divorce was at that time a scandal and shame.   

[Inquisitionist]

To clarify, my point was not so much to cast blame on Philip (I fully understood why he took the actions he did regarding Charles's schooling), but to indicate why I could feel sorry for Charles in the circumstances, despite his privilege and "other people have it worse."  Cheers!

[SeanC]

That Charles had a hard time at Gordonstoun is an historical fact, so this isn't per se a critique, but I find it weird that nobody at that school thought that befriending the future king might be a useful social chit.

Also, as a sign of the differing times, I can't imagine the heir today has only a single bodyguard whilst traveling around.

[Rinaldo]

34 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I think that the crux of the matter is than our age is radically different. As far as I know, Philip wasn't worse than upper class fathers at that time. They didn't think "is my son now happy or not" but "what my son needs in order to doing his duty as an adult".

I found myself thinking this too. I dare say this sort of conversation happened in many homes at that date. And no doubt less-than-optimum decisions were sometimes made, then as now; that's the parent's lot in life, to make the best choice you can see at the time and then sometimes find later that you messed up. Even now, don't parents sometimes disagree about whether holding firm on a point (you can't get the present you want right now, you have to eat what the others eat for dinner) is best even if it makes the kid unhappy? It's always tough to know in advance what's best.

[Roseanna]

29 minutes ago, SeanC said:

That Charles had a hard time at Gordonstoun is an historical fact, so this isn't per se a critique, but I find it weird that nobody at that school thought that befriending the future king might be a useful social chit.

That'is just what George V was afraid and thefore he sent David and Bertie to the naval school where they were heavily bullied. And when it starts, few dare to oppose it - or befriend the victim, however much gain it would bring in the future, for other boys would stigmatize a "smoothie" and leave him out of their gang.  

[Cara]

3 hours ago, PRgal said:

I don't know how much of the episode was artistic licence and how much is actual history, but his screwed up childhood seems to have contributed a great deal to his issues as an adult.  I can understand WHY he liked his school - it's a place which gave him some stability, something he didn't get at home.  

 

And to @WatchrTina:  William and Harry were raised differently because the 80s and 90s were a radically DIFFERENT time.   

Apparently there was quite a bit of artistic license taken. According to this article nothing remotely like the scene where his father yells at him after spotting at the funeral happened. In fact Philip actually traveled with his father from London to the funeral in Germany.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5163451/Netflix-drama-Crown-slammed-Prince-Philip-lie.html

[WatchrTina]

It's funny, I'm re-watching the first few episodes of season one and certain things are resonating more and more in light of THIS conversation.  There are so many things that Philip loses in those episodes.  I felt a pang of sympathy when he explains his enthusiasm for the remodeling of Clarence House saying it's the first home he's ever really had. You have to feel terrible for him in the episode where it's made clear that not only can he not give his own children his name, they have to relocate from their newly renovated home to Buckingham Palace, which even the Queen admits that she hates. There were other examples as well.  It sheds some light on his determination to see his sons educated as he saw fit.  I've no doubt that he sincerely thought that Gordonstoun would be good for them but I think that belief may have been so tangled up in his determination to not be overruled AGAIN that his ego made it impossible for him to consider the possibility that his sons might not benefit from the experience in the same way that he had.

Edited December 18, 2017 by WatchrTina

[BooBear]

6 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I know I should probably try to keep an open mind and not judge Philip too harshly since he found himself in a strikingly unusual situation -- 

It is SO interesting to reflect on how differently Charles' sons were reared.

Am I wrong or did Phillip in real life not admit it was a mistake? I seem to remember that on one of the documentaries. I have to admit I feel badly for not knowing Phillp's story and have long hated him since the death of Diana. Did anyone else not get flashbacks as to Diana's funeral and Phillip walking behind the casket with Charles and his grand children?  Not the first time that happened.  I think all parents make mistakes and Phillip had to make them in the public eye. I am only greatful that he didn't keep making them with his grandchildren.  Have to admit this series makes me see them all in a different light. 

[madam magpie]

On 12/15/2017 at 6:50 AM, WatchrTina said:

Wasn't it strongly implied that, for Phillip, the choice of school for his son was "a bridge too far"?  My take-away from that conversation he has with Elizabeth is that if she overrules him on this, a private matter regarding the upbringing of their children -- if he cannot have final authority in at least that sphere of his life -- then the promises he made when they were aboard the Britannia were off the table.  He would no longer be "in and not out."  He didn't say it explicitly but I got the distinct sense of a credible threat from him in that scene.  His ego (and a big part of his identity) were caught up in holding the line on this one point.  And since Andrew and Edward were sent there as well it appear he never seriously questioned the correctness of his position.

This is what I understood too, and I really dislike him for it. He’s basically lording over Elizabeth in any way he can because he’s so pathetic and sexist that he can’t treat her like an equal. One thing about this show is how awful it’s made Phillip look. I always thought he was the kinder, gentler royal. But if the portrayal on this show is true, he’s nothing but a whiny, weak asshole. I don’t feel bad for this character at all.

I’ve felt bad for Charles for a long time, though. The way he behaved with Diana was horrible, but by all accounts, he adores his sons, treated them well, and has had a loving relationship with them. Seeing the poor kid here was so sad.

One nitpicky thing: What year is this episode? It has to be at least 1963, right, because Kennedy died in the last episode? That means Charles would be at least 15. The kid playing looked no more than 12.

[PeterPirate]

39 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

One nitpicky thing: What year is this episode? It has to be at least 1963, right, because Kennedy died in the last episode? That means Charles would be at least 15. The kid playing looked no more than 12.

According to this article from the Daily Mail, Charles entered Gordonstoun in the summer of 1962, when he was 13.   

The show does jump around in time a bit.  I suppose they felt it best to have this as the penultimate episode.

Edited December 18, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Blakeston]

I was a child similar to Charles in personality, and I would have been utterly miserable at a school like Gordonstoun. And I'm incredibly glad that my father never sent me to a place like that to "toughen me up."

So I was definitely inclined to hate Philip in the first half of the episode for insisting on sending Charles there. It was obviously a terrible decision.

But the second half of the episode made me more sympathetic toward Philip. I don't think he chose Gordonstoun because of an "I was hazed, so he has to be hazed too" mentality. Gordonstoun gave Philip a home when he desperately needed one. (It also provided refuge for a father figure of his, who was a brilliant Jewish educator on the run from the Nazis.) And the atmosphere helped Philip break out of the "I'm royal, so I'm above doing hard work" mentality. I'm not surprised that he loved it.

And while I don't agree with it, I can understand a man of that era believing that it would be good to toughen up someone like Charles, who'd been so pampered - and who will one day have to deal with the constant pressures and scrutiny of being king.

I also saw where he was coming from regarding it being his decision, and not Elizabeth's. When one spouse is a monarch, I think it makes perfect sense for the other spouse to be the decision-maker in at least one aspect of their marriage. It sounds like that's the decision they came to.

And if Elizabeth told Philip that he'd be in charge of the kids' educational upbringing, then she never should have told Charles that he could go to Eton without talking to Philip first. That was a big blunder on her part.

[Kerfuffler]

Elizabeth and Philip are terrible at communicating with each other, especially Philip. We saw in flashback why the school meant so much to him, and why he thought it would make Charles a better adult, but instead of explaining any of that he went straight to demands and then to threats. Elizabeth gives him a LOT of leeway, it's not unreasonable to think that she could have been swayed by a genuine conversation about it.

[madam magpie]

16 minutes ago, Kerfuffler said:

Elizabeth and Philip are terrible at communicating with each other, especially Philip. We saw in flashback why the school meant so much to him, and why he thought it would make Charles a better adult, but instead of explaining any of that he went straight to demands and then to threats. Elizabeth gives him a LOT of leeway, it's not unreasonable to think that she could have been swayed by a genuine conversation about it.

But why bother treating her like an equal or a partner when you can toss out threats to puff up your male ego?

[dubbel zout]

I also think talking about it smacks too much of admitting to Feelings. I would not be at all surprised if Philip has never really spoken in depth to Elizabeth (or anyone close to him) about the deaths of his sister and her family and the ensuing affect on him. He's simply not the type to open a vein.

[formergr]

On 12/17/2017 at 9:08 AM, txhorns79 said:

One thing I was a little confused about was that they showed flashback Philip mixing cement and putting that wall together in the rain.  I thought cement won't set in the rain?    

Cement actually cures, it doesn’t dry! So you can actually cure cement in a mold entirely underwater if you need to, much less in the rain.

[Primetimer]

And punch Prince Philip, the Puke of Edinburgh but...you knew that.

View the full article

[kaygeeret]

I have an enduring memory of a news clip showing a very young (4-6 yrs?) Charles greeting his parents when they return from a 6 month trip to visit the colonies.

As his mother - Elizabeth - descends the gangplank, they reach out and SHAKE HANDS - the first time I saw this my heart broke.  You come home after 6 MONTHS of not seeing your kids and you....SHAKE HANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am now and forever on Charles side.  He was raised in riches,  and yet his childhood was horrific.....

I really wanted to jump into the screen and somehow save him.

We all have problems and stresses but my god, his were and are lived out in public.  How god  awful

I think I would have entered a monastery - and I don't think monasteries accept women :)

Just a lesson that money doesn't buy anything except "stuff".

I am actually astonished that he is as stable as he is....probably a testimony to money to help you, but still.

[Clanstarling]

On 12/10/2017 at 6:19 AM, PeterPirate said:

There are a number of Americans who blame the death of John Kennedy Jr. on the investment firm Morgan Stanley. His wife's sister was kept late at a meeting, which led to the three of them leaving late on their flight to Martha's Vineyard, and JFK Jr. had not been certified as ready for flying at night using instruments. "Blame" might not be the best word, but there is no doubt the 2+ hour departure delay was a contributing factor. 

And I always blamed it on JFK Jr. If you're not certified for instrument only flying, you're putting everyone in your plane at risk. 

On 12/10/2017 at 10:47 AM, Helena Dax said:

And I agree that it was sad to see that he was closer to his bodyguard and his nanny than to his own parents. 

It was sad, but also heartening that he had someone who clearly cared for him.

On 12/11/2017 at 2:43 PM, Calamity Jane said:

I kept wondering if the writers were trying to get us to see Charles as being on the spectrum, with all the talk of his being "different."  It would explain some things about him, I suppose, but it gets thrown around an awful lot lately, which makes me skeptical.  Shy, reserved, introverted - all that I can buy easily, but it doesn't mean autistic.  I doubt we know enough to conclude anything else.  

I got no vibes at all about being on the spectrum. All I saw was a sensitive, shy kid. 

On 12/11/2017 at 6:10 PM, spaceghostess said:

This episode broke my heart. I couldn't help being disappointed in Elizabeth; one of the major rules of parenting is do NOT promise things you can't deliver

This does seem to be a habit of Elizabeth's - at least in the show. Since Charles was soon to go to secondary school (or whatever they called it) it seemed to me like Phillip would probably already have made his preference known, given his passionate feelings about it, even before he went off to the yacht races. 

 

On 12/18/2017 at 6:55 AM, Blakeston said:

But the second half of the episode made me more sympathetic toward Philip. I don't think he chose Gordonstoun because of an "I was hazed, so he has to be hazed too" mentality. Gordonstoun gave Philip a home when he desperately needed one. (It also provided refuge for a father figure of his, who was a brilliant Jewish educator on the run from the Nazis.) And the atmosphere helped Philip break out of the "I'm royal, so I'm above doing hard work" mentality. I'm not surprised that he loved it.

Me neither. It was a place of refuge for Phillip as well, from what it seems. Aristocratic families have sent their sons off to boarding school for ages, and from what I've read, they've each had their own particular versions of hell. 

It's true that struggling through adversity can positively impact a person - but the reverse is also true. Make or Break, Sink or Swim, those who focus on the positive outcomes forget that there are also those who break or sink.  And the trouble is, you never know which it will be. 

Phillip did have a truly horrifying childhood. So much loss. I do feel for him. 

13 minutes ago, kaygeeret said:

I think I would have entered a monastery - and I don't think monasteries accept women :)ill.

But convents do. :) 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Clanstarling

[NeverLate]

On 17/12/2017 at 8:55 AM, PRgal said:

I don't know how much of the episode was artistic licence and how much is actual history, but his screwed up childhood seems to have contributed a great deal to his issues as an adult.  I can understand WHY he liked his school - it's a place which gave him some stability, something he didn't get at home.  

 

And to @WatchrTina:  William and Harry were raised differently because the 80s and 90s were a radically DIFFERENT time.   

Yes, very different times. I felt sad for both Philip and Charles. I recall he was in a school play,( he loved the arts,) and we saw a clip of him on TV, and he was so happy. The happiest I'd ever seen him, it stayed with me, as I watched this episode I was reminded of some happy times at his school as well. But he at least sent his boys to Eaton! 

Quote

I have an enduring memory of a news clip showing a very young (4-6 yrs?) Charles greeting his parents when they return from a 6 month trip to visit the colonies.

PDA was thought of as a private thing I suppose. I do believe he was hugged behind closed doors, but who knows. Times change ,people change, obviously the royals have.

[Bec]

I was so confused by that part where Philip runs off after getting the news that his sister died, and saw the wreckage and dead bodies. Was that some kind of dream sequence? Odd, because this show hadn't done dream sequences before this, as far as I can remember.

[Clanstarling]

8 hours ago, NeverLate said:

PDA was thought of as a private thing I suppose. I do believe he was hugged behind closed doors, but who knows. Times change ,people change, obviously the royals have.

When Phillip was going off on his long tour, Charles held out his hand and Phillip said something to the effect of, we're in private now, and what do we do in private, after which they hugged. Don't know if that was true in real life, but that tiny moment made me like Phillip a little bit.

[Cheezwiz]

9 hours ago, Bec said:

I was so confused by that part where Philip runs off after getting the news that his sister died, and saw the wreckage and dead bodies. Was that some kind of dream sequence? Odd, because this show hadn't done dream sequences before this, as far as I can remember.

This confused me as well - was he imagining what the crash site looked like? Was he having a nightmare? Dream sequences haven't been a  part of the show, so it didn't seem to fit to me either.

[merylinkid]

Philip had no family.   His favorite sister killed in a plane crash.   His own father blamed him for the death.   He had no country.   He had no home.

Charles had a home, a family and most definitely a country.   He did NOT need what Gordonstoun offered.   But Philip was too caught up in being the "man of the family" and determining his children's education that he completely ignored reality.

The worst though was in the plane at the head.   Philip was literally torturing that child.   Charles was clearly terrified at how the plane was bouncing around.   Philip kept telling him not to be afraid like that would solve everything.   Then he got mad at Charles for continuing to be scared.   He SUCKED.

Anne sent her children there.   Good god WHY????