S02.E08: Dear Mrs. Kennedy

[Cheezwiz]

Agree with everyone else on the unfortunate casting this episode. It really took me out of the story every time Michael C. Hall appeared. Normally a great actor, but woefully miscast this time around. The actress playing Jackie did a good job of recreating her voice, but her look wasn't quite right - they didn't quite nail her hair - too curly or something. In fact, I actually thought she looked MUCH more like Jackie's sister Lee Radziwill. Had they shown her this episode, she would have been ideal for that role.

Claire Foy knocked it out of the park again. The looks of insecurity flitting across her face while she tried to maintain her composure were poignant. I've seen a photo of the Kennedys on their state visit, and the contrast between how the two women dressed was striking: a sleek and chic Jackie, and the Queen in a fusty tulle number stuck in the early 50's.

[cardigirl]

I loved the portrayal of Kennedy, although it was a different take from previous versions of him we may have seen on tv. This series is not a documentary but an enhanced portrayal of Queen Elizabeth's life, and what it must be like to be under the Crown.  I think the way Kennedy was portrayed was a deliberate choice to further the story being presented to us, and that emphasized the less attractive aspects of Kennedy's personality and how he wielded his power, as well as what he may have thought of the British aristocracy, as an American president.  While based truths and facts, all of the storylines have been creatively enlarged.  IMO. 

[WatchrTina]

I'm going to react without reading what anyone else wrote.

That was BRILLIANT!

I laughed hard so many times. The best . . . the absolute BEST was when Mrs. Kennedy had to dodge the horse guard as she exited her car and then as she went into Windsor Castle the walls were lined with more horse guards at attention -- one every 10 feet or so, not to mention a squadron of footmen in the halls followed by the well-orchestrated ballet of tea being served.  That was SO GOOD.  It was such a nice contrast to all of Her Majesty's guests acting like teenaged girls at a Beatles concert when Jackie first came to dinner at Buckingham Palace.  It was as if to say -- "You think what you have is Camelot?  I'll show you what a REAL monarchy looks like!  You weren't impressed by my "city" palace?  Here, let me show you my ancestral home.  Buildings less than 900 years old are SO déclassé, don't you agree?" 

And then, when it turned so poignant I was amazed and touched.

At the end, when the Queen recognizes the significance of Jackie having refused to change her clothes -- an object lesson in the art of the meaningful gesture -- Elizabeth shows she's learned a thing or two as well and breaks protocol to honor the fallen president.

That was BRILLIANT.  I hope it's all true.

ETA:  I just love the idea that the Queen was out and about on her estate with the royal groundskeepers helping with the felling of a tree.  I can well imagine that she originally came to watch and then just pitched in when another hand was needed.

Edited December 14, 2017 by WatchrTina

[dubbel zout]

On 12/9/2017 at 1:52 PM, millk said:

The Queen would have been about 4-5 months pregnant when Kennedy was killed. (Edward was born March 10)

We got a hint of that when she was struggling to zip up her formal dress before the non-state dinner.

On 12/10/2017 at 10:20 AM, Peace 47 said:

But the incorrect title usage seemed odd.

I don't buy that explanation even if they were both hopped up on Dr. Feelgood's cocktail. I can't believe they'd both botch something as important as the first meeting with the head of state of America's closest ally. Especially because Jack knew better and Jackie was a stickler for proper etiquette, at least as far as formal/state occasions go.

On 12/13/2017 at 10:08 AM, MaggieG said:

My favorite part was when the Queen and Nkrumah were going around in a wide circle

He was really throwing her around the room, wasn't he? LOL.

The speech Kennedy gave at the dinner in the U.S. (where we saw him flirting with three young women) took me completely out of the show. Thanks for the anvil, Peter Morgan. Oof.

[Rinaldo]

On 12/10/2017 at 10:20 AM, Peace 47 said:

 That was a kind explanation that the writer imagined

It was certainly was the era of all kinds of Dr. Feelgoods, so it fits. But I agree with previous commenters that after a long string of casting coups, the series came a cropper with the Kennedys. Michael C. Hall just missed the boat in every way. Jackie acted her part well, but in both cases I feel that this is one case where the right look really matters. Both were so (the overused word really fits in this case) iconic in their time, and people still remember just how they looked. 

And yes, while of the writing for her was effective, the whole business with the botched presentation protocol was ridiculous. Jacqueline was effortlessly proper on such occasions, and JFK wasn't some hick backwoodsman, he knew how to listen to and retain his coaching on state occasions. 

Claire Foy had some magnificent scenes though, many of them wordless.

[rubyred]

Another reason that introduction faux pas rang false for me was that even Jack would have had a better grasp of English society etiquette since his father had been Ambassador to Great Britain! Come on, folks. It seemed to me that Morgan was more interested in depicting the Kennedys as brash, nouveau Americans to better highlight how much more genteel British repression is. So let's puncture Jack Kennedy's glamorous image as well as Jackie's so as to make Elizabeth more sympathetic. 

Sometimes I don't think Morgan understands how profoundly sympathetic Claire Foy's depiction of QE2 is. On paper she's the least dynamic character, but Foy's restrained, subtle performance still illustrates all her inner turmoil so powerfully. But it's like no one around Elizabeth pays the slightest bit of attention to what's really going on with her, whilst I can tell by the minutest facial expressions. I often find myself thinking, damn, this is the loneliest woman in the world. People rarely take the time to really connect with her, and she's so charming when they do. All her prime ministers underestimate her -- some of my favorite scenes are when she dresses them down and they realize she's not some idiot, but someone who takes their role seriously.

[Grammaeryn]

Being a Boston gal, I’m glad Michael C Hall didn’t go all in on the Kennedy accent. I have no idea why they made him wear brown contacts. I actually think Joel McHale has the lankiness for playing JFK. Michael is build like a tight-end player so complete miscast.

[dubbel zout]

50 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

Claire Foy had some magnificent scenes though, many of them wordless.

She's been amazing in her two seasons.

49 minutes ago, rubyred said:

All her prime ministers underestimate her -- some of my favorite scenes are when she dresses them down and they realize she's not some idiot, but someone who takes their role seriously.

I love how subtly she puts them in their place. They often don't realize she's done it until later.

[WatchrTina]

Okay I just finished binging the whole season and this ep is my favorite.  Someone help me out.  Who is the guy that Elizabeth called to the palace to spill the beans on what Jackie Kennedy said about her?  They are obviously close. She kissed him hello and he called her "Lilibet" which only close family do and I think she made reference to their growing up together.  So is he a cousin?  A child of one of King George IV's younger brothers?

ETA:  Nevermind.  IMDb + Wikipedia reveals all.  He was Patrick Terence William Span Plunket, 7th Baron Plunket MVO (8 September 1923-1975), Equerry to Queen Elizabeth II and Deputy Master of the Household of the Royal Household (1954-1975). His Wikipedia page is pretty sparse but it seems clear that he knew Elizabeth from childhood.

[Pallas]

On 12/14/2017 at 9:36 PM, rubyred said:

It seemed to me that Morgan was more interested in depicting the Kennedys as brash, nouveau Americans to better highlight how much more genteel British repression is. So let's puncture Jack Kennedy's glamorous image as well as Jackie's so as to make Elizabeth more sympathetic. 

Sometimes I don't think Morgan understands how profoundly sympathetic Claire Foy's depiction of QE2 is.

I strongly agree, and strongly disliked Morgan's rendering of Jackie: his over-reaching to tear down one woman to make another look good.  What is this need for men to disparage one woman, while complimenting another? Is it a kind of cosmic remedy for, briefly, honoring a woman's character -- a reflexive evening of the scales?

Of course the President and First Lady didn't botch their introductions to the Queen and Prince. Kennedy was worldly and well-traveled, a Harvard graduate with a degree in International Government, a former Senator and grandson of the Mayor of Boston, raised from birth within a family already prominent in the economic and political establishment. And yes: before the war he had lived at the Embassy, and traveled socially in London, as the adult son of the Ambassador to the Court of St. James.  

Of course The First Lady didn't regale guests at her sister's home in London with malicious comments about their head of state. Of course she didn't then later invite herself to Windsor and show up alone, to confess to the Queen of Great Britain about her marital strife, and that the President of the United States -- leader of NATO; the U.K.'s foremost ally -- was frequently high on amphetamines. "It's such a relief to unburden myself, in the way I never did in my life...And especially here, with you, Your Grace." 

I could sympathize with the dismay of Peter Morgan (or any British citizen) at Joe Kennedy's defeatist performance as Ambassador and his right-wing isolationism; at Jack Kennedy's wry insouciance as an antidote for executive inexperience, and his anti-Communist adventurism; and even at Jackie Kennedy's fey persona and strong preference for all things French. But to depict either of them as blithely gauche is mis-aimed satire. As for what he thought he was doing with Michael C. Hall...

And I realize that the Kennedys were being used as antagonists, as potential usurpers of public esteem: another of the secular, ephemeral pretenders to Elizabeth's ethereal stature. Successors to the now-routed Duke of Windsor. There will be more. But with the Kennedys, I object to the baldly a-historical way it was done -- as opposed to the telling, cunning depiction of all that made the Duke of Windsor no Elizabeth Windsor. 

That said, the Horse Guards were hilarious. Combined with Windsor Castle's briskly chastening, country-home cardigan atmosphere of even greater remove. Concept? Perfect. Execution? Perfect. And not just because my avatar is the Horse-in-Horse-Guard who, at Prince William's wedding, slipped in a puddle while rounding a street corner, parted ways with his Guardsman, and then very sensibly headed for home.

[PeterPirate]

To respond to Pallas' post just above, which I won't quote in the interest of saving space:

My first thought is that I agree wholeheartedly with it.  As an American, I am comfortable with the notion that this show will mischaracterize the royals in the name of Good TV--but I draw the line at doing so with our JFK and Jackie.  

But then I realize that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If I am going to watch this show I have to allow for artistic license.  

And then I get to thinking that maybe the show is using these characters as stand-ins for the current occupants of the White House.  And that--for the time being at any rate--I am in no position to object to the President of the United States being depicted as an uncouth, doped-up womanizer. 

Well, now I need a drink.  It's 5pm somewhere in the world, right?

Edited December 15, 2017 by PeterPirate

[dubbel zout]

3 hours ago, Pallas said:

Of course The First Lady didn't regale guests at her sister's home in London with disparaging comments about their head of state.

This was likely exaggerated—I don't think Jackie would be stupid enough to slag on the queen at a London dinner party, no matter how private it was supposed to be—but there was genuine tension between Elizabeth, Philip, Jackie, and Jack. They struggled to make any sort of personal connection.

Another comment that cracked me up was Elizabeth's "Don't we all?" retort when someone told her Jackie was a hit with the French because she spoke the language fluently. 

[Roseanna]

On 12/15/2017 at 7:43 AM, Pallas said:

Of course she didn't then later invite herself to Windsor and show up alone, to confess to the Queen of Great Britain about her marital strife, and that the President of the United States -- leader of NATO; Britain's foremost ally -- was frequently high on amphetamines. "It's such a relief to unburden myself, in the way I never did...And especially here, with you, Your Grace." 

Yes, being open about her marriage's problems was totally against Jackie's personality. It wasn't just that her husband was unfaithful but he humilated her before others by leaving a party with another woman and all knew they would have sex.

Also, I have never heard that President Kennedy would have reprimanded his wife, or even been violent towards her, for her success in Paris. Even if he hadn't liked for staying in her shadow, her ability to create a good relationship with the de Gaulle and Malraux and arise a frenzy among the French people, was an asset to him politically. In November 1963 he was evidently delighted about her success in Texas.   

On 12/15/2017 at 11:32 AM, dubbel zout said:

Another comment that cracked me up was Elizabeth's "Don't we all?" retort when someone told her Jackie was a hit with the French because she spoke the language fluently. 

Elizabeth couldn't deny that Jackie could dress well and knew about culture, unlike her. But in one point Elizabeth was right: only Americans could be praised for speaking another language. For all others it was self-evident.

On 12/15/2017 at 7:43 AM, Pallas said:

But to depict either of them as blithely gauche is mis-aimed satire. As for what he thought he was doing with Michael C. Hall...

And I realize that the Kennedys were being used as antagonists, as potential usurpers of public esteem: another of the out-classed pretenders to Elizabeth's ethereal position. Successors to the now-routed Duke of Windsor. There will be others. But with the Kennedys, I object to the baldly a-historical way it was done -- as opposed to the telling, cunning depiction of all that made the Duke of Windsor no Elizabeth Windsor. 

I have read that Elizabeth did envy Jackie's success whereas Jackie wasn't impressed in the Queen. The show begins thus, but when Jackie apologizes, their realtionship is turned to the opposite.

I noticed that the visit order was altered: Wienna, Paris and London when in reality it was Paris, Wienna and London. In the show Kennedys come to London after the success in Paris but irl they came after Khrushtshev was humilated Kennedy in Wienna and he came depressed to London. Why not use the latter theme in the show?

On 12/15/2017 at 9:36 AM, PeterPirate said:

My first thought is that I agree wholeheartedly with it.  As an American, I am comfortable with the notion that this show will mischaracterize the royals in the name of Good TV--but I draw the line at doing so with our JFK and Jackie.  

But then I realize that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If I am going to watch this show I have to allow for artistic license.  

And then I get to thinking that maybe the show is using these characters as stand-ins for the current occupants of the White House.  And that--for the time being at any rate--I am in no position to object to the President of the United States being depicted as an uncouth, doped-up womanizer. 

I am normally for artistic lisence, but that was something else.

To concentrate on the matter whether the Americans (or Soviets for that matter) are uncouth or not, is to miss the chief point: that Britain had lost its position as a world power. 

This could be admitted in S1 through Eden's sickness and use of the narcotica. But now it was ignored. 

Mocking a slip in somebody's formal behaviour tells often that you feel envy for somebody's success a you yourself have left nothing else but etiquette. 

[SWLinPHX]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Elizabeth couldn't deny that Jackie could dress well and knew about culture, unlike her. But in one point Elizabeth was right: only Americans could be praised for speaking another language. For all others it was self-evident.

Another comment that cracked me up was Elizabeth's "Don't we all?" retort when someone told her Jackie was a hit with the French because she spoke the language fluently. 

My favorite line from this episode was from QE2, upon being disheartened to hear the unpleasant remarks Jackie had made at her expense after she thought their visit had gone rather well:  "I see.  Well we must have her back again soon!"

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Also, I have never heard that President Kennedy would have reprimanded his wife, or even been violent towards her, for her success in Paris. Even if he hadn't liked for staying in her shadow, her ability to create a good relationship with the de Gaulle and Malraux and arise a frenzy among the French people, was an asset to him politically. In November 1963 he was evidently delighted about her success in Texas.

True, but in all fairness the Texas trip didn't go as smoothly as they'd hoped.

[Minivanessa]

Wow. This episode was such a dog's dinner, I don't think I'll even bother to re-watch it. The only thing they got even nearly right about the Kennedys, was that the actor playing Mrs. Kennedy did a good job with the voice. 

[dubbel zout]

3 hours ago, SWLinPHX said:

My favorite line from this episode was from QE2, upon being disheartened to hear the unpleasant remarks Jackie had made at her expense after she thought their visit had gone rather well:  "I see.  Well we must have her back again soon!"

In private the queen is supposed to have an excellent sense of humor—I wish we saw more of that in the series. But to paraphrase a quote from Pat and Mike: "There's not much humor on her, but what's there is cherce."

[Calvada]

The other inaccuracy that stood out for me in this episode was not just that they showed Elizabeth working outside when the reports came in about JFK being shot, since it would have been evening in England, but the length of time until the death was confirmed.  It went from daylight (in the evening in November!) until they were getting into bed before they were told he was dead.  In reality, JFK was pronounced dead at 1:00 pm, 30 minutes after the shooting, and it was announced/confirmed on American TV/radio less than 40 minutes after that, or just over an hour from when the shooting happened. 

And let's not even mention a woman almost 6 months pregnant out hauling logs!

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Yes, being open about her marriage's problems was totally against Jackie's personality. It wasn't just that her husband was unfaithful but he humilated her before others by leaving a party with another woman and all knew they would have sex.

Also, I have never heard that President Kennedy would have reprimanded his wife, or even been violent towards her, for her success in Paris. Even if he hadn't liked for staying in her shadow, her ability to create a good relationship with the de Gaulle and Malraux and arise a frenzy among the French people, was an asset to him politically. In November 1963 he was evidently delighted about her success in Texas.   

Elizabeth couldn't deny that Jackie could dress well and knew about culture, unlike her. But in one point Elizabeth was right: only Americans could be praised for speaking another language. For all others it was self-evident.

These are parts that took me out of the episode. I don't see Jackie ever opening up to someone like the Queen about her marital problems. A sister or friend yes. But not QEII. Didn't Kennedy often use Jackie's fame and/or personality to do just that create a good relationship with de Gaulle or another politicians that Jackie might be the better person to talk to them? He'd often sit her with someone at dinner that he knew she could charm. 

[freeser]

5 hours ago, Jeeves said:

Wow.  The only thing they got even nearly right about the Kennedys, was that the actor playing Mrs. Kennedy did a good job with the voice. 

Yes, her voice was the one thing that was barely OK.  I couldn't believe they got her hair styling so wrong.  It always looked like she just stepped inside on a windy day.  With JFK, the only correct thing was that the actor was a white male of approximately the proper age.  Beyond that, there was no real identification with JFK.  The depiction of both of them was very distracting.    

[txhorns79]

Quote

Yes, her voice was the one thing that was barely OK.  I couldn't believe they got her hair styling so wrong.  It always looked like she just stepped inside on a windy day.  With JFK, the only correct thing was that the actor was a white male of approximately the proper age.  Beyond that, there was no real identification with JFK.  The depiction of both of them was very distracting.   

I didn't even think the voice was all that good.  She got closer towards the end of the episode, but at the beginning, her accent and dialect was all over the place.  And yeah, I have trouble believing that Jackie Kennedy would have ever discussed her marital problems with the Queen.  As QE2 said, they barely knew each other, and it would be strange for Jackie to open up so much with her. 

On the positive side, I thought QE2 looked very smart while having tea with Jackie.  It was a mature look, but wasn't her usual dowdy ensemble.    

[Kerfuffler]

I really object to the whole idea that Elizabeth's success in Ghana was only in response to some mean girl burn book bullshit. Women! So catty, amiright?! I hated every part of this episode that had a Kennedy in it, and loved every part with Elizabeth. All the Kennedy stuff felt so false, especially the idea that Jackie would have had such a loose tongue, first at the dinner party and then spilling all her marital woes to QEII. But Elizabeth's triumph in Ghana was delicious.

[Inquisitionist]

On 12/8/2017 at 6:16 PM, saoirse said:

I thought that it was odd that Mrs. Kennedy didn't follow protocol when meeting the Queen - she always struck me as someone who made sure to know that sort of thing, so the explanation about being medicated helped make sense of that.

 

On 12/9/2017 at 2:38 AM, Roseanna said:

I don't think that happened irl. President Kennedy's father had been the US Ambassador, the family met the royal family and her sister married Billy Cavendish.

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but I've only just now watched this episode and I could not believe they made Jack and Jackie Kennedy out to be some country bumpkins crashing the palace.  Good lord.

 

On 12/10/2017 at 1:58 AM, Quilt Fairy said:

For a show that has been so spot-on with most of its casting, they were really off with the actor who played  President Kennedy.  Not only did he not look like Kennedy or talk like Kennedy, he had none of Kennedy's charm or charisma.  It threw me out of every scene he was in because I kept yelling at the TV.  I didn't care for the actress playing Jackie at first, but she grew on me as the episode when on, and I quite liked her by the end of it.

Again with the dead horse, but Michael C. Hall was atrocious casting.  The actress playing Jackie was marginally better, but couldn't they afford some decent wigs for her?  Jackie was always perfectly coifed.

 

On 12/10/2017 at 5:14 PM, Bananna said:

Definitely my least favourite episode so far.

Mine , too.

 

On 12/14/2017 at 8:19 PM, dubbel zout said:

We got a hint of that when she was struggling to zip up her formal dress before the non-state dinner.

The non-state dinner was in 1961.  Elizabeth may still have shedding a bit of weight a year after giving birth to Andrew, but she wasn't pregnant with Edward by then!

It also bugged me that Elizabeth agreed with her mother than she and Jackie were the same age.  QE was born in 1926, and JBK in 1929.  

[Dejana]

Some archival footage of the Kennedys' visit to the UK:

 

As many have pointed out, JFK's father served as ambassador in the UK, of course his children were familiar with etiquette: 

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, Inquisitionist said:

On 12/14/2017 at 9:19 PM, dubbel zout said:

We got a hint of that when she was struggling to zip up her formal dress before the non-state dinner.

The non-state dinner was in 1961.  Elizabeth may still have shedding a bit of weight a year after giving birth to Andrew, but she wasn't pregnant with Edward by then!

LOL, that would be an interesting gestation! I didn't know that visit was so early in Kennedy's presidency. I've complained about the lack of time lines in this show before. I don't mind when the dates shift from episode to episode, but it's most confusing when they skip around within an episode and give us no help.

[kaygeeret]

As an old person, three years difference in age is nothing and, truly, once you get into your 20's, it really is the same age. 

You've lived the same events and you hang around with a group of people who are a bit younger and somewhat older and you all are basically in the same place in life.

But good gosh, the presentation of the Kennedy's was horrific and I am not now, nor was I ever a particular fan of them......didn't hate them but looked at them with a 'side eye'.

Jackie's voice was hateful, basically a whisper.   I remember watching the tour of the White House on TV in the 60's and I hated the childlike, whispery voice.  So Stupid.  But then that was just me....a college debater where a 'whispery voice' would have been laughed out of the room!

[latetotheparty]

1 hour ago, Dejana said:

Some archival footage of the Kennedys' visit to the UK:

 

 

As many have pointed out, JFK's father served as ambassador in the UK, of course his children were familiar with etiquette: 

Omg those 60s hair bows. I had a bunch of them. Never looked as good as Jackie. ?

[AnnieBeez]

9 minutes ago, kaygeeret said:

As an old person, three years difference in age is nothing and, truly, once you get into your 20's, it really is the same age. 

You've lived the same events and you hang around with a group of people who are a bit younger and somewhat older and you all are basically in the same place in life.

But good gosh, the presentation of the Kennedy's was horrific and I am not now, nor was I ever a particular fan of them......didn't hate them but looked at them with a 'side eye'.

Jackie's voice was hateful, basically a whisper.   I remember watching the tour of the White House on TV in the 60's and I hated the childlike, whispery voice.  So Stupid.  But then that was just me....a college debater where a 'whispery voice' would have been laughed out of the room!

Yeah, I didn't think the voice was right at all. I remember the breathy whisper voice from the footage I've seen. 

I don't find the Kennedy miscasting to be a surprise at all ('though it didn't bother me) considering the casting of Philip. 

[mmecorday]

I had to watch this one twice I enjoyed it so much, though it was not without its flaws. The miscasting of JFK and Jackie being the most glaring WTFs. The actress playing Mrs. Kennedy looked more like a young Jennifer Beals. Did Michael C. Hall listen to a bunch of Vaughn Meador records to prepare for his role? He was really awful and I like him in most things.

I got tickled watch the Queen Mum eating her "heavenly" macaroni and cheese with such gusto. (Side note: Caroline Kennedy's pony was named Macaroni.)I also loved the scene with the Queen and Jackie having tea. I'm sure Jackie didn't have a bite of the tea cakes and sandwiches because she never really liked food. But I liked it when the Queen split open her scone and applied the butter and jam liberally.

I loved the conversation between ER and Margaret too. Next time I'm in London I'm going to have to check out that swinging restaurant Tartuffe, Pissaro Moliere proprietor. ;)

[GaT]

I was very distracted by the fact that Jack & Jackie Kennedy looked nothing like Jack & Jackie Kennedy.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

My favorite thing about this episode was Michael and Martin quietly but frantically freaking the fuck out every time Jackie and JFK opened their mouths when they were at the NOT STATE dinner. I also enjoyed part two of that when Martin was on the phone in Ghana with MacMillan in London and everyone was freaking out about what Elizabeth was doing with Nkrumah (the foxtrot!).

Tied for my favorite thing in this episode was when Michael told Elizabeth that custom dictates that the Westminster Abbey bell is only rung when a royal family member dies and she told him to do it anyway. Embrace your power, queen! On the same note, I was glad that she ignored Michael's advice and went to Ghana. Sure, you can advise me all you like, but I'm still going to do what I want!

It seems like the actress cast as Jackie was chosen primarily for her looks (meaning her dark hair and thin frame - I didn't think her face looked much like Jackie's). Her American accent was so distracting to me every time she spoke.

The way Elizabeth smeared all that jam and clotted cream on her scone made me scratch my head. Proper etiquette is to break off a small bite sized piece and put the condiments on that small piece just before putting it in your mouth (not buttering the entire piece at once).

Edited December 17, 2017 by ElectricBoogaloo

[Mindthinkr]

1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

The way Elizabeth smeared all that jam and clotted cream on her scone made me scratch my head. Proper etiquette is to break off a small bite sized piece and put the condiments on that small piece just before putting it in your mouth (not buttering the entire piece at once).

I noticed that too. A glaring faux pas in etiquette to show Jackie that 1) she was a real woman 2) women should not be overly concerned with their weight (addressing Jackie being too thin 3) Hey, if you're going to breach protocol than I am too...doesn't it look rude? 4) Our food is worth eating (I know that is very debatable for most people lol) 

It amuses me IRL how many people do not know that about the correct way to butter and eat bread or a roll. 

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

The way Elizabeth smeared all that jam and clotted cream on her scone made me scratch my head. Proper etiquette is to break off a small bite sized piece and put the condiments on that small piece just before putting it in your mouth (not buttering the entire piece at once).

 

11 minutes ago, Mindthinkr said:

I noticed that too. A glaring faux pas in etiquette to show Jackie that 1) she was a real woman 2) women should not be overly concerned with their weight (addressing Jackie being too thin 3) Hey, if you're going to breach protocol than I am too...doesn't it look rude? 4) Our food is worth eating (I know that is very debatable for most people lol) 

It amuses me IRL how many people do not know that about the correct way to butter and eat bread or a roll. 

I learned as a child that it's wrong to sneer at people who come from different social or geographical backround and don't know "the correct way" do things. A really polite person either pretends not to notice the faux pas - or breaks the etiquette himself to make the other feel comfortable.   

[Mindthinkr]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

or breaks the etiquette himself to make the other feel comfortable.   

That's such a better way to say what I was trying to! Thank you. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Elizabeth was definitely not doing it to make Jackie more comfortable since Jackie hadn't touched anything on the table.

[AirQuotes]

This episode has given me the most to discuss of the series so far.  I did not like the casting of JFK and Jackie.  The Crown should have cast Katie Holmes because in comparison to this Jackie K, Katie H was more convincing.  (Katie played Jackie in a Reelz channel show on the Kennedys.)

I really just can't buy most of what this episode gave us about the Kennedys.  As someone else said, I'm not buying that the Kennedys were socially awkward bumpkins crashing the palace and accidentally insulting the Queen.  From everything I've seen about Dr. Max Jacobson (Dr. Feelgood), none of his famous, high profile patients knew what he was shooting them up with.  As far as they knew, it was a potent vitamin cocktail.  I'm also not buying that JFK and Jackie were violent with each other.  They both knew their roles and what their marriage was about.  I read tons of NF and biographies so my husband was asking me if this stuff was accurate.  I told him I don't think so.  Perhaps I just haven't come across this info in my readings.  Joe Kennedy's background in Hollywood gave him access to everything he needed to cultivate the necessary public images need to propel his sons.

Queen Elizabeth is so crisp and formal that I just can't believe she would sit there listening to Jackie's marital bullshit.  Commoners listen to the marital squabbles of others.  Not Queens!

I hope I don't get roasted for this, but Buckingham Palace really is in not the greatest condition.  I don't know what it would have been like in 1961 though, and I really can't see Jackie Kennedy commenting on the palace's crumbling shabbiness at a dinner party!  We toured it in Sept 2015, and quite honestly, I was shocked at the condition of the state rooms.  It was a really cold and rainy day that we were scheduled to go (tickets are purchased in advance and are for a certain day and time).   While walking from the tube to the palace, I stepped in a puddle while hurrying to cross a street.  My foot was soaked because I made a poor choice for shoes that day.  It was so cold and drafty in the palace that we were never able to even remove our coats.  My foot was so cold that it became painful.  There were heaters placed about but it was still just cold and drafty.  One room had water stains on the ceiling and I was pointing at them to my husband.  A member of the staff came over and told me in a polite way to look at the paintings and furnishings and not the ceiling. lol  I found the place extremely interesting beyond the intended purposes of the tour.

Edited December 17, 2017 by AirQuotes

[Minivanessa]

16 minutes ago, AirQuotes said:

I hope I don't get roasted for this, but Buckingham Palace really is in not the greatest condition. 

Taking this to the Monarchy/history topic.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Jeeves

[jumper sage]

On 12/14/2017 at 9:36 PM, rubyred said:

Jack would have had a better grasp of English society etiquette since his father had been Ambassador to Great Britain!

I don't believe Ambassador Kennedy was well liked or even tried to assimilate in England.

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, AirQuotes said:

I hope I don't get roasted for this, but Buckingham Palace really is in not the greatest condition. 

The White House wasn't either, or at least Jackie thought so. Secondly, she admired the French culture.

[madam magpie]

On 12/10/2017 at 7:06 AM, Helena Dax said:

Elizabeth doesn't like being criticised but she always listens. And learns. I love that.

Me too. It shows a real thoughtfulness, perceptiveness, and deep intelligence, even as Claire Foy always plays Elizabeth as self-conscious about her lack of education. She really is almost always the smartest person in the room, particularly because of that willingness to listen and reconsider. 

I was surprised that Jackie was so unprepared to meet the queen and acted so gauche (as my mother would say). Wasn’t she supposed to have been pretty classy? She was born into money and grew up in the high society world. I don’t believe she didn’t know how to behave. And she was supposed to be high?? Nah. I also don’t buy JFK as a crass douchebag. A high-brow douchebag, sure, but this guy acted like he’d fallen into money and never been to a fancy gathering before. And I’ve NEVER heard that JFK was abusive because Jackie was beloved in Paris. That story became super famous and charming.

That said, it was fun to see Jodie Balfour as Jackie. I loved her in Bomb Girls and hadn’t known what she’d been up to since.

Edited December 18, 2017 by madam magpie

[Primetimer]

And Elizabeth is just the tiniest bit jealous.

View the full article

[WatchrTina]

This write-up reminded me of a bit of trivia.  The very first episode of Doctor Who aired in Britain the weekend that Kennedy was shot.  No one saw it because everyone was watching all the coverage around the assassination.  The BBC had put rather a lot of effort into the show and so they did something unprecedented -- they re-ran the premiere episode again the following week.  

The other thing that this episode made me wonder is this:  How does one address a letter to the Queen?  Because presumably Jackie will write her back at some point to say thank you for the condolence letter.  Does the letter begin "Dear Queen Elizabeth" or "Your Majesty?"

ETA:  Okay I looked it up and according to the one online source I looked at the appropriate salutations are either "Your Majesty" or "May It Please Your Majesty" though the latter one doesn't strike me as appropriate in this circumstance.

[teddysmom]

I was surprised Elizabeth, the an avid horsewoman that she is, didn't make Margaret put out her cigarette in the stable. Or that Margaret didn't know not to smoke there. I know it was the 60s but JFC a wooden structure full of straw & hay and horses? Yeah let's walk around with something that could burn it to the ground before you know what hit you.

[PeterPirate]

9 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

I was surprised Elizabeth, the an avid horsewoman that she is, didn't make Margaret put out her cigarette in the stable. Or that Margaret didn't know not to smoke there. I know it was the 60s but JFC a wooden structure full of straw & hay and horses? Yeah let's walk around with something that could burn it to the ground before you know what hit you.

Hmmm. Maybe they are setting things up to explain how a certain future fire gets started.   

[teddysmom]

4 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

26 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

I was surprised Elizabeth, the an avid horsewoman that she is, didn't make Margaret put out her cigarette in the stable. Or that Margaret didn't know not to smoke there. I know it was the 60s but JFC a wooden structure full of straw & hay and horses? Yeah let's walk around with something that could burn it to the ground before you know what hit you.

Hmmm. Maybe they are setting things up to explain how a certain future fire gets started.   

Are you talking about the Windsor fire? That started in the Queen's private chapel, a curtain was pressed up against a spotlight. 

[PeterPirate]

Just now, teddysmom said:

Are you talking about the Windsor fire? That started in the Queen's private chapel, a curtain was pressed up against a spotlight. 

Well, that's what the royal family would have us believe.

Sorry, just having a little fun there.  I figure if the show is willing to play loose and free with the facts, we might as well indulge in some speculation about how future history will get tortured.  

[Rinaldo]

In an era when people smoked pretty much everywhere, I'm prepared to believe that they weren't too dainty about stables.

[teddysmom]

True.   Sometimes the acting is so good I forget a great deal of this is Morgan playing fast & loose with the facts.  Margaret & Phillip would figuratively burn the whole thing down if they could. 

I'll be interested to see how they handle the Diana situation.  In The Crown Phillip is written as wanting them to be more approachable, more modern, show that they actually care about the British people, but in The Queen he was written as such a stick in the mud when it came to following Blair's advice re their reaction to the public mourning. "It'll all blow over".  Yeah it's been 20 years and it still hasn't blown over. 

[PeterPirate]

18 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

True.   Sometimes the acting is so good I forget a great deal of this is Morgan playing fast & loose with the facts.  Margaret & Phillip would figuratively burn the whole thing down if they could. 

I'll be interested to see how they handle the Diana situation.  In The Crown Phillip is written as wanting them to be more approachable, more modern, show that they actually care about the British people, but in The Queen he was written as such a stick in the mud when it came to following Blair's advice re their reaction to the public mourning. "It'll all blow over".  Yeah it's been 20 years and it still hasn't blown over. 

Thanks for taking my little joke at your expense well.  

But that leads to a more serious issue with this show.  I can understand the show's need to embellish these characters in order to make for interesting TV.  If they kept true to the real people, we might not find the show as appealing.

But sooner or later they are going to get to Diana, and her story is just so much, so much more compelling that any historical fiction could be. And as your posts indicates, there is still a need for people to deal with her story, and to deal with it truthfully.  I don't think the viewers are going to react well to any artistic license Morgan takes, no matter how much better he thinks his storytelling is.  

Edited December 19, 2017 by PeterPirate

[teddysmom]

6 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

But sooner or later they are going to get to Diana, and her story is just so much, so much more compelling that any historical fiction could be. And as your posts indicates, there is still a need for people to deal with her story, and to deal with it truthfully.  I don't think the viewers are going to react well to any artistic license Morgan takes, no matter how much better he thinks his storytelling is.  

He was pretty sympathetic toward her in The Queen, he made the family out to be the bad guys, which imo, they were. Con a 19 year old girl into a marriage based on a lie, then don't support her when she finds out her husband is cheating,  treat her like she's crazy, and wonder why, to this day, she still is more popular than any of you, save her two sons.  Whenever  I hear people talking about Charles and Camilla, my blood boils.  Everything Diana did after they separated, trying to get her story out,  is less than Charles and his parents deserved.  She was hung out to dry, and when she got her chance, she got even. 

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

But sooner or later they are going to get to Diana, and her story is just so much, so much more compelling that any historical fiction could be. And as your posts indicates, there is still a need for people to deal with her story, and to deal with it truthfully.  I don't think the viewers are going to react well to any artistic license Morgan takes, no matter how much better he thinks his storytelling is.  

First, what is "the truth" about Diana? We don't know it, we have her version and Charles's version. And they told it afterwards and then one always thinks and feels otherswise than one did in the middle of happenings when one didn't know the result.

Following too much real happenings makes generally boring fiction. Therefore, it's often best if there are many "gaps". 

Before all, like Aristotle said, history tells what happened, poetry (fiction) tells what might have happened.