S02.E08: Dear Mrs. Kennedy

[madam magpie]

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

This is going to be super interesting. Thus far, Elizabeth has come across as incredibly sympathetic on this show. A lot of that has to do with Claire Foy. But I’ve also seen several other documentaries and read articles about her, and about how the palace handled Diana’s death, and I do think that it’s a very complex, tricky story to tell. There’s A LOT to unpack, and in many ways Elizabeth and Charles were horrible to Diana. It’s a disagreement I have with my mom a lot. She has zero sympathy for Charles and to this day sees him as a terrible person. On the other hand, I feel some sympathy for him, given that Camilla was clearly always the person he wanted and theirs is a relationship that has lasted decades. I also feel for Elizabeth because she’s often forced into an impossible position. I think Charles was shafted in the way we’ve seen Margaret be during these two seasons. But he was also terrible to his very young wife, and the family mistreated her. How the show can tell that story without demonizing either side, I don’t know. And without Claire Foy as Elizabeth, I’m not sure the character can remain sympathetic during that period. Maybe the show won’t try to do that. Maybe it’ll just slam the Queen. I’m super interested to see how it plays out, though. I’m also hoping we get to see Elizabeth and Margaret Thatcher. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by madam magpie

[Athena]

Please take any non-episode discussion and speculation about the Royals to the History Talk: Monarchy topic or the Tabloids & Gossip topic. Thank you. 

[Carolina Girl]

On 12/13/2017 at 5:15 PM, TexasGal said:

Add me to the list of those disappointed with the Kennedy casting.  Besides the bad accent, Michael C Hall (who I usually love in everything) is too short for JFK.  The actor playing Bobby would have been a better choice.

Ok, I feel dense, but what exactly was accomplished by the dance?  

In 1974, there was a dramatization  of the Cuban Missile Crisis - "The Missiles of October" - you can actually watch the entire thing on YouTube.  William DeVane played John F. Kennedy.  If you get a chance give it a peak.  I was very impressed with his portrayal.  

[MamaMax]

On 12/10/2017 at 6:38 PM, Peace 47 said:

Holy cow, how did I miss that this was Michael C. Hall?!   He’s such a talented actor, and in a couple of the definitive TV dramas of the past 20 years to boot, I’m surprised that his characterization missed the mark so much here.

I was like "Dexter? As JFK? Come on now." Plus, Hall looked too old. JFK might have been the same age, but he had boyish looks.

I was rolling my eyes like crazy when Jackie was telling her sad story. She would NEVER.  Perhaps the bit about postnatal problems. Maybe.

Loved E and her scone. Hey, I might have thick ankles but GUESS WHAT, I EAT DELICIOUS FOOD.

I was so sympathetic to E in this episode. Talk about the down side of being a powerful woman, especially in those bad old days.  Here, do a nearly impossible job that you didn't want, and that people will criticize at every turn regardless of what you decide, while the men around you doubt your intelligence, your bratty sister complains, your husband whines, everyone says you're a shitty mother even though you were REQUIRED to have children, and then.......worry that you're not pretty enough.  

[OtterMommy]

On 12/9/2017 at 11:58 PM, 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.

I agree.  In fact, this was the first time I found something I could nitpick about this show (and I'm super critical, so that says a lot about the quality of this show).  I also wasn't fond of Jackie.  Were the actors who played these roles British?  It seemed to me that their biggest problems is that they couldn't sound like the Kennedys, which is unfortunate because both of them have very unique voices and if they can't get that down, the portrayal is doomed.  It seemed strange to me that these two roles, that have been played so many times by so many different actors, in the past 40 years of so, just didn't work here--in a show that seems to excel at everything.

[dubbel zout]

Michael C. Hall is American; Jodi Balfour is South African. I think the problem with both Kennedy's accents is that they are so distinctive that trying to imitate them can send them into parody. 

I read somewhere that the Kennedy family accent was pretty much unique to them.

[OtterMommy]

On 12/14/2017 at 6:19 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.

(This was in response to the Queen being pregnant with Edward).  Okay, knowing that helps that scene makes sense.  As they were trying to stuff her in that dress, I just couldn't understand how her *private dressmaker* would have made a dress that didn't fit!

[dubbel zout]

Yeah, I was totally wrong with that. @Inquisitionist pointed out that the Kennedy non-state dinner was in 1961. Edward was born in 1964, so it's highly unlikely she was even invisibly pregnant with him, LOL. It's possible Elizabeth was trying to drop the last baby weight from Andrew's birth (1960), or she might just have been hitting the scones and clotted cream too heavily.

[biakbiak]

5 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Yeah, I was totally wrong with that. @Inquisitionist pointed out that the Kennedy non-state dinner was in 1961. Edward was born in 1964, so it's highly unlikely she was even invisibly pregnant with him, LOL. It's possible Elizabeth was trying to drop the last baby weight from Andrew's birth (1960), or she might just have been hitting the scones and clotted cream too heavily.

I kind of thought it was supposed to convey that she was suffering for fashion in order to one up Jackie per the suggestion of the designer; however this point was uundercut by the fact the dress in question looked more cheap prom dress than ruler of an empire.

[OtterMommy]

8 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Yeah, I was totally wrong with that. @Inquisitionist pointed out that the Kennedy non-state dinner was in 1961. Edward was born in 1964, so it's highly unlikely she was even invisibly pregnant with him, LOL. It's possible Elizabeth was trying to drop the last baby weight from Andrew's birth (1960), or she might just have been hitting the scones and clotted cream too heavily.

Okay.  Now I'm back to being perplexed by the dress not fitting.  I can see it the way @biakbiak did, that it showed her insecurity about meeting up with the stylish Jackie, but then I think too much about it and wonder why the dress, which was made for her, did not fit....  Maybe she went on a stress eating binge beforehand....

[MamaMax]

On 12/17/2017 at 7:52 AM, 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. 

Well, it wasn't a roll, it was a scone, and if you look up Cream Tea, it seems that the ways E served herself was very appropriate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream_tea

[dubbel zout]

10 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

wonder why the dress, which was made for her, did not fit.... 

I suspect it wasn't made for that specific event—it was a non-state dinner, after all.

[biakbiak]

8 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I suspect it wasn't made for that specific event—it was a non-state dinner, after all.

She and the designer made a huge deal about wowing in the dress to not look second best so at the very least it should have been altered to fit her perfectly.

Edited December 20, 2017 by biakbiak

[dubbel zout]

Oh, right. D'oh! If that was a dress to wow, someone dropped the ball. Were I in Elizabeth's place, I'd have worn a plain-ish dress but piled on the jewelry. She couldn't wear a tiara because it wasn't a state dinner, but it's not as if she doesn't have necklaces, bracelets, pins, rings, stomachers, etc., that would suffice. Only another queen (and even then, I think only the Dutch Royal Family currently has the depth of jewelry to rival the Brits) could have competed. 

[biakbiak]

59 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

'oh! If that was a dress to wow, someone dropped the ball.

I know it was so lackluster I googled to see it was accurate! Unfortunately it was so fashion FAIL! And it's not a seeing it through 2017 eyes, that missed the mark in any decade.

[OtterMommy]

50 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

I know it was so lackluster I googled to see it was accurate! Unfortunately it was so fashion FAIL! And it's not a seeing it through 2017 eyes, that missed the mark in any decade.

I just looked it up as well and the dress is...not great.  Actually the dress itself would be a bit better than "okay" if it weren't for the weird straps.  It seems like that should be a strapless dress, but then there are these dark blue (or, darker than the rest of the dress) straps that ruin the whole thing.

The other part of the problem is that Jackie Kennedy was this statuesque woman on whom a burlap sack would look good.  Elizabeth is a shorter woman who has a more challenging build from a fashion standpoint.  In a beauty pageant between the two, Elizabeth never had a chance.  Of course, it really wasn't about beauty--but Elizabeth seemed to think it was. 

[dubbel zout]

27 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

The other part of the problem is that Jackie Kennedy was this statuesque woman on whom a burlap sack would look good.

Yeah, Jackie was built like a coat hangar, whereas Elizabeth was small and buxom. What looked good on one wouldn't necessarily flatter the other.

Edited December 20, 2017 by dubbel zout
tenses

[Athena5217]

5 hours ago, biakbiak said:

She and the designer made a huge deal about wowing in the dress to not look second best so at the very least it should have been altered to fit her perfectly.

I second that.  If the Queen cannot have a dress perfectly tailored to fit her, what hope is there for the rest of us? I strongly suspect the dress not fitting well was a bit of fiction for dramatic purposes.

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

The other part of the problem is that Jackie Kennedy was this statuesque woman on whom a burlap sack would look good.  

Actually, the opposite is true: she had (or thought she had) lot of problems in her looks but she had learned a dress style that concealed them.

Barbara Leaming writes in Mrs Kennedy:

Quote

In fact, like so much in her life, the aim of her signature style concealment. A chemical straightener disguised her naturally kinky hair she hated. The teased bouffant masked a low hairliner. Kid gloves covered large, strong, mannish hands which an early boyfriend had likened to those of a peasant. The cut of her suit jacket artfully concealed the breath of her shoulders, and her muscular back and arms. The shirt disguised hips that she thought was too broad. The shoes were specially cut to make large feet look smaller and more feminine. Sunglasses hid brown eyes set so far apart that her optician had to special-order a suitable wide bridge. Dark lenses had an additional advantage of guarding emotions that since childhood she had taken tremondious pains to hide.   

Edited December 20, 2017 by Roseanna
correcting grammar

[NeverLate]

10 hours ago, MamaMax said:

I was like "Dexter? As JFK? Come on now." Plus, Hall looked too old. JFK might have been the same age, but he had boyish looks.

I was rolling my eyes like crazy when Jackie was telling her sad story. She would NEVER.  Perhaps the bit about postnatal problems. Maybe.

Loved E and her scone. Hey, I might have thick ankles but GUESS WHAT, I EAT DELICIOUS FOOD.

I was so sympathetic to E in this episode. Talk about the down side of being a powerful woman, especially in those bad old days.  Here, do a nearly impossible job that you didn't want, and that people will criticize at every turn regardless of what you decide, while the men around you doubt your intelligence, your bratty sister complains, your husband whines, everyone says you're a shitty mother even though you were REQUIRED to have children, and then.......worry that you're not pretty enough.  

You posted most of what I felt. The one thing about Elizabeth that's plain to see, she's smart! She can read a room she can be called dowdy etc, but she can flip a switch and she is on!( dancing)

It would not be easy, crown before family, it's not an easy job.

I said the same as you, Dexter? Oh please no!

8 hours ago, MamaMax said:

Well, it wasn't a roll, it was a scone, and if you look up Cream Tea, it seems that the ways E served herself was very appropriate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream_tea

One can go to Victoria , BC, and have a cream tea, wonderful things. Elizabeth has manners! :)

[biakbiak]

Quote

One can go to Victoria , BC, and have a cream tea, wonderful things. Elizabeth has manners! :)

There are a lot of places in the U.S. also have a cream tea. 

[txhorns79]

Quote

The other part of the problem is that Jackie Kennedy was this statuesque woman on whom a burlap sack would look good.  Elizabeth is a shorter woman who has a more challenging build from a fashion standpoint.  In a beauty pageant between the two, Elizabeth never had a chance.  Of course, it really wasn't about beauty--but Elizabeth seemed to think it was. 

I'd just say QE2 chose an unflattering look for herself that was a big fail compared to Jackie.  Jackie's dress is such that she could wear it today and it would still look good.  QE2 looks like she's  ready to hold a daisy chain for the graduating seniors at Bryn Mawr to walk through circa 1957.   

[TexasGal]

12 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

I just looked it up as well and the dress is...not great.  Actually the dress itself would be a bit better than "okay" if it weren't for the weird straps.  It seems like that should be a strapless dress, but then there are these dark blue (or, darker than the rest of the dress) straps that ruin the whole thing.

 

The straps really did ruin it, which is odd because when they showed the models it was strapless.  As captured by our intrepid recapper:

[Inquisitionist]

19 hours ago, MamaMax said:

and then.......worry that you're not pretty enough.  

As royals go, Elizabeth was pretty attractive, and she kept her figure for a long time, despite 4 pregnancies.  Here she is in Ghana in 1961, age 35 or so, after 3 children.  Nice!

I remember seeing that photo of the Kennedys with E&P as a child and thinking even then that Jackie's dress looked so much more elegant than the Queen's.  I agree that the straps were a dopey-looking addition, but perhaps she felt a strapless gown was not appropriate? 

[Tara Ariano]

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

 

The Kennedys Come To Town In The Crown S02.E08

And Elizabeth is just the tiniest bit jealous.

[txhorns79]

Quote

As royals go, Elizabeth was pretty attractive, and she kept her figure for a long time, despite 4 pregnancies.  Here she is in Ghana in 1961, age 35 or so, after 3 children.  Nice!

I may be wrong, but I would guess she was wearing a girdle, or something form fitting to give her that look. 

[NeverLate]

57 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I may be wrong, but I would guess she was wearing a girdle, or something form fitting to give her that look. 

Today, we have spanx..:) 

[Mindthinkr]

2 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

As royals go, Elizabeth was pretty attractive, and she kept her figure for a long time, despite 4 pregnancies.  Here she is in Ghana in 1961, age 35 or so, after 3 children.  Nice!

I remember seeing that photo of the Kennedys with E&P as a child and thinking even then that Jackie's dress looked so much more elegant than the Queen's.  I agree that the straps were a dopey-looking addition, but perhaps she felt a strapless gown was not appropriate? 

That was a lovely picture of the Queen. I especially liked the dress with all of its fine embroidery. She should have worn something like that to greet Mrs Kennedy. 

[llongori]

12 hours ago, TexasGal said:

The straps really did ruin it, which is odd because when they showed the models it was strapless.  As captured by our intrepid recapper:

All of those dresses were hideous.  I was waiting for them to bring out the next batch, because, yuk.

[Pallas]

On 12/17/2017 at 0:04 PM, jumper sage said:

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

He wasn't liked -- for one thing, an Irish American ambassador, only 16 years after Irish independence. For another, a stock speculator. For another, Joe Kennedy. But as Ambassador, he didn't need to assimilate, he only needed to receive. And Joe, Jr.,  Jack and Kathleen (Kick) were themselves very well-received in England, with Kick going on to marry the heir to the Duchy of Devonshire (as pointed out above). 

Here's the lout who accompanied Mrs. Kennedy to London, 22 years earlier: with Joe and Kick in September 1939, on their way to the House of Commons to hear war declared.

[MamaMax]

9 hours ago, llongori said:

All of those dresses were hideous.  I was waiting for them to bring out the next batch, because, yuk.

I wondered why they would show the Queen dresses on models whose figures are NOTHING like hers? Shouldn't they find a model the same height, waist and cup sizes, so that E could see what it would actually look like on HER? I didn't even recognize the blue dress at first, because that model has a wasp waist!

7 hours ago, Pallas said:

He wasn't liked -- for one thing, an Irish American ambassador, only 16 years after Irish independence. For another, a stock speculator. For another, Joe Kennedy. But as Ambassador, he didn't need to assimilate, he only needed to receive. And Joe, Jr.,  Jack and Kathleen (Kick) were themselves very well-received in England, with Kick going on to marry the heir to the Duchy of Devonshire (as pointed out above). 

Here's the lout who escorted Mrs. Kennedy to Buckingham Palace, 22 years earlier, with Joe and Kick in London in September 1939, on their way to hear war declared in the House of Commons.

They sure were good lookin.

IF anyone is interested in Kick's story, they made a Million Dollar American Princesses episode about her.. The Beautiful and the Doomed. I also read a great fictionalized novel based on real events, called The Importance of Being Kennedy. 

[Inquisitionist]

19 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I may be wrong, but I would guess she was wearing a girdle, or something form fitting to give her that look. 

Agreed, but girdles can only do so much.  She stayed pretty trim.

[Clanstarling]

On 12/9/2017 at 0:38 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. In The Death of a President by William Machester Jackie is instructed that as a wife to a head of state she doesn't need to curtsy.

Any other president, I could handwave and say "yeah, I get that Brits aren't fond of our presidents, and some of them were rubes" but not Kennedy. For all of the stated reasons, but more because his special talent was charming people, and you don't do that by being ignorant of what's important to the people you're working to charm. Granted, Michael C Hall's performance didn't even have as much charm as he did on Dexter. I was sorely disappointed by his performance. And that terrible toupee.

On 12/10/2017 at 11:53 PM, Roseanna said:

I haven't seen any actor succeed in President Kennedy's role. 

No one's quite captured him, but some have come close.

On 12/11/2017 at 1:59 PM, spottedreptile said:

Bruce Greenwood gave it a decent nudge in Thirteen Days, but on the whole yes I agree with you. 

I thought of him immediately, and William Devane was in the ball park

A few years back, someone released tapes where Jackie was interviewed (not too long after JFK's assassination, I think), and she was pretty catty. I personally never thought Jackie was all that beautiful, and that whispery voice drove me insane (hated little baby girl voices on grown women). In the real picture from the dinner, I'd say both women were equally attractive.  

[ReallySpecial]

I just have to say... I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this:

"Michael Adeane bursts in to break the news to Elizabeth that 'someone' has shown up to work on this damn dam, and...they're Russians! RED ALERT."

Hahahaha oh my word.

[Cara]

6 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

Any other president, I could handwave and say "yeah, I get that Brits aren't fond of our presidents, and some of them were rubes" but not Kennedy. For all of the stated reasons, but more because his special talent was charming people, and you don't do that by being ignorant of what's important to the people you're working to charm. Granted, Michael C Hall's performance didn't even have as much charm as he did on Dexter. I was sorely disappointed by his performance. And that terrible toupee.

No one's quite captured him, but some have come close.

I thought of him immediately, and William Devane was in the ball park

A few years back, someone released tapes where Jackie was interviewed (not too long after JFK's assassination, I think), and she was pretty catty. I personally never thought Jackie was all that beautiful, and that whispery voice drove me insane (hated little baby girl voices on grown women). In the real picture from the dinner, I'd say both women were equally attractive.  

I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks Jackie wasn’t particularly attractive. She was a fabulous dresser. Almost all of the photos I’ve seen of her clothes are gorgeous. But I found her just average looking. And that voice I find extremely annoying.

 

 I

[Crs97]

This episode was bad in every way.  The casting of the Kennedys was awful!  You couldn’t have found two people with less charisma if you tried.  The whole storyline felt false - Jackie is going to apologize by saying she is a victim of domestic abuse and was high?!?  Has there ever been any report or rumor that JFK was physically abusive?  I haven’t said this about this show before, but I want my hour back.  Just awful.

[merylinkid]

Clearly I am old -- William Devane always did a SPOT ON John Kennedy to me.   Looks, charisma and voice.   Too bad he's too old for the role now.  But I honestly think of him more than I do the real Kennedy.    The guy they cast here had too gravelly a voice.   JFK had a smooth voice with that hideous (to me) Bahston accent.  

 

Also did not like the domestic violence scene.   Was JFK a womanizer?   Of course.   But he knew the asset he had in Jackie and used it to the hilt to enhance his image.   There were NO hints of dv.   Not even know when so much has come to light.   Also no hints that Jackie had to be drugged.   We know Jack had to be because of his back, but not her.

Also the Kennedys knew protocol as others have said.   NO WAY they would have acted like country bumpkins.   Jackie was polished and sophisticated, spoke several languages and was not stupid.   Jack was too smooth a politican to screw that up.   this was English writers taking the mickey at Americans.

 

Claire Foy's face when she was told what was said about her.   Just perfection.   You could feel her pain while she was trying to hide it.   Then her brilliant smile during the dance when she looked at Philip and he smiled at her.   One reason I hate Philip's portrayal in this show is that he has been her rock and biggest supporter.   She IS shy and hates all the public stuff.   Philip relaxes her.

Cracked up when he was sitting on the patio and the aide was about to head inside to talk to the Queen "tut, tut, I wouldn't do that if I were you."  The aide stopped dead and listened to him.   They are gradually showing that Philip does have her back.

 

The ending.   Oh my.   When the Queen marched into and TOLD the guy there will be mourning and Westminster Abbey's bell will ring was awesome.   He wanted to argue protocol.   took one look at Elizabeth's face and said the only sane thing he could "Yes Ma'am."

[secnarf]

9 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Also did not like the domestic violence scene.   Was JFK a womanizer?   Of course.   But he knew the asset he had in Jackie and used it to the hilt to enhance his image.   There were NO hints of dv.   Not even know when so much has come to light.   Also no hints that Jackie had to be drugged.   We know Jack had to be because of his back, but not her.

Well, domestic violence often isn't obvious to outsiders, especially in a time when cameras were not ubiquitous. I can see there being a lot of pressure after JFK's death to keep any domestic violence on his part quiet in order to preserve his image.

I really have no idea what the intimate details are re: JFK and Jackie's marriage, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of violence out of hand just because we didn't see any hints of it.

Although - I did think it was common knowledge that "Dr Feelgood" treated Jackie as well as her husband.

[Pallas]

9 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Also no hints that Jackie had to be drugged.   We know Jack had to be because of his back, but not her.

Jackie also was administered Dr. Jacobson's potions. Since Dr. Jacobson was on the state tour with them,  he likely treated her, along with Jack. 

 

9 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Cracked up when he was sitting on the patio and the aide was about to head inside to talk to the Queen "tut, tut, I wouldn't do that if I were you."  The aide stopped dead and listened to him.   They are gradually showing that Philip does have her back.

Yes, that felt significant. Away from the palaces and Moustaches, Philip seems to be more assured as her Exec, and more heeded by the core staff. This episode was framed as a kind of coming-out party for Elizabeth as a player on world stage: receiving and over-awing the Kennedys; traveling to Ghana and engaging successfully with Nkrumah, where none of her Prime Ministers had with Egypt and Nasser; taking the lead in how Great Britain will acknowledge the death of their top ally's leader. The episode also seems to be implying that by further defining her own role, Elizabeth may be spurring Philip to find his.

[PeterPirate]

I remember hearing stories, some years ago, that Aristotle Onassis treated Jackie the way we saw depicted.  No physical violence, but a lot of emotional torture. 

 

ETA:  Oh my.  I've now learned a lot of stuff about Jackie and Aristotle that I rather I hadn't.

Edited December 23, 2017 by PeterPirate

[spottedreptile]

On 21/12/2017 at 3:21 PM, llongori said:

All of those dresses were hideous.  I was waiting for them to bring out the next batch, because, yuk.

I was a teenager in the late 1960s and I think I would have had the same reaction as you did if somebody made me wear those tasteless, badly designed clothes. Elizabeth had a stunning figure and did wear some really lovely gowns, but that blue nightmare was one of the worst. The blue was dull and muddy, the shirred top did nothing for her lovely bosom and the straps looked girlish. Perhaps that's the effect the showrunners wanted, but it looked such a fashion faux pas I'm amazed Elizabeth consented to wear it at all. 

[biakbiak]

8 hours ago, secnarf said:

Well, domestic violence often isn't obvious to outsiders, especially in a time when cameras were not ubiquitous. I can see there being a lot of pressure after JFK's death to keep any domestic violence on his part quiet in order to preserve his image.

But there is absolutely no evidence other than a poorly written scene made up by a writer 56 years after the fact, so there was nothing to cover up.

Edited December 23, 2017 by biakbiak

[secnarf]

5 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

But there is absolutely no evidence other than a poorly written scene made up writer 56 years after the fact, so there was nothing to cover up.

But that is precisely what I am trying to say - just because there is no evidence (that was made public), that doesn't mean there wasn't something there that was covered up/hidden.

My point is simply that you don't always see domestic violence. It's not always obvious. That doesn't mean it's not there. Assuming that domestic violence didn't or doesn't happen just because you haven't seen evidence of it is a dangerous fallacy.

[biakbiak]

4 minutes ago, secnarf said:

But that is precisely what I am trying to say - just because there is no evidence (that was made public), that doesn't mean there wasn't something there that was covered up/hidden.

My point is simply that you don't always see domestic violence. It's not always obvious. That doesn't mean it's not there. Assuming that domestic violence didn't or doesn't happen just because you haven't seen evidence of it is a dangerous fallacy.

And my point is that creating a story from nothing is a shitty device and the scene did not ring true on so many levels and that detail completely took me out of the story. 

[dubbel zout]

The Kennedys have been so thoroughly dissected by this point that if there'd been domestic violence with Jack and Jackie, we'd have heard something by now.

[Roseanna]

12 hours ago, secnarf said:

Well, domestic violence often isn't obvious to outsiders, especially in a time when cameras were not ubiquitous. I can see there being a lot of pressure after JFK's death to keep any domestic violence on his part quiet in order to preserve his image.

I really have no idea what the intimate details are re: JFK and Jackie's marriage, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of violence out of hand just because we didn't see any hints of it.

Regarding Jack and Jackie irl: one can't write biographies according the principle that "one can't dismiss the possibilty" - one must have evidence or it must at least be a likely conclusion.  

Otherwise, there will be biographies in this style "X was gay" - "no way! there is no evidence, nor was there even rumours" - "that doesn't matter, one can't dismiss the possiblity". 

That anybody can be gay is no reason to claim that X was. That domestic violence is common is no reason to claim that Y used it. 

21 hours ago, merylinkid said:

 this was English writers taking the mickey at Americans.

Yes, a writer has a right to it. We watchers must realize that this is fiction. And it's easier to do it in cases like this where irl is so different.  

[FirstBootFodder]

On 12/13/2017 at 8:15 PM, TexasGal said:

Ok, I feel dense, but what exactly was accomplished by the dance?  

 

My interpretation is that QEII's visit (and that dance) gave Kwame Nkrumah legitimacy as the first President of the new Republic.  In the context of the story on The Crown, I interpreted the whole trip as a massively positive PR event for this country that the Queen would actually visit and go so far as to dance with him, considering Ghana went full republic a year earlier (after already voting to change from a monarchy to an independent Commonwealth with the Queen as Governor-General status a couple years earlier).  The story implies that QEII's visit was such a success that Ghana decided to keep the US/UK involved in the dam project, and prevented the USSR from gaining a foothold in a brand new nation.  Just my interpretation of The Crown's version versus what little history I know about the two countries' relationship.

Edited December 23, 2017 by FirstBootFodder
spelling...

[PinkRibbons]

I thought that the dance was also largely about the fact that a white woman was dancing with an African man in the early 1960s. The level of respect that shows, to not only legitimize another leader by engaging with him socially on a public stage, but breaking what was still considered a taboo in many parts of the world to do so, is enormous.

[Pallas]

Within the show it also, finally, demonstrated the real power of symbolism: how The Crown's scepter can become a wand. And in this case, not by the monarch's being part cipher and part sphinx.

Ghana's last monarch dances with Ghana's first President. Ghana's former Head of State dances with its current Head of State, who first led his country to independence from her Government's rule, then from her reign over the Commonwealth. A British Queen dances with a pan-African socialist. And more, a white woman -- the white woman -- agrees to dance with a black man -- the black man who had already refused her rule. All for their countries, their continents and the world to see.

[secnarf]

19 hours ago, biakbiak said:

And my point is that creating a story from nothing is a shitty device and the scene did not ring true on so many levels and that detail completely took me out of the story. 

That's fair :)

I don't think that the allegation made by The Crown is true, nor do I think it is anything but speculation, but that is just my guess and I could easily be wrong about that.

However, I do take issue with the assertion that domestic violence did not happen in their relationship because we (the public) did not see evidence of it.