S02.E08: Dear Mrs. Kennedy

[biakbiak]

4 minutes ago, secnarf said:

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.

Every aspect of their private life has been dissected by many, many people and tons of sorid and private details are now known 50 plus years later, it's not a situation where we only know the public face of their relationship.

Edited December 23, 2017 by biakbiak

[Dejana]

14 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Every aspect of their private life has been dissected by many, many people and tons of sorid and private details are now known 50 plus years later, it's not a situation where we only know the public face of their relationship.

It's been about 2-3 years since I've cracked open a biography about any of the Kennedys but I'll put the low estimate of the number I've read in my life at about 30, and this. They're filled with numerous personal details about their relationship, their arguments, their sex lives (one oft-repeated canard is how JFK told MacMillan he got a headache if he wasn't with a woman every three days), their urological/gynecological health, her underwear preferences... 

It isn't that pearls are being clutched because Morgan dared to portray "Anerican royalty" in an imperfect light, because friends, former friends, staffers, Secret Service agents,  interns, servants, et al, let that cat out of the bag decades ago. It's that there are so many historical accounts of the JFK/Jackie dynamic already yet Morgan decided to invent some sort of professional jealousy angle and imply domestic violence to...make the royals look less bad in comparison, I guess?  Why not work with the contrast of JFK being pleased to see Jackie shine on the international stage vs. Philip's resentment about living in Elizabeth's shadow? Or focus on how the roles of the wife of a male head of government/state and a female leader are quite dissimilar and society holds each to different expectations? There was good story to mine out of the two couples not being very much alike instead of reaching to try to draw parallels.

I was really distracted by Elizabeth's dress shopping and how the models had figures nothing like hers. With Jackie in the episode, it reminded me of how during the White House years, Oleg Cassini employed a model with the First Lady's exact measurements so fittings could be done without her presence being necessary. I know Elizabeth was a bit farther removed from having a typical model's figure than Jackie Kennedy but surely for the young(ish) queen, a designer would make the effort?

Edited December 24, 2017 by Dejana

[Clanstarling]

On 12/22/2017 at 4:14 AM, merylinkid said:

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.

Indeed. In most cases, I don't react other than to cringe a bit. I remember Bill Bob Thornton as the sleazy American president in Love, Actually but I went with it - because perspective is everything and I get that theirs is different than ours, plus he was fictional (though clearly supposed to be Clinton). When the show gets to LBJ and skewers him, I'd probably roll with it, his lack of social graces was well known. But the Kennedy's were sophisticates (which is partly why they weren't well loved in parts of the US). 

On 12/24/2017 at 6:03 AM, Dejana said:

It's been about 2-3 years since I've cracked open a biography about any of the Kennedys but I'll put the low estimate of the number I've read in my life at about 30, and this. They're filled with numerous personal details about their relationship, their arguments, their sex lives (one oft-repeated canard is how JFK told MacMillan he got a headache if he wasn't with a woman every three days), their urological/gynecological health, her underwear preferences... 

It isn't that pearls are being clutched because Morgan dared to portray "Anerican royalty" in an imperfect light, because friends, former friends, staffers, Secret Service agents,  interns, servants, et al, let that cat out of the bag decades ago. It's that there are so many historical accounts of the JFK/Jackie dynamic already yet Morgan decided to invent some sort of professional jealousy angle and imply domestic violence to...make the royals look less bad in comparison, I guess?  Why not work with the contrast of JFK being pleased to see Jackie shine on the international stage vs. Philip's resentment about living in Elizabeth's shadow? Or focus on how the roles of the wife of a male head of government/state and a female leader are quite dissimilar and society holds each to different expectations? There was good story to mine out of the two couples not being very much alike instead of reaching to try to draw parallels.

Better said than anything I can come up with.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Clanstarling
Because Four Weddings and A Funeral and Love, Actually are very different films, even if Hugh Grant is in both of them.

[PeterPirate]

Can we classify what JFK did as domestic violence?  He threw a glass on the floor, yanked a cigarette out of her hand, and then grabbed her for some passionate sex.  Let us not forget that in season 1 we saw Elizabeth throw a cup at Philip.   

Also, I wonder if British audiences are enjoying seeing a President of the United States depicted as a complete lout.  Maybe they do so at at any time, but I can well imagine that the current tenor of the times would heighten the need for a some fan service.  

This takes me to the speech that JFK gives in this episode:

Quote

What is it to be an American today? Prosperous, powerful, privileged. Certainly, And yet, it is also troubling. I look around me and find our people as divided as never before. Indeed, as at no time since our civil war. There has been a change, a slippage, in our moral and intellectual strength. Blight has descended on our regulatory agencies and a dry rot, beginning in Washington, is seeping into every corner of America. Too many of us have lost our way, our will, and our sense of historic purpose. It is time for a renewal, a new generation of leadership, healing leadership, but we cannot do it alone.  And so I am asking each of you to be pioneers in this renewal, in this healing, in the reclaiming of great American values: freedom, tolerance, and equality of opportunity. Then we can claim our position and responsibilities as leaders of a truly free world.     

If he ever gave a speech like this one, I am not aware of it.  Except for the last two sentences, it sounds more like Jimmy Carter than John Kennedy. 

As someone said above, this was an English writer "throwing a mickey" at the Yanks.  

Edited December 24, 2017 by PeterPirate

[biakbiak]

13 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

He threw a glass on the floor, yanked a cigarette out of her hand, and then grabbed her for some passionate sex.  Let us not forget that in season 1 we saw Elizabeth throw a cup at Philip.   

It wasn't a scene of him, it was at the tea and Jackie talked about it, I forget the exact wording but it was definitely talking about physical abuse.

[WatchrTina]

5 hours ago, Dejana said:

I know Elizabeth was a bit farther removed from having a typical model's figure than Jackie Kennedy but surely for the young(ish) queen, a designer would make the effort?

I feel certain the designer had a dress form with the queen's exact measurements and perhaps even had a live "fit model" (a person with her exact measurements) on stand-by for preliminary fittings, but the women he hired for his showroom would have been professional models in the size and shape that the fashionistas of the day expected to see.  I know fuller figures were in style in the 1950s but I feel certain professional models were, even then, taller and thinner than the average woman (or the queen.)  It doesn't surprise me that they look more like Lady Mary in Downton Abbey than Queen Elizabeth (or her full-figured mother.)

Edited December 24, 2017 by WatchrTina

[txhorns79]

Quote

Why not work with the contrast of JFK being pleased to see Jackie shine on the international stage vs. Philip's resentment about living in Elizabeth's shadow? Or focus on how the roles of the wife of a male head of government/state and a female leader are quite dissimilar and society holds each to different expectations? There was good story to mine out of the two couples not being very much alike instead of reaching to try to draw parallels.

I don't think you can really compare the roles vis a vis Jackie and Philip.  JFK is good with seeing Jackie shine, but ultimately, he is the one who makes the decisions and is the leader.  He essentially is "letting" her shine, and if it became a distraction, he has the power to end it.   Philip will never be in that position.  He can be happy for Elizabeth to do well, but she is the one who calls the shots. 

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, Dejana said:

 Why not work with the contrast of JFK being pleased to see Jackie shine on the international stage vs. Philip's resentment about living in Elizabeth's shadow? Or focus on how the roles of the wife of a male head of government/state and a female leader are quite dissimilar and society holds each to different expectations? There was good story to mine out of the two couples not being very much alike instead of reaching to try to draw parallels.

 

2 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I don't think you can really compare the roles vis a vis Jackie and Philip.  JFK is good with seeing Jackie shine, but ultimately, he is the one who makes the decisions and is the leader.  He essentially is "letting" her shine, and if it became a distraction, he has the power to end it.   Philip will never be in that position.  He can be happy for Elizabeth to do well, but she is the one who calls the shots. 

As Dejana said, I think it would be relevant to compare to the role of the male leader and the female leader  - although it's quite different to be a Queen Regnant than a female President or Prime Minister.

Nobody talks how the male political leader is dressed - it's how he talks and acts which is important during the state visit. The female political leader's dresses are usually noticed and commented - unless she is Angela Merkel who wisely dresses always in the same way, so she is treated in the same way as men.  

When a female political leader and a Queen meet, their dresses are compared and the latter's dress is usually more praised - people don't seem to understand that it's because the Queen's job is solely to represent and entertain, not to govern.  

[anna0852]

9 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

Indeed. In most cases, I don't react other than to cringe a bit. I remember Bill Bob Thornton as the sleazy American president in Four Weddings and a Funeral, but I went with it - because perspective is everything and I get that theirs is different than ours, plus he was fictional (though clearly supposed to be Clinton).

You're thinking of Love Actually, not 4WAAF

[Clanstarling]

35 minutes ago, anna0852 said:

You're thinking of Love Actually, not 4WAAF

Oops. You're right, of course. Got my Hugh Grant movies mixed up.

[OtterMommy]

While I think this show missed the mark by a mile with the Kennedys, I can't say I didn't like this episode (even if I was annoyed by Jack and Jackie).  Everything except them was very well done, IMO, and Foy's acting was just spot on. 

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

While I think this show missed the mark by a mile with the Kennedys, I can't say I didn't like this episode (even if I was annoyed by Jack and Jackie).  Everything except them was very well done, IMO, and Foy's acting was just spot on. 

Yes, the plot was quite good and it demanded that Elizabeth felt insulted by Jackie and her underestimation arouse her will to show which caused her journey to Ghana (although could she have really travelled there against the advice of her government?).

Actually, Jackie's estimation about Elizabeth would have been apt (she looked like middle-aged, her dress was a failure, she isn't a cultured wit or a glamorous flirt) and her tour in the Palace was third-rate at best (anybody could have told more and she was quite unenthusiastic) although she would of course have been wise to keep her mouth shut when there was also Britons in her sister's dinner.

But what was the worst in Jackie's comments was that she behaved two-faced: she herself had begun to speak openly about her shyness and marital problems (that her husband was more interested to speak publicly than to be alone with her) and Elizabeth had been very sympathic towards her and also opened about her sister. In the end, all Jackie's outward shining qualities didn't matter if she was heartless.

On the other hand, Elizabeth's lack of dress taste, cultural knowledge and lively conversation didn't matter much when she had the most important things: empathy towards others and the ability always to restrain herself and behave civilly to others. That's why we saw in the beginning the scene where she was helped out of her rubber boots - although it clearly caused some pain, she denied it to her servant.

Philip behaved first badly (too much admiration towards Jackie, unlike Elizabeth's ever faithful friend Porchy), but in Ghana his approval made Elizabeth smile when dancing. Just as in Vergangenheit, he is the only person in the world to whom Elizabeth can honestly admit her little human weaknesses and who supports her by accepting them.

Also noticeable was that we saw Elizabetha and Philip just sleep two times in the same bed just as most married couple do - and the night after JFK's murder saw Elizabeth seeking comfort from Philip's nearness and him silently giving it.

I wonder if Elizabeth meant not only Jackie and also herself when she said that one thinks oneself to be unhappy but when  something terrible happens, one notices that one has been happy after all. But why then not to continue this theme describing Elizabeth and Philip's marriage?           

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I wonder if Elizabeth meant not only Jackie and also herself when she said that one thinks oneself to be unhappy but when  something terrible happens, one notices that one has been happy after all.

I think this is a fairly common feeling—you don't know how good you have it until it's gone/things can always be worse—but viewers were obviously supposed to think Elizabeth was referring to herself as well as Jackie. This show can be subtle, but it can also be a sledgehammer when it comes to points it wants to make.

[CousinAmy]

Was Jackie indeed such a sparkling wit? She was extremely glamorous, but I'm not sure she was praised at the time for her bon mots. 

I can buy Philip as a flirt, but the way he acted about sitting next to Jackie was not only juvenile, it was hurtful and insensitive to Elizabeth. I wanted to slap him. 

[dubbel zout]

I don't know if Jackie was a sparkling wit, but she wasn't stupid. She graduated from Vassar and studied at the University of Grenoble and the Sorbonne for her junior year abroad, and in her early Washington years she took classes in American history at Georgetown. So at the very least, she was intellectually curious.

[VCRTracking]

I'm just amazed JFK knew exactly that Jackie's insulting comments were what motivated the Queen's dance with the president of Ghana!

Also I've seen a lot of inconsiderate husbands on TV and Phillip is now at the top of a long list.

[OtterMommy]

3 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

I'm just amazed JFK knew exactly that Jackie's insulting comments were what motivated the Queen's dance with the president of Ghana!

I think that was a good moment--for TV.  I have a feeling, and I could be wrong, that it was fictionalized for this show.  And that's...okay.  I love this show and I think that their portrayals are pretty close to the mark (most of the time), but I also recognize that sometimes artistic license has to be employed for the sake of story telling.

[EtheltoTillie]

On 12/9/2017 at 7:41 PM, irisheyes said:

Just started watching, but I love the Queen Mother banging on the TV and QE wanting her to stop, “It’s rented!”  Pretty sure she can spring for a TV of her own. ?

Trivia:  apparently most TVs were rented back then.  So I think this was a wink to the audience to show that the Royals suffered under the same system 

[Humbugged]

On 12/21/2017 at 6:10 AM, 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 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.

Yeah it was because he was Irish-American /s.Bullshit

Nothing to do with him seeking unauthorized audiences with Hitler even after France had been over run .

Or his defeatist shit to American newspapers like this  "Democracy is finished in England."

Or his hiding out in the countryside during the Blitz while The King and the Princesses ,the Government and every other ambassador stayed put in London

"I thought my daffodils were yellow until I met Joe Kennedy."

[spaceghostess]

On 12/16/2017 at 4:49 AM, 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.

On 12/15/2017 at 8:43 AM, Pallas said:

Eh, I think in Elizabeth's circle, speaking a second language (which would, in all likelihood at the time, have been French) was the norm. Mastering French at a high level was part of the education of English girls and women of the aristocracy for generations. Fluency in foreign languages was not, however, the norm for everyone across England, and I say this as someone who was married to a Londoner for 17 years and spent plenty of time with his family and friends there. My ex and his schoolmates were well educated and only one of them had fluency in another language (and that guy's a language savant who speaks 7 and counting). As a matter of fact, the ex's mother spoke three languages (she grew up in Cairo) and his widely scattered extended family was also multilingual, as I learned when attending their family reunion in Paris . . . but the English branch of the family? Nope. I never met anyone there who had fluency in a second language (not that I met everyone). I do take your point re: Americans mostly speaking English only, but I think "Who doesn't?" from Elizabeth was meant to convey "Who doesn't?" among her set rather than the general population.

Edited December 30, 2017 by spaceghostess

[dubbel zout]

44 minutes ago, spaceghostess said:

I think "Who doesn't?" from Elizabeth was meant to convey "Who doesn't?" among her set rather than the general population.

I'm not sure how many people in her set speak another language, TBH. I think it really depends on how you feel about speaking a foreign language. Some people think it's cultured, others think the world should cater to them.

(It was fairly controversial that David was fluent in German, even though his mother was a native German and the BRC is more German than anything else. I think he also spoke pretty fluent French, but he was much more of a Germanophile than Francophile. Ahem.)

William's French is pretty appalling, which cracked me up when I heard it on his trip to Canada right after he and Kate got married. Maybe he didn't get enough practice time with the queen. Heh.

[bugsmum]

The casting, and the writing, of the Kennedys almost entirely sank this episode.  There was NOTHING about how they were presented that rang true, except maybe JFK's public flirting with other women in his wife's presence, which he evidently did in fact do. Michael C. Hall is a fine actor but here he was awful.  I get that British writers often enjoy presenting Americans as rubes and fools (Downton being exhibit A) but JFK and JBK were neither.   Although the Adeane/Charteris chatter during the introductions was priceless.  

And I find it extremely hard to believe that the decor at a formal White House dinner during the Kennedy administration would include red/white/blue bunting draped across the front of the table.  Come on, people.  That was just stupid.

On the upside, Claire Foy continues to be amazing.  Loved pretty much everything about the Ghana trip even if the historical accuracy was sketchy.  

[Clanstarling]

12 hours ago, spaceghostess said:

Eh, I think in Elizabeth's circle, speaking a second language (which would, in all likelihood at the time, have been French) was the norm. Mastering French at a high level was part of the education of English girls and women of the aristocracy for generations. Fluency in foreign languages was not, however, the norm for everyone across England, and I say this as someone who was married to a Londoner for 17 years and spent plenty of time with his family and friends there. My ex and his schoolmates were well educated and only one of them had fluency in another language (and that guy's a language savant who speaks 7 and counting). As a matter of fact, the ex's mother spoke three languages (she grew up in Cairo) and his widely scattered extended family was also multilingual, as I learned when attending their family reunion in Paris . . . but the English branch of the family? Nope. I never met anyone there who had fluency in a second language (not that I met everyone). I do take your point re: Americans mostly speaking English only, but I think "Who doesn't?" from Elizabeth was meant to convey "Who doesn't?" among her set rather than the general population.

I find this is true about the belief that all Europeans speak a second language - usually English. I spent half my pre-adult life in Germany, with Austrian family, and no one I knew spoke English with any degree of fluency. I later attended a German Realschule - and their English language classes were about on par with our secondary school level classes in America (and the teacher called on me when the examiners were present, never telling them I was American).

Part of the difference, besides class status, is that Europeans have more opportunity to hear and speak other languages due to the proximity of other countries (and their TV broadcasts, which actually make a huge difference in learning a language - it did for me as I was learning German). In the US, you have to make a concerted effort to find an opportunity to speak or hear a different language, unless it's Spanish (and I imagine that's mostly on both coasts, rather than the interior states).

[tennisgurl]

This was almost like two separate episodes for me, one that I really liked, and one that I really did not. I have a lot of thoughts on this one, but most of them have been better articulated by others here, but...

I thought the plot with Elizabeth in Ghana was really good, even if I dont think its super historically accurate. It was a great win for Elizabeth, and I just really enjoyed the whole sequence, from when she got there (and clearly felt awkward and nervous) to when she finally took a huge chance and danced with the President of Ghana. Not only was it a huge win, it was hilarious seeing the reactions of everyone, especially the English guys who were supposed to be handling everything. "It appears to be the foxtrot sir!" Plus, they could really move! It was also a nice moment of Philip being supportive and clearly proud of Elizabeth's quick thinking, and thats nice to see. It was a really good exercise in how the monarchy is trying to find their place in a changing world, and how Elizabeth is growing as a leader and using her power (even if its just ceremonial) to help the commonwealth. 

And then, there was the Kennedy plot. Now, for the record, I was really looking for forward to seeing Jack and Jackie show up here. I grew up learning about the Kennedy's (my dad is a HUGE fan, so I read several biography's and watched documentaries and specials growing up. This Christmas, I even got him a new Bobby Kennedy biography) especially JFK, Jackie, and Bobby, so I was excited to see a British take on them. Well, apparently the British take on Jack and Jackie is "asshole piggish druggie gangster who spends his time leering at woman, shoving his wife around, acting like an obvious lout, and his meek, victimized wife who her evil husband drugs and abuses and is generally so high she cant even remember basic cutesy when meeting foreign leaders". Basically, the show decided to take the worst aspects of JFKs personality and push it up to 15 (past 11!) and make Jackie less of an intelligent and sophisticated woman who knew politics, history, and culture like the back of her hand, to a miserable abused victim of Evil Jack. Look, as I said, I've read a lot about the Kennedy's, and I know that they weren't perfect by any means. Do us Americans tend to romanticize JFK and Jackie, with the whole American Royalty/Camelot thing? Yes, absolutely. Jack was a well known womanizer and a deeply flawed man, both personally and professionally, and everyone knows that, but many of us tend to focus on the good over the bad. However, in all that has been written about the Kennedy's, there has NEVER been an implication that Jack was physically or emotionally abusive to Jackie, or that he was some kind of druggie who forced Jackie into getting high along with him, and was bitter at her success. He did use medicinal drugs, but they were for a number of preexisting health problems, including a bad back from an inury he sustained in the war. Its like they took the broad strokes of the Kennedy's, and took it up so high, and only emphasized the bad and not the good, it made them unrecognizable as the historical figures they were supposed to be. It doesn't help that Michael C. Hall, who is normally a very good actor, was terribly misscast as Jack. He lacked the charisma that he was famous for, and his accent? I know that no one sounds like the Kennedy's except for the Kennedy's, but he wasn't even trying! If I didn't know already, I would have no clue that he was even supposed to be JFK. The woman playing Jackie was ok, but she really seemed so meek and twitchy, in ways that Jackie never was. She was naturally more shy than what people would think, but she was also very savvy, and her and Jack were a political team, and they both knew it. They knew that their success meant success for the other, and were usually on the same page on that front. But they were playing what they were given, so I guess thats how they played it. I mean, the Kennedy's had plenty of real life drama, why make stuff up? Are they that desperate to make the royal family look good, that they have to make the Kennedy's look bad?  Like, "Yeah Philip is a snarky asshole, but at least he isn't shoving Liz around and forcing her to get high with him like those gross Americans, right?" Plus, as others have said, the idea that they were these nouvue riche bumkins is just ridiculous. JFK and Jackie were very sophisticated, so much so that some people in America tended to look at them as out of touch weirdos (plus being Catholic didn't help peoples opinions of them), but I guess then we couldn't laugh and point at those loutish peasant Kennedy's then! 

I know its not exactly "too soon" or anything, and I get that this is a show and isn't a documentary, and has a story to tell that sometimes causes it to fudge the actual facts, and that doesn't usually bother me, but making up such outrageous lies about such public figures, who are still relatively modern and people alive still remember them as living humans, just seems in bad taste. I would be fine with just showing the less sympathetic and glamorous side to the Kennedy's, but just making shit up to make the story more dramatic or to make their own main character look better just seems...wrong. And bad storytelling. And if these changes didn't make the story better, why do it at all?

[PeterPirate]

2 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I know its not exactly "too soon" or anything, and I get that this is a show and isn't a documentary, and has a story to tell that sometimes causes it to fudge the actual facts, and that doesn't usually bother me, but making up such outrageous lies about such public figures, who are still relatively modern and people alive still remember them as living humans, just seems in bad taste. I would be fine with just showing the less sympathetic and glamorous side to the Kennedy's, but just making shit up to make the story more dramatic or to make their own main character look better just seems...wrong. And bad storytelling. And if these changes didn't make the story better, why do it at all?

For what it's worth, there's another show on Netflix called The Windsors that treats the royal family the same way.  If nothing else, there's some parity.  

[dubbel zout]

6 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

Part of the difference, besides class status, is that Europeans have more opportunity to hear and speak other languages due to the proximity of other countries (and their TV broadcasts, which actually make a huge difference in learning a language - it did for me as I was learning German). In the US, you have to make a concerted effort to find an opportunity to speak or hear a different language, unless it's Spanish (and I imagine that's mostly on both coasts, rather than the interior states).

Not only opportunity but need. These days English is basically the lingua franca of business (and diplomacy), but knowing another language does give you an edge. And to a certain extent, it's good manners to be able to at least partially speak the language of your host.

3 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

It doesn't help that Michael C. Hall, who is normally a very good actor, was terribly misscast as Jack.

In some ways I think they should have cast a no-name as JFK. He was a catalyst in this episode anyway, not any kind of main character. Then at least a better-known actor who can't play JFK wouldn't have been such a distraction.

[biakbiak]

4 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

In some ways I think they should have cast a no-name as JFK. He was a catalyst in this episode anyway, not any kind of main character. Then at least a better-known actor who can't play JFK wouldn't have been such a distraction.

I agree it was a bizarre choice given how small a role it was and they didn't cast a well known actress or even an American for Jackie so it srood out even more.

[pasdetrois]

Horrible episode. Obnoxious fabrications that ruined the integrity of the series. I'm not a Jackie fan but this portrayal and that of Jack were way off.

Glad we've had Corgi sightings.

Edited January 1, 2018 by pasdetrois

[UsernameFatigue]

I loved this episode (though agree the the casting of JFK was off). So many funny lines, from Phillips saying to Elizabeth regarding meeting the Kennedys, "It's like royalty" to Elizabeth, after hearing of Jackie's comments about her "We must have her again soon". And of course the comment about her meeting with Jackie being moved to Windsor Castle, because a fortress would be better. Lol. 

Some of the scenes reminded me of events that happened years later. The queen dancing and appearing to enjoy herself reminded me of Princess Diana dancing with John Travolta. And Jackie's lack of following protocol reminded me of Michelle Obama hugging the queen. Not only did Jackie greet the queen first, call her by the wrong name and not curtsy, she spoke to the queen first which is also a breech of protocol. As others have said, it is unlikely that that many, if any, mistakes would have been made. Though it appears that unkind remarks about the palace furnishings, and the queen's dress and hairstyle were indeed made by the Kennedys. (According to Cecil Beaton and Gore Vidal). 

In looking at actual pictures from the dinner, I quite like Elizabeth's dress and thought it suited her. Jackie's reminded me of the Carol Burnett sketch where she is wearing the drapes still on the curtain rod. Jackie's dress looks like it is still on the hanger. All in all though I really liked this epi, and particularly liked the ending where Elizabeth commented that sometimes things aren't as bad as they seem (to paraphrase). 

[dubbel zout]

58 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

(According to Cecil Beaton and Gore Vidal). 

Both notorious gossips, so I'd take it with a gigantic grain of salt. 

[UsernameFatigue]

36 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Both notorious gossips, so I'd take it with a gigantic grain of salt. 

There are other sources that said the same thing, but Beaton's comments were written in his diary. Not much point in gossiping there - lol. And of course 'gossip' doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means he (they) had no problem with repeating it. 

Edited January 2, 2018 by UsernameFatigue

[Eureka]

On 12/9/2017 at 7:41 PM, irisheyes said:

Just started watching, but I love the Queen Mother banging on the TV and QE wanting her to stop, “It’s rented!”  Pretty sure she can spring for a TV of her own. ?

Ha, that’s exactly what I said to my son!

On 12/10/2017 at 2:58 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.

Same here.

[TexasGal]

On 12/25/2017 at 7:34 PM, dubbel zout said:

I don't know if Jackie was a sparkling wit, but she wasn't stupid. She graduated from Vassar and studied at the University of Grenoble and the Sorbonne for her junior year abroad, and in her early Washington years she took classes in American history at Georgetown. So at the very least, she was intellectually curious.

She actually graduated from George Washington University, which I only know because I am also an alumna.  And she is ALWAYS listed in the "guess who else graduated from GW?" lists.  But she began at Vassar.

[dubbel zout]

Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for the correction, @TexasGal.

[SoWindsor]

A few thoughts..

- why weren’t they more accurate with Jackie’s Hair and be dress — I don’t get why they’d change it.

- i wonder how Margaret felt about not being invited to the dinner. I read that Jackie specifically requested that Margaret be there but QE didn’t allow it. 

- What motivated QE to go to Ghana and was it really against the advice for her advisors?

- I’m still not clear on what QE realized when she said it was intentional that Jackie did not change her clothes. 

[CousinAmy]

3 hours ago, SoWindsor said:

A few thoughts..

 

- What motivated QE to go to Ghana and was it really against the advice for her advisors?

- I’m still not clear on what QE realized when she said it was intentional that Jackie did not change her clothes. 

She was concerned that Russia would gain more influence over Ghana and it would be tempted to Ally closer with them, rather than stay part of the United Kingdom. I don't think her advisors thought she was smart enough to handle the situation - the way they thought was best.

Jackie kept the suit on because (as far as we know) she wanted "them" - the killer or killers - to see what they had done, in essence, stare them down. (I remember discussing this with my high school class - I think it was freshman biology - whether Jackie was a "cold fish" or was really "dazed" and out of it. I thought dazed, but was surprised so many people thought she was cold and unfeeling. She was not very well understood at the time - she was considered very aloof and more of a socialite than even the Queen, who seemed friendlier. Silk vs. Tweed.

[Paloma]

On 12/25/2017 at 5:44 AM, Roseanna said:

Also noticeable was that we saw Elizabetha and Philip just sleep two times in the same bed just as most married couple do - and the night after JFK's murder saw Elizabeth seeking comfort from Philip's nearness and him silently giving it.

I noticed this too and wondered if they were now sharing a bed regularly and if so when and why it started. Sleeping in separate bedrooms and apparently only getting together occasionally for sex was emphasized in earlier episodes. If what we saw in this episode was meant to be an indication of them getting closer, I'm glad for Elizabeth.

[PeterPirate]

12 hours ago, SoWindsor said:

- What motivated QE to go to Ghana and was it really against the advice for her advisors?

According to this article and a couple others, the trip had been planned for a while, but there were concerns that it might be unsafe due to a spate of bombings in Ghana.  In contrast to the show, her decision was in accordance with the government.  

 

Quote

“I am not a film star,” said the Queen of England to Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. “I am the head of the Commonwealth and I am paid to face any risks that may be involved. Nor do I say this lightly. Do not forget that I have three children.” Thus Queen Elizabeth II agreed with Macmillan the previous week when he conveyed to her his Cabinet’s advice that she should carry out her royal visit to Ghana, despite a spate of bombing incidents in Accra protesting the rule of Kwame Nkrumah.

 

Quote

Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's statement on November 8, was as follows:.....“I can assure the House that, on the information and advice available to them, the Government have formed the view that the explosions did not indicate any intention by those concerned to perpetrate acts of violence during the Queen's visit which would endanger Her Majesty's safety. We have, therefore, no reason to fear that this journey will involve any additional risk to Her Majesty's safety.  On the other hand, the cancellation of this visit, so long promised and awaited by the people of Ghana, would impair the invaluable contribution made by Her Majesty's Journeys to the strengthening of the ties which bind together the peoples of the Commonwealth. The Government have therefore advised the Queen that she should proceed with her visit to Ghana." 

 

And this article contains several dozen photos of her trip.  The last one is:  

Edited January 5, 2018 by PeterPirate

[AZChristian]

13 hours ago, SoWindsor said:

- I’m still not clear on what QE realized when she said it was intentional that Jackie did not change her clothes. 

It's traditional for members of the British royal family to always pack a black dress or suit in case someone dies while they're away from home.  They even made a point of it when George VI died while she was in Africa; she had to wait on the plane for someone to bring her a black dress before she deplaned.  She probably expected Jackie to do the same thing.  I think (1) she was surprised that Jackie wasn't wearing black, and (2) then she realized that it wasn't a simple oversight in not packing a black dress.  Jackie (as she was quoted later as saying) "wanted everyone to see what they did to him."  

Elizabeth had spent her whole life being taught to be stoic and not show emotion in public.  Jackie's behavior must have been really "out there" to Elizabeth.

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

It's traditional for members of the British royal family to always pack a black dress or suit in case someone dies while they're away from home.  They even made a point of it when George VI died while she was in Africa; she had to wait on the plane for someone to bring her a black dress before she deplaned.  She probably expected Jackie to do the same thing.  I think (1) she was surprised that Jackie wasn't wearing black, and (2) then she realized that it wasn't a simple oversight in not packing a black dress.  Jackie (as she was quoted later as saying) "wanted everyone to see what they did to him."  

Elizabeth had spent her whole life being taught to be stoic and not show emotion in public.  Jackie's behavior must have been really "out there" to Elizabeth.

I din't think it was about the black dress but most people who have dirt or blood in their dress and/or body, want a shower and a new dress so soon as possible.  Elizabeth was very smart to realize that Jackie on purpose acted otherwise. 

As for being stoic, Jackie, if anybody, was that, standing beside Lyndon Johnson in Air Force One and during the funeral. In the similar case, the widow of the Swedish Prime Minister, Olof Palme, was not even shown in the TV - his civil funeral was entirely immanent, political and international, concentrating the Social Democratic Party, the Socialist International, the Third World and United Nations.          

[Clanstarling]

21 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I din't think it was about the black dress but most people who have dirt or blood in their dress and/or body, want a shower and a new dress so soon as possible.  Elizabeth was very smart to realize that Jackie on purpose acted otherwise. 

As for being stoic, Jackie, if anybody, was that, standing beside Lyndon Johnson in Air Force One and during the funeral. In the similar case, the widow of the Swedish Prime Minister, Olof Palme, was not even shown in the TV - his civil funeral was entirely immanent, political and international, concentrating the Social Democratic Party, the Socialist International, the Third World and United Nations.          

LBJ really, really, wanted her beside him when he took the oath. But she was the model of dignity, I thought, throughout that entire time. I watched it all as a child when it happened, but then later in documentaries. While not a particular fan of hers, I thought she was pretty spectacular in her dignity while she was under so much scrutiny (even if it was a bit chemically enhanced thanks to tranquilizers).

Edited January 5, 2018 by Clanstarling

[dubbel zout]

18 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

LBJ really, really, wanted her beside him when he took the oath.

Definitely. Everything was so chaotic he felt it would legitimize him as president.

[Guest]

On 12/24/2017 at 0:02 PM, biakbiak said:

It wasn't a scene of him, it was at the tea and Jackie talked about it, I forget the exact wording but it was definitely talking about physical abuse.

I don't think the words were 'definitely about physical abuse'.  She said, "Jack didn't like being upstaged," and, "to say we were strained would be an understatement."  The rest was all about "post-natal" and drugs. 

If Elizabeth was meant to interpret it as physical abuse, they wrote her pretty bad, too, by having her reply, "I can imagine, behind closed doors," as if it's a husband's right.  I thought Elizabeth assumed it meant just relationship issues over balances of power and respect, like she and Philip had.

I think the visual scene itself came off as violent in nature, but I agree that he never did anything that the law would likely see as physical abuse of her.  But I think the writers intentionally skated as close to it as they could without actually going there.

20 hours ago, SoWindsor said:

 

- I’m still not clear on what QE realized when she said it was intentional that Jackie did not change her clothes. 

I figured she realized that the bloody clothes weren't an unfortunate accident of logistics but that Jackie chose to forego decorum to send a message, showing the nation the horror of the moment.  And for these women decorum and appearance was kind of sacred and paramount so Elizabeth was a little floored and touched.  

[Crs97]

Before we saw the JFK/Jackie flashback I thought she was suggesting physical abuse.  I assumed Elizabeth caught her meaning as well.  Not only does it not match any historical record we have of JFK, it didn’t make sense that Jackie would bare her soul to Elizabeth like that.  Every conversation they had rang false to me:  “Hi, your majesty.  I am cripplingly shy.  My husband beats me.  Did I mention we are addicts?  Oh, cute dogs!”  Still rolling my eyes.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Crs97 said:

Before we saw the JFK/Jackie flashback I thought she was suggesting physical abuse.  I assumed Elizabeth caught her meaning as well.  Not only does it not match any historical record we have of JFK, it didn’t make sense that Jackie would bare her soul to Elizabeth like that.  Every conversation they had rang false to me:  “Hi, your majesty.  I am cripplingly shy.  My husband beats me.  Did I mention we are addicts?  Oh, cute dogs!”  Still rolling my eyes.

I agree, the whole thing seemed stupid and out of character.  It didn't even make sense.  "I'm depressed, socially awkward, fighting with my husband and drugged and that's why I said rude things about you at a party."  Right after they tell us six different ways that she's incredibly clever, outgoing, smart, worldly and charming.  

Paired with Dexter F. Kennedy, I felt like these were alternate universe representations of the Kennedys.  

[Anothermi]

12 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

And this article contains several dozen photos of her trip.  The last one is:  

Thanks for both of the links. I found the pictures quite revealing.  It's clear that the cold reception The Crown showed was a short-hand for the fact that there may have been a real temptation to break ties with the Commonwealth altogether and link up with Russia and that how Elizabeth acted WAS important to swaying that decision.
There are some really great photo's in that link. I'm putting them under spoiler tags to reduce the room this post takes up.
 

Spoiler

 

Here's a larger view of the one @PeterPirate posted:

 

And one more like the show portrayed:

 

And one to prove that Philip was there, and that Elizabeth liked to have their trips documented, which is relevant to the note she left with the camera she make sure he had on his 5 month tour:

One to prove that the cold reception the show depicted was not an accurate depiction (perhaps a metaphoric one):

And this one because I loved the expression on the other woman's face as the Queen took in something out of our view:

 

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Anothermi
fix spoiler tag range

[SoWindsor]

2 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I agree, the whole thing seemed stupid and out of character.  It didn't even make sense.  "I'm depressed, socially awkward, fighting with my husband and drugged and that's why I said rude things about you at a party."  Right after they tell us six different ways that she's incredibly clever, outgoing, smart, worldly and charming.  

Paired with Dexter F. Kennedy, I felt like these were alternate universe representations of the Kennedys.  

Lol Dexter F. Kennedy! I saw Six Feet Under first so he’ll be David to me before Dexter. Truth be told after only a few episodes of Dexter I only saw Dexter so Michael C. Hall is a great actor. Not sure what happened here. 

[PeterPirate]

10 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

Paired with Dexter F. Kennedy, I felt like these were alternate universe representations of the Kennedys.  

He's Donald F. Kennedy to me.  Although the Dexter reference might explain the casting of Michael C Hall for the role.  

Edited January 6, 2018 by PeterPirate

[PinkRibbons]

On 1/5/2018 at 7:23 AM, AZChristian said:

It's traditional for members of the British royal family to always pack a black dress or suit in case someone dies while they're away from home.  They even made a point of it when George VI died while she was in Africa; she had to wait on the plane for someone to bring her a black dress before she deplaned. 

I thought they instituted the "just-in-case" black clothing packing because of what happened when George VI died and Elizabeth was on tour without even one black dress. Even if they did get her proper mourning clothes before she left the plane in England, she still had to make her way to the plane in Africa, and since that was her first moment being seen in public as Queen, not being dressed in black (although they did try to dress her down in a coat covering her clothes, the coat was light-colored) did not make for good optics. Obviously everyone was very understanding, but it makes sense that that specific event created that protocol.

[AZChristian]

Some articles indicate that the rule was put into effect because of George's death and Elizabeth not have a black dress.  But even on The Crown, I think they said that her maid "neglected to pack a black dress" . . . making it sound like it had already been a practice to do so.  The advent of cameras have made it a lot more necessary . . . we are all subject to being filmed at all times when out in public.  

I read in an article that even "news readers" (anchors on TV shows) in the UK have to keep a black outfit at the studio in case they have to announce the death of one of the senior royals.