S02.E06: Vergangenheit

[dubbel zout]

I think a lot of his behavior was simply to annoy the British establishment, who were mean and petty and kept the HRH title away from his wife and refused to give him everything he wanted after the Abdication. /sarcasm but not entirely facetiously meant

[CousinAmy]

10 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

While David obviously consorted with Nazis in the late 30s, and there are questions about his actions during the war, there's nothing to suggest he ever intended that his brother or family be murdered so he could take back power.  I feel silly defending David, since I think he acted pretty poorly, but I think it needs to be remembered that the show often mixes fact and fiction for the sake of drama.  David did appear to have pro-German sympathies and did meet with Hitler in '37, but it's a long way from that to David actively or even passively conspiring with the Germans to overthrow the monarchy.       

Wasn't there the suggestion that he could once again be placed on the British throne when Hitler had conquered Europe? 

[Cheezwiz]

57 minutes ago, CousinAmy said:

Wasn't there the suggestion that he could once again be placed on the British throne when Hitler had conquered Europe? 

Yes indeed. The letters & telegrams from David that were intercepted by British Intelligence proved he was in fact actively angling with his Nazi buddies to be reinstated on the throne. This is why the info - even when released many years later was so shocking, and likely the REAL reason for his banishment from the UK. It had nothing to do with the social scandal of marrying an American Divorcee. He was engaged in full-on treason. 

[txhorns79]

Quote

Yes indeed. The letters & telegrams from David that were intercepted by British Intelligence proved he was in fact actively angling with his Nazi buddies to be reinstated on the throne. This is why the info - even when released many years later was so shocking, and likely the REAL reason for his banishment from the UK. It had nothing to do with the social scandal of marrying an American Divorcee. He was engaged in full-on treason. 

My understanding is that it was never clear if the intelligence found was real or Nazi propaganda.  And given he still returned to the UK for royal family events through the 60s (he died in 1972), it would seem hard to believe the family simultaneously accepted him at events, while also believing he actively engaged to dethrone them.        

[LoraKay]

Not the point of the episode, but it really bothered me that the boxes and boxes of documents and film were being sorted in the courtyard of Marburg Castle - outside!! What would have happened if a storm came along, and everything got rained on, or a gust of wind destroyed your piles!

[Anabelle10021]

"I know Peter Morgan thinks she's dumb -- he's said so" - can someone catch me up on this plz? Is this something we assume from Morgan's characterization of QEII in his work, or was there ever anything more explicit (that I cant seem to find)?

[Milburn Stone]

The most breathtaking moment for me--one of the most breathtaking moments in any drama I've seen for a long time--and I mean that literally, as in, I actually stopped breathing for the duration--was when Tommy had already told Elizabeth plenty, but apparently not everything, and he asked if she wanted him to continue. And there was this pause where you really didn't know what she was going to say. And you're sitting there, going "Liz, tell him to continue, because if you don't, we're not going to get to hear it!," and the moment seems interminable until she finally says yes, continue, and you breathe again and go, "oh thank God."

Edited January 5, 2018 by Milburn Stone

[Hanahope]

Britain really got lucky that Edward wanted to marry Wallis more than be king.  And that he had to marry Wallis immediately.  Imagine what it would have been like if Edward had told Wallis to wait a while.  Wallis might have gotten her wish if Edward was able to use German backing to force his wishes.

OTOH, I can understand why King George and QM didn't tell Elizabeth about David being a Nazi, they probably thought the whole thing was behind them and would never come to light.  And obviously someone in the government would know the info if it was ever necessary to tell her.

I'm curious as to the reaction by the public by the publishing of the Marburg papers, since King George and QM seemed so convinced that David being found out as a Nazi would sink them.  Obviously "the government" which presumably included the PM who knew about the papers, which approved David for a job, didn't think it was that big a deal.

Ah Billy Graham, the first televangelist.  I remember my parents watching him.  Amazing how that has changed too.  Glad he was able to give Elizabeth advice she could really use.

Tommy Lascelles is always a pleasure to watch.

The photos at the end really did seal the deal.

[jjj]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:55 AM, dubbel zout said:

I wonder how much more of the Windsors we'll see. Elizabeth put the kibosh on his desire to come back to work, and that never changed. She did allow him to return to London a few times for medical and private family reasons, but for the most part, David and Wallis spent the rest of their lives going to parties. We might get a scene or two out of their deaths—there's not much else to show regarding those two.

Yes; but they work great as a kind of French Greek chorus, which we see chortling at the television from time to time or reacting to news and pictures in the newspapers (Princess Margaret).  Maybe they could just film a bunch of reaction shots and use them over the next few seasons. 

It is interesting that we did not know how much Elizabeth had read in the first Marburg file she had been given -- I knew from history that DoW had wanted to re-assume the Crown by way of a Nazi occupation, despite the cost to his country and family.  I assumed that had been in the file she read -- so it was only later when she visited Tommy that we find out she did not have the full picture. 

Loved the quick scene when the Queen Mother literally stormed through the palace when she learned that these documents had emerged again -- the vases were trembling on tables from the pounding of her steps, and the curtains rustling from the draft she was creating.  (Okay, not really, but she was zooming through those rooms!)

And I just squeed when I saw Winston! -- and bet (rightly) that we were about to see George VI again! -- and Tommy back in the day!  Then they showed the abdication scene again, from a different angle, which was another brilliant stroke, because now we see the scene differently, knowing so much more about all the context and complicated relationships, even before all the German revelations of this episode.  Dear Netflix:  please schedule a series, even a half-series, of a prequel to "The Crown", which deals with Elizabeth's years while her father was King.  And please use the same actors.  This would be great drama, and Tommy would be much more prominent.  

Edited January 13, 2018 by jjj

[PeterPirate]

16 hours ago, jjj said:

Yes; but they work great as a kind of French Greek chorus, which we see chortling at the television from time to time or reacting to news and pictures in the newspapers (Princess Margaret).  Maybe they could just film a bunch of reaction shots and use them over the next few seasons.

Queen Elizabeth visited David in Paris ten days before he died in 1974. I can imagine a scene or two with him in season 4.  

After that, I suppose they can re-cast Alex Jennings as Prince Charles. 

[Pallas]

21 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

After that, I suppose they can re-cast Alex Jennings as Prince Charles. 

Heh. Alex Jennings as the Garrett Dillahunt of The Crown. Or rather Beached Wales. Or Deadwood: Ex-Kings, Sires, Heirs and Spares.

[Mama No Life]

We're not going to talk about how awesome Phillip was with Elizabeth during this episode?  

 

It's stupid to ship a real couple, right?

[Ceindreadh]

7 hours ago, Mama No Life said:

We're not going to talk about how awesome Phillip was with Elizabeth during this episode?  

 

It's stupid to ship a real couple, right?

Not really.  If this was a fictional show I’d be just aching for those two crazy kids to stick together come what may. 

[Atlanta]

He's dating Lady Rose aka Lily James.

[Razzberry]

Stunning episode, this may be my favorite of the series.  It had it all. Touching, horrifying, and thought-provoking,  I'm still gathering my thoughts as I pick myself up off the floor.

Weird interlude with Billy Graham but I liked it.    Unaware of what's true, I was afraid that something.. untoward.. would happen between them.

 

 The harmless flirtation showed her human side. Who knows, I can well imagine Elizabeth being attracted to him.  She's perhaps more religious than I realized.  I'm not at all, but found it touching and treated with respect.  Her dilemma over Uncle Nazi tied into it nicely.

[J-Man]

Quote

I couldn't seperate Billy Graham from the last character i saw the actor portray on house of cards, so i kept expecting him to jump on Liz like he would on Clare. 

The actor (Paul Sparks) is now portraying one of the Branch Davidian cult members over on the "Waco" miniseries.

So this whole episode was framed by the Marburg papers -- and at the end, we finally find out they got the OK to go forward and publish them (and that the Americans were already planning on publishing them). But we never saw any response from the press or the public about their release. Is it true as someone said upthread that they weren't published until nearly forty years later? If so, was the whole "can we or can't we?" subplot just poetic license?

[Clanstarling]

7 hours ago, J-Man said:

The actor (Paul Sparks) is now portraying one of the Branch Davidian cult members over on the "Waco" miniseries.

Oh THAT's why I thought he looked famliar but couldn't place him - I'd seen him here.

[secnarf]

18 hours ago, Razzberry said:

Stunning episode, this may be my favorite of the series.  It had it all. Touching, horrifying, and thought-provoking,  I'm still gathering my thoughts as I pick myself up off the floor.

Weird interlude with Billy Graham but I liked it.    Unaware of what's true, I was afraid that something.. untoward.. would happen between them.

 

 The harmless flirtation showed her human side. Who knows, I can well imagine Elizabeth being attracted to him.  She's perhaps more religious than I realized.  I'm not at all, but found it touching and treated with respect.  Her dilemma over Uncle Nazi tied into it nicely.

I too was surprised at how religious she was portrayed in this episode, until I remembered she is the head of the Church of England ;)

[kassygreene]

She really is that religious (a difficult concept for modern Western minds, and tough enough for me at 61, but context context context - she is anointed by God to be Defender of the Faith, she is not playing a part).  She also is apparently on very good terms with Billy Graham (and his late wife), the details of which we will never know until her diaries are published many many decades from now.  I think the show had a very good take on the interaction, and furthermore I think finding someone to sincerely discuss religious topics who doesn't blab to anyone has got to be a rare and treasured thing.  (I do hope, however, that her view of Franklin Graham is at least half as jaundiced as mine.)

[Razzberry]

21 hours ago, kassygreene said:

She really is that religious (a difficult concept for modern Western minds, and tough enough for me at 61, but context context context - she is anointed by God to be Defender of the Faith, she is not playing a part). 

Yes, I guess I assumed the seriousness of the job description would vary, depending on the wearer of the crown.  It's difficult to imagine 'David' as Defender of the Faith during his short reign, for example, so I found her sincerity admirable.  

Had to google Franklin Graham ('nuff said), and found this picture of Billy, circa 1939 I believe.

[Athena]

49 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

Yes, I guess I assumed the seriousness of the job description would vary, depending on the wearer of the crown.  It's difficult to imagine 'David' as Defender of the Faith during his short reign, for example, so I found her sincerity admirable. 

It still does vary since there has been English/British monarchs who are not so religious (David/Edward, Henry VIII), and others like Elizabeth who probably are/were genuinely religious. The show has featured a Elizabeth who is for the most part dutiful and loyal to her family, country, and role. This aligns with the real life accounts of Elizabeth being someone who is faithful in all aspects of her life. Given her age and generation, it's even less of a surprise as well. 

I've noticed on some TV shows such as American medical procedurals, there is an undercurrent of Christian culture which is appealing to large segments of American society. I think it's starting to become regular in these mainstream shows again. I'm not religious so I'm at best, indifferent to these themes and tones. However, I really liked how they used Elizabeth's faith to develop and showcase her character in this episode. It is deeply personal and the show played it straight as well. It was not saccharine or mocking. It was about woman who does believe in her faith, who struggled to have religious dialogue with others because of her unique position, and tried to use her faith to shape her decisions.  I thought it was an excellent episode for Elizabeth's character.

[kassygreene]

39 minutes ago, Athena said:

It still does vary since there has been English/British monarchs who are not so religious (David/Edward, Henry VIII), and others like Elizabeth who probably are/were genuinely religious. The show has featured a Elizabeth who is for the most part dutiful and loyal to her family, country, and role. This aligns with the real life accounts of Elizabeth being someone who is faithful in all aspects of her life. Given her age and generation, it's even less of a surprise as well. 

I've noticed on some TV shows such as American medical procedurals, there is an undercurrent of Christian culture which is appealing to large segments of American society. I think it's starting to become regular in these mainstream shows again. I'm not religious so I'm at best, indifferent to these themes and tones. However, I really liked how they used Elizabeth's faith to develop and showcase her character in this episode. It is deeply personal and the show played it straight as well. It was not saccharine or mocking. It was about woman who does believe in her faith, who struggled to have religious dialogue with others because of her unique position, and tried to use her faith to shape her decisions.  I thought it was an excellent episode for Elizabeth's character.

That's the point I've been failing to make.  She doesn't just have "faith", she has actually thought about religion and pondered how to make conflicting issues work together.  This episode (I think) presented her thoughts as the sort of thing that I think the better seminaries want their students to do, to think and consider and debate instead of memorize and regurgitate.  

[CousinAmy]

2 hours ago, kassygreene said:

That's the point I've been failing to make.  She doesn't just have "faith", she has actually thought about religion and pondered how to make conflicting issues work together.  This episode (I think) presented her thoughts as the sort of thing that I think the better seminaries want their students to do, to think and consider and debate instead of memorize and regurgitate.  

But her religion was invented by an ancestor so he could divorce one woman...etc. There isn't even any dispute about the beginnings of The Church of England - the history is very well known. What is there to believe in, other than the right of a sovereign to divorce?

[Pallas]

13 hours ago, CousinAmy said:

But her religion was invented by an ancestor so he could divorce one woman...etc. There isn't even any dispute about the beginnings of The Church of England - the history is very well known. What is there to believe in, other than the right of a sovereign to divorce?

Henry VIII didn't divorce any of his wives, nor seek to. Annulment was his tactic. When the Catholic Church refused to set aside its earlier dispensation which had allowed Henry to marry his brother's widow, Katherine of Aragon, Henry established the Church of England. Which then dutifully annulled his marriages to Katherine as well as Anne Boleyn (prior to her execution, for good measure) and Anne of Cleves. What there is to believe in are the tenets of a mainstream sect of Christianity and its rituals.

[Anothermi]

And having a Church of England gave the Protestants an opening to have some of their reforms implemented, even if Henry was much more of a pomp and ritual man. It wasn't just him wanting to break with the Roman Catholics.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Anothermi
spelling

[Clanstarling]

Henry was actually pretty knowledgeable regarding religion, and before the whole annulment business came up, wrote essays regarding the faith (Catholicism). He may have loved pomp and ritual, but he was far from a stupid man. Even his initial rationalizations as to why he should annul his marriage were not without merit - many civil wars had been fought due to the lack of a clear heir to the throne. But of course, as history shows us, it all went to hell. 

[Athena]

Henry was a friend of Thomas More and they ultimately diverged on the separation issue tragically and fatally for More. The decision to split from the Roman Catholic Church was not only one about remarrying another woman, the conflict between Protestants and Catholics at the time was very bloody and controversial (i.e. Mary's rule after her Henry VIII passes). England did not want to abide by the Church's rules and segments of the population were becoming more Protestant, but the creation of the Church of England did allow for reforms as @Anothermi noted. In a religion class, I once heard a Catholic call Anglicans and the Church of England "Watered down Catholics". They did keep a lot of Catholic rituals and teachings, but then also reformed it with the aspects of Protestant movements at the time. For a lot of Anglicans and Protestants, these reforms made them feel closer to their faith and religion as it was more personal. In the case of the Crown, it took a lot of the power the Roman Catholic Church had back into the hands of the English sovereign and Crown. I don't think any of this negates Elizabeth's own faith. 

[CousinAmy]

On 1/12/2018 at 2:28 PM, Hanahope said:

Britain really got lucky that Edward wanted to marry Wallis more than be king.  And that he had to marry Wallis immediately.  Imagine what it would have been like if Edward had told Wallis to wait a while.  Wallis might have gotten her wish if Edward was able to use German backing to force his wishes.

OTOH, I can understand why King George and QM didn't tell Elizabeth about David being a Nazi, they probably thought the whole thing was behind them and would never come to light.  And obviously someone in the government would know the info if it was ever necessary to tell her.

I'm curious as to the reaction by the public by the publishing of the Marburg papers, since King George and QM seemed so convinced that David being found out as a Nazi would sink them.  Obviously "the government" which presumably included the PM who knew about the papers, which approved David for a job, didn't think it was that big a deal.

Ah Billy Graham, the first televangelist.  I remember my parents watching him.  Amazing how that has changed too.  Glad he was able to give Elizabeth advice she could really use.

Tommy Lascelles is always a pleasure to watch.

The photos at the end really did seal the deal.

We saw "Darkest Hour" last week. Churchill had been a supporter of Edward VII, and sided with him. (The film only covers May 1940.) King George is depicted, though no one else in the family are in it - aside from a cameo by a Corgi! From watching this show and other films and documentaries, I have such warm feelings for George - he seems like such a good, upright fellow, doting father, and dedicated, committed, compassionate ruler. 

After the movie was over, I heard the audience chattering about The Crown - evidently a lot of people made the same connections I did.

[Anothermi]

11 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

Henry was actually pretty knowledgeable regarding religion, and before the whole annulment business came up, wrote essays regarding the faith (Catholicism). He may have loved pomp and ritual, but he was far from a stupid man. Even his initial rationalizations as to why he should annul his marriage were not without merit - many civil wars had been fought due to the lack of a clear heir to the throne. But of course, as history shows us, it all went to hell. 

To be clear, I didn't use the phrase pomp and ritual in a demeaning way nor to indicate that Henry didn't think deeply about his religion. He was serious about his religious studies.  I was trying to express a difference between the Protestants - who aimed to make religion a more personal thing between any person and their god  - vs Catholicism which utilized a grand, ritualistic platform that was controlled by an elite group of members who mediated between god and believers. The grand rituals were  something a king could readily access, and it is my understanding that Henry related to them. Perhaps for him, their use did express his personal relationship with his god.

[Clanstarling]

2 hours ago, Anothermi said:

To be clear, I didn't use the phrase pomp and ritual in a demeaning way nor to indicate that Henry didn't think deeply about his religion. He was serious about his religious studies.  I was trying to express a difference between the Protestants - who aimed to make religion a more personal thing between any person and their god  - vs Catholicism which utilized a grand, ritualistic platform that was controlled by an elite group of members who mediated between god and believers. The grand rituals were  something a king could readily access, and it is my understanding that Henry related to them. Perhaps for him, their use did express his personal relationship with his god.

Well put. I was a bit flippant, and do think that very likely Henry related to those rituals. Which is a very human thing, we have a lot of rituals, both religious and secular, and they connect us to the others through the centuries who experienced the same rituals. 

[Roseanna]

18 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

Henry was actually pretty knowledgeable regarding religion, and before the whole annulment business came up, wrote essays regarding the faith (Catholicism). He may have loved pomp and ritual, but he was far from a stupid man. Even his initial rationalizations as to why he should annul his marriage were not without merit - many civil wars had been fought due to the lack of a clear heir to the throne. But of course, as history shows us, it all went to hell. 

The reason why I doubt Henry's religiosity is that he always believed that what he wanted was God's will, never doubting that God's will might be different and submitting himself to it.

Also, other kings weren't so obstinate but found other ways. The French king married his daughter to her cousin who was the heir presumptive to the crown. 

As for "all went to hell", abandoning the Pope and Catholicism benefitted England in the long run. It could have happened more peacefully if Henry hadn't been interested in religious doctrines but only in gaining the riches of the church like Gustav Vasa in Sweden.

[Clanstarling]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

The reason why I doubt Henry's religiosity is that he always believed that what he wanted was God's will, never doubting that God's will might be different and submitting himself to it.

Also, other kings weren't so obstinate but found other ways. The French king married his daughter to her cousin who was the heir presumptive to the crown. 

As for "all went to hell", abandoning the Pope and Catholicism benefitted England in the long run. It could have happened more peacefully if Henry hadn't been interested in religious doctrines but only in gaining the riches of the church like Gustav Vasa in Sweden.

Religion and religious people have committed many terrible things in the world, convincing themselves that their wants/desires are the will of God. As have people whose "faith" is more political in nature. It's human nature to believe the desires, particularly those you struggle with, are instructions from an outside source or are for the greater good. So I, personally, have no doubt that Henry was a believer. 

My "all went to hell" was referring to his every day victims in the short run, I have no opinion on whether or not the change in religion benefited England. But great tumultuous change - revolutions, wars, etc. - however positive their eventual outcomes, are always terrible on the regular people who struggle to survive them, even if the survivors ultimately benefit.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Clanstarling

[Roseanna]

35 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

My "all went to hell" was referring to his every day victims in the short run, I have no opinion on whether or not the change in religion benefited England. But great tumultuous change - revolutions, wars, etc. - however positive their eventual outcomes, are always terrible on the regular people who struggle to survive them, even if the survivors ultimately benefit.

Yes, even letting aside those who were burned for their convictions during the reign of Henry and his daughter Mary, it's likely that people's mind were quite confused: sometimes they had to "believe" something and then quite opposite and then it changed again. 

[andromeda331]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Yes, even letting aside those who were burned for their convictions during the reign of Henry and his daughter Mary, it's likely that people's mind were quite confused: sometimes they had to "believe" something and then quite opposite and then it changed again. 

And only had to change their beliefs so the King could marry His Mistress.  I'm sure people loved having to give up everything they believed in for that. 

[VCRTracking]

Billy Graham died at the age of 99 and I'm glad I watched this episode months ago because I had no idea of the Queen's friendship with him and his role as a spiritual advisor to her for 60 years. I love how the show kind of played it like she had a crush, the way Claire Foy sits on the couch when she first talks to him in private(Billy breaking his own "rule" apparantly).

[CousinAmy]

This is an excellent time to ask: what does the title mean???

[Razzberry]

I was curious about that too.  According to wiktionary it's German for "the past".

RIP Billy Graham.   To be honest, when I googled him a few weeks ago I was surprised to learn he was still alive.

[Anothermi]

1 hour ago, CousinAmy said:

This is an excellent time to ask: what does the title mean???

A quick google search came up with this. It was one of the more fulsome entries.

The most relevant entries:
 

Quote

Vergangenheit {f}

past
foretime
yesterdays

Vergangenheit {f} [Vorgeschichte]

record [fig.] [of a person]

Vergangenheit {f} [geistige Herkunft]

background [personal past]

Vergangenheit {f} [Vorleben]

past life

der VergangenheitGen.

yesteryear's {adj}
of yesteryear [poet.]

 

It appears to be a very expressive word. Useful for a variety of situations. All of the above seem to relate to this episode. (to me at least).

Edited February 22, 2018 by Anothermi

[Razzberry]

June 1961     Destination:  Buckingham Palace 

[CousinAmy]

On 2/22/2018 at 1:17 AM, Anothermi said:

A quick google search came up with this. It was one of the more fulsome entries.

The most relevant entries:
 

It appears to be a very expressive word. Useful for a variety of situations. All of the above seem to relate to this episode. (to me at least).

Danke Schoen.

[PeterPirate]

On 2/21/2018 at 10:17 PM, Anothermi said:

A quick google search came up with this. It was one of the more fulsome entries.

The most relevant entries:
 

It appears to be a very expressive word. Useful for a variety of situations. All of the above seem to relate to this episode. (to me at least).

 

I would use truthiness as a proper translation for vergangenheit, as least where this show is concerned.  Or perhaps mise-en-scène.  Or maybe historical underlining.  It's what makes this show interesting to talk about.

Edited February 27, 2018 by PeterPirate

[Roseanna]

On ‎27‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 1:31 PM, PeterPirate said:

I would use truthiness as a proper translation for vergangenheit, as least where this show is concerned.  Or perhaps mise-en-scène.  Or maybe historical underlining.  It's what makes this show interesting to talk about.

I think simply "the past" is the best translation, as it obviously refers to the German term "Vergangenheitsbewältigung", dealing with the past.

It's noteworthy that the matter is discoved when the British and American historians go through the German documents.  They want the Germans to deal with their past, but George VI, Queen Mother and Churchill have tried to bury the past of the British Royal house.  

[PeterPirate]

On 3/3/2018 at 3:22 AM, Roseanna said:

It's noteworthy that the matter is discoved when the British and American historians go through the German documents.  They want the Germans to deal with their past, but George VI, Queen Mother and Churchill have tried to bury the past of the British Royal house.  

As far as I know, those historians were conjured up to make for a good story.  

This story is a good one, and it is based on reality, but a lot is also made up.  Nothing wrong with that.  I just find the title to be somewhat ironic.  Perhaps the episode title could have been Vergangenheitness.  

Edited March 6, 2018 by PeterPirate

[Roseanna]

On ‎6‎.‎3‎.‎2018 at 6:36 PM, PeterPirate said:

As far as I know, those historians were conjured up to make for a good story.  

This story is a good one, and it is based on reality, but a lot is also made up.  Nothing wrong with that.  I just find the title to be somewhat ironic.  Perhaps the episode title could have been Vergangenheitness.  

Those historians? Actually, we aren't told that they "made" anything of documents. Wasn't it only the question whether they were allowed to publish them? My teacher always stressed that documents don't "tell" anything in themselves but they must be interpreted.

The elemental source criticism teaches that the Germans had an interest to believe that they could use the duke. In any case, one must be extra careful with intelligence reports.    

It's this show that has made "a good story" based on the documents and fiction has every right to do so. But it's another matter whether it is true one. F.ex. the official biographer of Edward VIII, Philip Ziegler, don't regard the duke as a traitor.

[PeterPirate]

On 3/10/2018 at 12:48 AM, Roseanna said:

It's this show that has made "a good story" based on the documents and fiction has every right to do so. But it's another matter whether it is true one. F.ex. the official biographer of Edward VIII, Philip Ziegler, don't regard the duke as a traitor.

True, but using "History" or "The Past" for the episode title engenders a little cognitive dissonance.  

This show lies somewhere between docudrama and historical fiction.  I'm not sure what the right term is, so I'm going with truthiness (or the German translation, vergangenheitness).  As Stephen Colbert says about truthiness:  "We're not talking about truth, we're talking about something that seems like truth – the truth we want to exist".  

Edited March 11, 2018 by PeterPirate

[chocolatine]

I subscribed to Netflix again two months ago after a long break, and have been immensely enjoying The Crown. It's not a show I can binge - I savor one or two episodes a week and need time to process each (and google some historical facts to fill in gaps in my own knowledge).

This is my favorite episode so far, of both seasons. The real pictures at the end were especially poignant. This show has fictionalized some events, but here they really wanted to make it clear that they're depicting the truth. The most chilling part to me was the Duke of Windsor saying that the public would forgive him - that's because he was far from the only Nazi sympathizer/appeaser in British government and high society (for those who haven't read it, I highly recommend Kazuo Ishiguro's masterpiece, The Remains Of The Day, to shed some more light on the subject). I'm sure lot of people used the publication of the Marburg documents to assuage their own guilt - "well, if the former King fell for it, can you blame me for doing the same?" So yes, while he was trying to manipulate the Queen, he wasn't entirely wrong.

And the funny parts were especially welcome to offset the heavy main plot. I can't stand whiny Philip but I love snarky Philip, and his suggestion that the Queen visit Tommy Lascelles and "share a cup of tea with him, or human blood, or whatever it is he drinks" had me rolling. And I always get a kick out of Tommy's retirement activities, and completely related to his displeasure at having one of his soldier figurines moved to the wrong place.

As for the meaning of "Vergangenheit," in everyday German it simply means "the past." Yes, there are some more arcane definitions as quoted above, but I interpreted this epsiode's title simply as the Duke of Windsor's past coming back to haunt him. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎16‎.‎3‎.‎2018 at 2:06 AM, chocolatine said:

The most chilling part to me was the Duke of Windsor saying that the public would forgive him - that's because he was far from the only Nazi sympathizer/appeaser in British government and high society (for those who haven't read it, I highly recommend Kazuo Ishiguro's masterpiece, The Remains Of The Day, to shed some more light on the subject). I'm sure lot of people used the publication of the Marburg documents to assuage their own guilt - "well, if the former King fell for it, can you blame me for doing the same?" So yes, while he was trying to manipulate the Queen, he wasn't entirely wrong.

I think it's important to separate appeasers and pacifists from actual Nazi sympathiziers and all of them from those few who actually became traitors.

There were many among Churchill's ministers who favored a peace in 1940.    

[chocolatine]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I think it's important to separate appeasers and pacifists from actual Nazi sympathiziers

Appeasers are much closer to sympathizers than to pacifists, and have been treated accordingly in the aftermath of WWII.

[magdalene]

Does anybody here remember the drama in which Jane Seymour played Wallis Simpson? That's the romanticized version of that couple people like my mother took for the gospel truth for a very long time.

[Pallas]

22 minutes ago, magdalene said:

Does anybody here remember the drama in which Jane Seymour played Wallis Simpson?

Opposite Anthony Andrews, a very good David. So, yes. The Woman He Loved, 1988.  Available in full on YouTube.