S02.E05: Marionettes

[Magnumfangirl]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

Investitures have been held since Queen Victoria, so the general public—or a section of it—being in Buckingham Palace is nothing new. If Morgan was trying to show that the Queen Mother was again bemoaning the demystification of the royal family, there had to be a better way to indicate that.

The Queen Mum is almost always portrayed as kind of snob in movies and TV, but when you read about her that doesn't seem to be the case.  I didn't like that scene either and I didn't like her criticizing Billy Graham either.  According to Graham's biography she was always warm and friendly to him.

[jjj]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 5:51 PM, ChefLadyperson said:

I thought the music choice was great during the hairdressing scene. It's scored with "Zadok the Priest." Written by Handel for the coronation of Henry II, it's been performed at every coronation since. Was an apt soundtrack to Queen Elizabeth getting "crowned" with her iconic hair style.

Close, except Henry II ruled from 1133–1189.  You meant the coronation of George II in 1727.  I agree it was an inspired and ironic musical choice!

Edited January 7, 2018 by jjj

[Crs97]

2 hours ago, Magnumfangirl said:

 

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Investitures have been held since Queen Victoria, so the general public—or a section of it—being in Buckingham Palace is nothing new. If Morgan was trying to show that the Queen Mother was again bemoaning the demystification of the royal family, there had to be a better way to indicate that.

The Queen Mum is almost always portrayed as kind of snob in movies and TV, but when you read about her that doesn't seem to be the case.  I didn't like that scene either and I didn't like her criticizing Billy Graham either.  According to Graham's biography she was always warm and friendly to him.

 

I loved her portrayal in The King’s Speech, especially when she meets Logue’s wife.  She matter-of-factly reminded her of protocol, knowing the woman was rendered speechless by having the king and queen in her house, and she turned down dinner so sweetly.  I choose to think that is more factual than this series.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Crs97

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Crs97 said:

I loved her portrayal in The King’s Speech, especially when she meets Logue’s wife.  She matter-of-factly reminded her of protocol, knowing the woman was rendered speechless by having the king and queen in her house, and she turned down dinner so sweetly.  I choose to think that is more factual than this series.

I love her portrayal in that movie! She was very supportive of her husband and really trying to help him.  To bad she couldn't have been portrayed that way in this series.                         

[pearlite]

On 12/13/2017 at 0:43 AM, SeanC said:

One feature I like about this show's episodic approach is the little spotlights for one-off historical characters like Lord Altrincham (and the future Lady Altrincham, Patricia Campbell, played by Yara Greyjoy).

Not a GOT person, but I had a moment with her Peek Freans biscuit tin containing the toffees--I've been dragging that same tin around since childhood, decades ago.

 

On 12/14/2017 at 10:31 PM, Cheezwiz said:

Oh, there's a treasure trove of horrifying quotes out there. Phillip has had foot-in-mouth disease during his whole time as consort. He definitely tosses wildly inappropriate (unfortunately often racist) comments out with abandon. Admittedly, sometimes he will let something hilarious slip about a fellow aristo.

And yes, it's usually a question of when Philip will strike next--the recent "ISIS?" comment about someone with a beard standing near him keeps his reputation rolling nicely.

[Cheezwiz]

6 hours ago, pearlite said:

And yes, it's usually a question of when Philip will strike next--the recent "ISIS?" comment about someone with a beard standing near him keeps his reputation rolling nicely.

Now that Phillip has retired from his official duties, I imagine his mortifying gaffes (or rather the media reports of them) will diminish.

[Hanahope]

Again with doing a flashback type episode.  I am really not liking how they do it in this show.   As I'm watching the show, it almost looks like its not a flashback, its a scene, then it looks like its going forward, at first.  Only later you realize its a flashback, when they essentially reshow the entire scene (just like they did in Lisbon).  

I almost can't believe that a speech like that was written for the queen.  You really have to wonder what were they thinking?  Just how much 'in the bubble' can you be?  And Liz, you clearly have the time to read these speeches.  Maybe you should do so before approving them.

A few more speeches like that, and England might have had its own revolution, a couple hundred years after France.

The blurb at the end said that the Crown/Queen instituted all of Lord A's suggestions, but it looks like she still has the same courtiers.  Hopefully writing better speeches.

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

Just how much 'in the bubble' can you be? 

Oh, I think it's pretty evident in today's world just how 'in the bubble' people can be. Pretty well encapsulated, from what I see.

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, Hanahope said:

The blurb at the end said that the Crown/Queen instituted all of Lord A's suggestions, but it looks like she still has the same courtiers. 

I took that blurb as the changes were incorporated on a rolling basis, not all at once. I also think the courtiers know where their bread is buttered, so they aren't going to make a mistake like that again where the queen looks completely incompetent and out of touch.

Who has the ultimate hiring/firing authority for the courtiers? Does the queen? I know Tommy brought the hammer down when the queen wanted Martin to jump over Michael to be her private secretary, and she acquiesced, but that seemed more because she was so new in her reign. Now she's got some experience, so if she wants a change, can she be more unilateral about it?

This list shows Elizabeth has had nine private secretaries during her reign, which for a nearly 66-year stint is pretty impressive.

[Roseanna]

3 hours ago, Hanahope said:

And Liz, you clearly have the time to read these speeches.  Maybe you should do so before approving them.

I wouldn't recommend that. Elizabeth is by nature a perfectionist who wants to do everything right. But doing all herself doesn't usually lead to the best results. 

She should hire good people and trust them to do good job. And spare her own energy to the most important state affairs and her children.

[Hanahope]

17 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I wouldn't recommend that. Elizabeth is by nature a perfectionist who wants to do everything right. But doing all herself doesn't usually lead to the best results. 

I'm not saying write them, but I think she should at least read them and know what are going to be the words coming out of her mouth.  I'm sure most other world leaders read their speeches, written by others, before actually saying them.

[dubbel zout]

14 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

4 hours ago, Hanahope said:

And Liz, you clearly have the time to read these speeches.  Maybe you should do so before approving them.

I wouldn't recommend that. Elizabeth is by nature a perfectionist who wants to do everything right. But doing all herself doesn't usually lead to the best results. 

Up to then, the speeches hadn't been tone-deaf, or at least not to that degree, so there'd be no reason for Elizabeth to be reading them. I'd hope that after that one she'd start eyeballing them again for a while to make sure appropriate changes had been made, and then once on track again, leave it to her staff. Micromanaging does no one any good.

I also think Elizabeth might not have too much authority on what the speeches say. She has to be careful not to stray into political waters of any kind—the sovereign has to stay neutral. I imagine she could say she doesn't like a phrasing, or that this speech feels too similar to the one she gave last week, or something along those lines, but there are good reasons she's not too deeply involved with the writing of the speeches she gives. They're supposed to be rather bland and inoffensive. (That's what made her "annus horribile" speech in 1992 stand out.)

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, Hanahope said:

I'm not saying write them, but I think she should at least read them and know what are going to be the words coming out of her mouth.  I'm sure most other world leaders read their speeches, written by others, before actually saying them.

Sounds like most of the local newscasters we've experienced in our travels.

[PeterPirate]

8 hours ago, Hanahope said:

I almost can't believe that a speech like that was written for the queen.  You really have to wonder what were they thinking?  Just how much 'in the bubble' can you be?  And Liz, you clearly have the time to read these speeches.  Maybe you should do so before approving them.

I'm not sure that speech was actually written.  I can't wait for The Crown: The Official Companion, Volume 2 to give us the lowdown on it.

It looks to me that the real Queen Elizabeth had practiced giving her first Christmas speech before she went live.  But maybe that was Lord Altrincham's suggestion too.

[CousinAmy]

I think both princesses were very sheltered when it came to common, everyday life. Neither went to school - I believe - so although they were taught history and lived through the horrors of the War, they were not in touch with the lives of the  "little people." And Elizabeth, at first, tended to let men tell her what to do. So if a man handed her a speech, she was not going to criticize it. Gradually she developed a backbone, but she was still pretty new at this Queen stuff.

[Razzberry]

Another excellent episode.  Even Tommy's dogs were riveted to the telly.

[Roseanna]

On ‎13‎.‎1‎.‎2018 at 8:27 AM, CousinAmy said:

I think both princesses were very sheltered when it came to common, everyday life. Neither went to school - I believe - so although they were taught history and lived through the horrors of the War, they were not in touch with the lives of the  "little people." 

I am not sure if the royal children even today know "common, everyday life" although they go to school for it's a school for rich and priviledged children. And if the travel  by metro and go to eat hamburgers, that's not their daily habit and they have security men with them. Perhaps the nearest thing is to visit grandparents who aren't royal.

Also, the public both want the royals to be ordinary and don't want it. F.ex. they must be always seem to be interested, however boring the subject.

Actually, it doesn't matter a bit what the Queen and the Queen Mother actually thought and felt, only that they played their part and the guests came home satisfied and told: "I met the Queen and she was so friendly and said to me..."     

[IDreamofJoaquin]

Did this episode show the Hogwarts Express in it?

[Umbelina]

On 12/23/2017 at 12:44 PM, PinkRibbons said:

I just got an email from netflix with the Christmas Speech from this episode. It made me want to look up the real thing, and so:

On 1/6/2018 at 10:49 PM, jjj said:

I had to stop midway through this to find out if Lord Altrincham married Patricia (whose name they said so many times in the toffee scene that I thought it must be meaningful!).  And quickly found this picture from their wedding day:  http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-2nd-baron-altrincham-weds-patricia-campbell-69351582.html  (the image will open in a larger size if you click on it).  I loved knowing that for the rest of the episode.  I had never even heard of him before this episode, but for some reason the final captions about his influence brought tears to my eyes. 

I was very surprised at the portrayal of the Queen Mother's dismay of dealing with the "little people" at the end.  She was the great public presence of the royal family during the Blitz, out visiting families who has lost their homes and loved ones during the bombing.  I've always heard this was a big aspect of the great fondness of the British people toward the Queen Mother.   The final scene here  just did not ring true.

In the Christmas message scene, I was surprised at the anachronism of the Queen crossing her legs before she went on the air.  In that period, indeed until very recently, women ("ladies") were taught to sit with their ankles crossed, and never their legs crossed.  (I don't invent these rules; but they were widely taught!)  But golly, I watched the actual 1957 broadcast that was linked above, and the actual Queen had her legs crossed in exactly the same way.  Not sure why this production went for a mirror image of the original broadcast, but the re-creation was remarkable. 

Thanks for both of these posts!

When she crossed her legs I gasped.  I should have known production was recreating the real speech, and QEII must have done it as well.

For me, I think it showed how very nervous she was, in spite of her outward composure.  On the DVD it also specifically mentions in the (rather lame) extras that legs are NEVER to be crossed at the knee.  Ha.

[RedbirdNelly]

I loved how Tommy seems to match the dogs,

[b2H]

On 1/12/2018 at 9:43 AM, Hanahope said:

Again with doing a flashback type episode.  I am really not liking how they do it in this show.   As I'm watching the show, it almost looks like its not a flashback, its a scene, then it looks like its going forward, at first.  Only later you realize its a flashback, when they essentially reshow the entire scene (just like they did in Lisbon).  

I almost can't believe that a speech like that was written for the queen.  You really have to wonder what were they thinking?  Just how much 'in the bubble' can you be?  And Liz, you clearly have the time to read these speeches.  Maybe you should do so before approving them.

A few more speeches like that, and England might have had its own revolution, a couple hundred years after France.

The blurb at the end said that the Crown/Queen instituted all of Lord A's suggestions, but it looks like she still has the same courtiers.  Hopefully writing better speeches.

Can someone help a non-Anglophile, please?

At the end of the episode, they showed a photo of Lord A, and the caption read that he gave up his title and took a commoner name.  I didn't catch the name and don't know anything about his post-Lord life.  Can someone help, please?  TIA!!!!

[Popples]

3 hours ago, b2H said:

Can someone help a non-Anglophile, please?

At the end of the episode, they showed a photo of Lord A, and the caption read that he gave up his title and took a commoner name.  I didn't catch the name and don't know anything about his post-Lord life.  Can someone help, please?  TIA!!!!

John Grigg.

[zoey1996]

I loved the Corgis running through the reception room!  But then the Corgis were my favorite characters in The Queen.  Yes, I have seen the animated movie, The Queen’s Corgi, with my granddaughter in a theatre. 🙂

[Growsonwalls]

I just rewatched this episode and it remains one of my favorites. I loved the little war between Martin, Michael and Tommy. 

Also because Elizabeth's "new" hairstyle reminds me so much of my mom's. I've been trying to convince her for decades that the poofed up short curls are not, in fact, flattering, but she's never listened.

[PeterPirate]

From an intellectual perspective, this is my favorite episode of the second season.  It's a wonderful set piece for a discussion of the value of constitutional monarchy.   

I like how they gave ShowElizabeth some agency during this season in moving the monarchy forward into the modern era.  Although I think RealElizabeth enjoyed delivering her first Christmas message more than the way it was portrayed here.  

Edited October 28, 2022 by PeterPirate

[aghst]

On 12/10/2017 at 5:10 AM, Jodithgrace said:

Well, we tend to think of the Queen as egalitarian because that's the way she acts. We have no idea how she really feels. I think that she might well have forgotten her ties to the "common people," because for 10 years she had been in the rarified air of her position as Queen. Reconnecting with the people at those public events she now holds has probably made her feel more connected and much less distainful.  Especially since I'm sure all of those people are on their very best behavior. 

How would they know that the Queen Mother used the word "marionettes" to describe the role of the royal family in what is shown here as a one to one conversation with Elizabeth, no servants around IIRC?

But that was interesting, she seemed to resent that they had no real power, just had become figureheads, no longer having "divine rights."

Did even royal people in the 20th century believe in the divinity of kings and queens?

Elizabeth didn't react so we don't know if she agrees with her mother's sense of humiliation or how things were so much better when the monarchy had real power.

In contrast, Margaret's reducing of royalty to people who "breeds horses, owns land or knows my mother" is a much more modern and probably popular view of royalty, if disdainful.  At least for a brief time, she seemed to like that people didn't stand up and bow or curtsy to her.

Speaking of which, in her brief scene, she refers to her friend as being better in bed so if she's now sleeping with the photographer who took the picture of her with bare shoulders, how is that not a big scandal?

Or is the fallout from that still to come?