S02.E02: A Company of Men

[jumper sage]

18 hours ago, Cara said:

I know others have corrected you already. But I am curious what gave that mistaken  impression. Was it something in the episode?

No, I read an article, from UK mind you, that divulged that information.  As a researcher I should have double checked myself but no I took them for their word.

I think I will go back and delete that post since it is getting so many responses.

I did find this rather nice article about the whole Philip/Parker thing in Vanity Fair.  My favorite part is how the staff referred to them as Murgatoyd and Winterbottom when they were up to shenanigans at the palace.  Interesting reason why Philip was elevated in rank as not to have to testify at the Parker divorce.

Edited December 18, 2017 by jumper sage

[tennisgurl]

On 12/11/2017 at 7:45 AM, teddysmom said:

I found myself comparing Phillip to Don Draper.

Great comparison, I can definitely see that. Don and Philip, I think, both know how it "looks" to be a successful man, husband, and father, but have no idea how to actually be any of those things. Its all superficial, and because its something they never experiences, they have trouble actually living up to that in any real way. Due to having such a messed up childhood, neither of them really know how to be in a family, even when they try. Because they struggle with that so much, they kind of just give up. 

I really did like getting more backstory on Philip and more context into why he is so cold so often. What an awful, messy childhood, I can see why he has issues. I mean, it doesn't excuse his bad behavior towards his family (and the show doesn't want it to) but it does give it more context. It was also nice of him to insist on taking the fisherman back home, and he was quite kind and unassuming with him and his kid. And since he didn't make it into a publicity thing, it really was just because he wanted to help some random guy out. I think that is closer to the guy that Elizabeth loves so much, not the guy who acts like an asshole to her for no reason. It was also nice to see their connection hearing each others addresses, and Philips reaction to the note. I dont think it will change everything, but I do hope thing improve for them a bit. 

I assume the lady reporter was allowed in because Philip thought she was hot (I dont think he would have made a real move, but he does like to look), and she either wanted to get a lot of answers, or a strong reaction, while she had the chance to be in a room with an actual royal, or she had some particular political ideas, and she went into this whole thing with a serious angle, and wanted a reason to make Philip look bad. I mean, "the people have a right to know about their leader who they cant elect from office" or something? What? Philip does have some power as a member of the royal family, but he isn't a member of parliament or anything, he cant actually pass legislation or anything just based on who his wife is, this isn't the middle ages. 

Of course Eden runs off on permanent sick leave when his stupid Egypt plan falls apart. What a weasel. You could tell Elizabeth was thinking "my dad lead a country through a war while he was hacking up blood. Fix this stupid problem you created". Or at least, that was my read on her expression. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by tennisgurl

[Milburn Stone]

On 12/13/2017 at 8:28 AM, Clanstarling said:

Speaking of expressions, there were a couple that seemed anachronistic (what happens on the...tour?...stays on the tour...

That was extremely disappointing, considering the pretty high writing standard Peter Morgan has achieved with the show. I think I actually shouted invective at the screen when it happened.

Why did this anachronism bother me so much, when, as @Rinaldo comments, it is not the only one the writing has contained, and for Rinaldo, is one of the less annoying ones? I think because it trades on such a famous bit of language from our time. It certainly was not unknowing on Morgan's part. It was either brazen, or contemptuous of the audience. (Or both.) Contemptuous, in that it's Morgan saying, "I don't think you dullards will get the point of the scene unless I put in some language that you understand."

Edited December 19, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[Clanstarling]

9 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

That was extremely disappointing, considering the pretty high writing standard Peter Morgan has achieved with the show. I think I actually shouted invective at the screen when it happened.

Why did this anachronism bother me so much, when (as @Rinaldo comments, it is not the only one the writing has contained, and for Rinaldo, one of the less annoying ones)? I think because it trades on such a famous bit of language from our time. It certainly was not unknowing on Morgan's part. It was either brazen, or contemptuous of the audience. (Or both.) Contemptuous, in that it's Morgan saying, "I don't think you dullards will get the point of the scene unless I put in some language that you understand."

That's precisely what bothered me, though until I read your post I had no clarity on why. I suppose we can just be glad he didn't use "bros before hos."

[Tara Ariano]

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

 

Infidelitus Interruptus Is Inflicted Upon The Crown S02.E02

In which Prince Philip goes on emotional walkabout, and also makes terrible facial-hair choices.

[VCRTracking]

I admit I don't blame Phillip for wanting that reporter. She has my favorite 50s hairstyle on a women(the kind Marilyn Monroe had in How to Marry a Millionaire, and Cate Blanchett in Carol).

[CeeBeeGee]

On 12/9/2017 at 9:19 AM, biakbiak said:

With the beard, Matt Smith can play Harry in any upcoming pic about his relationship!

Oh God, absolutely. People who float the theory that someone besides Charles sired Harry are delusional. He is the clone of Philip, and the red hair means nothing--as many have pointed out, two of Diana's 3 siblings are gingers. It seems cruel to keep insisting he is the product of infidelity. Diana was smarter than that.

 

On 12/13/2017 at 3:13 AM, Lorna Mae said:

That reporter looked a lot like Diana.

Actually I thought the waitress from the club looked a lot like Diana! Same short hairdo and everything.

STUNNING cinematography with the Britannia. That sequence when Philip addressed the crew on the top deck, with the sun shining on the waves? And that shot as the ship turned 90 degrees to pick up the fisherman? Gorgeous.

Loved Philip's egalitarianism toward the fisherman, "he's the captain of a ship, he's like us." Philip really had a shit childhood. I'm not a fan of him but he had to deal with some terrible trauma as a child. The Don Draper comparison is well made,

[Janc]

In the early 1950s, would Mike Parker’s wife really be out in the streets of London in trousers and not a dress or skirt?  

[Milburn Stone]

11 hours ago, Janc said:

In the early 1950s, would Mike Parker’s wife really be out in the streets of London in trousers and not a dress or skirt?  

Thinking some more on the egregious "what happens in" anachronism, as well as this one, and others, I wonder if this show is suffering the same fate as Downton Abbey, Masters of Sex, and some others. I.e., marvelous, revelatory first season at the highest level of its genre, followed by seasons in which the writer/showrunner is out of juice or just doesn't care anymore. (I say that still not having seen any episodes beyond this one; maybe they improve.) It may be a natural progression; the writer puts everything he's got artistically into the first season, not being sure there'll be a second, and then has nothing left in the inspiration well. Or else just grows bored. Or weary at the prospect of an endless grind. It happens enough that it seems to be a thing.

[dubbel zout]

This show isn't a documentary. A little historical leeway/dramatic license is shorthand for stuff the show doesn't want to take the time to spell out. Putting Mike Parker's wife in pants in public shows her frustration with the status quo and her independence/desire to break free of social strictures.

That said, I do think Peter Morgan needs to be more careful about where and how he takes that historical leeway/dramatic license. Putting a woman in pants is innocuous, but in later eps he really pushes the envelope. He's lucky so many of the characters in this season are dead.

Edited December 24, 2017 by dubbel zout
spelling

[WatchrTina]

14 hours ago, Janc said:

In the early 1950s, would Mike Parker’s wife really be out in the streets of London in trousers and not a dress or skirt?  

I wondered that too but then I recollected that women wore trousers during WWII as they pitched in for the war effort so it makes sense that they would be loathe to give them up, especially since nylon stockings probably continued to be rationed after the war. (The shortage of stockings led some women to go bare-legged during the war, with faux seams drawn down the back of their legs with an eyeliner pencil.)  I also recall the nurses of "Call the Midwife" eventually wearing trousers on that show, though I can't recall if they started doing that in the early 50s or not until later.

[secnarf]

2 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

This show isn't a documentary. A little historical leeway/dramatic license is shorthand for stuff the show doesn't want to take the time to spell out. Putting Mike Parker's wife in pants in public shows her frustration with the status quo and her independence/desire to break free of social strictures.

That said, I do think Peter Morgan needs to be more careful about where and how he takes that historical leeway/dramatic license. Putting a woman in pants is innocuous, but in later eps he really pushes the envelope. He's lucky so many of the characters in this season are dead.

It has been reported that the Queen enjoyed season 1 of this show. If that is true, I have to wonder if she will also enjoy season 2. I have a hard time imagining that she would - and that goes for any of the real people depicted in this season.

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, secnarf said:

It has been reported that the Queen enjoyed season 1 of this show. If that is true, I have to wonder if she will also enjoy season 2. I have a hard time imagining that she would - and that goes for any of the real people depicted in this season.

Other than the Queen and Prince Phillip (and offspring), does anyone know who else is still alive? Seems the number of possibly offended peope would be pretty small, given the Queen is in her 90's (right?). 

Now, when we move into Season 3, the numbers will rise, I imagine.

BTW, Christine Keeler died just recently.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Clanstarling

[CousinAmy]

On 12/23/2017 at 11:45 PM, Janc said:

In the early 1950s, would Mike Parker’s wife really be out in the streets of London in trousers and not a dress or skirt?  

My mom, a suburban housewife in the U.S. at the time, never wore slacks in public, although occasionally she would wear pedal pushers (capri's) if we were going on a picnic. I have a picture of us in the summer of 1959 sitting on the stoop and just hanging out (I think my brother took the picture when we weren't looking) and she was wearing a dress, with a full skirt. It wasn't common for women to wear pants in public in the early 1960s. Mary Tyler Moore had to fight to get permission to wear pants while appearing on the Dick Van Dyke show (1960) even in scenes set in the house!

Although U.S. and British fashions may not have been in sync, I agree that the slacks made Eileen seem more independent-minded.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

From the recap:

Basically, they divert the yacht to go save a stranded and very sick fisherman, and then take him back to his home, despite the fact that the Royal Britannia's captain is a real pill about it and Philip has to pull rank on him (literally) in order for them to do the right thing. (You immediately know that the captain is a bad person, because he has not joined the beard-growing competition.)

I'm fairly certain that the Vice-Admiral did have a beard at the beginning of the voyage.  Then, when Philip announced the beard-growing competition, he announced that those crew members with beards had been granted dispensation to shave said beards and judge the others (I don't know why they couldn't have shaved and started from scratch).  Anyway, that's why he didn't have a beard.

I wonder if he really had anymore choice in shaving off his beard than Michael Adeane did in shaving off his mustache?  After all, if the Vice-Admiral had a beard at the start of the voyage, he must have actually wanted it.

[Anothermi]

On 2017-12-09 at 4:09 PM, WatchrTina said:

Does anyone know WHY Britannia went to Antarctica? Did they pay a visit to the staff at the research stations?  That would make sense -- December is the summer in the southern hemisphere and that's when most Antarctic research stations are manned.  Otherwise it seems an odd place to go and the entirely wrong direction for a homeward cruise to Great Britain.

Loved the episode again.  The show is just . . . delicious.  Like really good chocolate.

In the very 1st episode, Phillip was talking with Elizabeth as the finishing touches were being added to her regalia and told her that he had warmed to the idea of the tour. Especially because he had gotten TPTB to include 2 side trips. One was to ... I don't remember, but I think it was the remote jungle communities... and the other was to Antarctica.  It was for personal adventure reasons.  Elizabeth made a crack to him, after he mentioned Antarctica, that "boys will be boys" and he retorted that with the subzero temperatures it was more "men will be men".  They both chuckled at that - perhaps for different reasons.

The interaction between Elizabeth and the two children (with the globe in this episode) was to add an educational component to the news of where Daddy was.  Her response to the question of why he was there was also meant as educational, for Charles at least, re: their duty to the Commonwealth, albeit a bit glib and off the top of her head. She's definitely not being portrayed as the warm cuddly type. But hey, I don't know her and I wasn't there.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Anothermi
clean up

[Anothermi]

On 2017-12-09 at 2:31 PM, ProudMary said:

I hadn't been bowled over by Matt Smith's performance prior to this episode, but I thought he was excellent here in an episode where the focus was on him.

I loved the use of Elizabeth's note left in his briefcase.  The first time Philip reads the note, I believe he sees it annoyingly as a warning, a guideline she's setting for his behavior, "Don't forget you have a family."   Then, after the interview with the journalist where she opens old wounds of the broken family of his youth and the ensuing homesickness it awakens, he looks at the note differently.  "Don't forget you have a family;" a place where you are loved, missed and where you belong.  Nicely done, show.

Glad others noticed this.  I thought it was brilliant on Peter Morgan's part to juxtapose the intent of the letter and the circumstanses of it's reception at the beginning and the end of the episode.

At the beginning we see Elizabeth feeling loved and feeling close to her husband when she wrote the note. This was followed by her discovery of the photo of the ballerina when she clandestinely planted her original feelings and good will in his briefcase before his departure.  Her attitude turns sour towards him. 

Next came the discord of his best friend's marriage being featured and said friend's negative pronouncement on marriage in general.  This was the context in which Philip read her short note:
"Don't forget you have a family." Of course he (and we) took it as an "or else" kind of order. At this point both Elizabeth and Phillip's feelings become similarly wary of each other.

Jump to best friend Mike's letters to their men's club full of innuendo and broadly implying (but not directly stating) that Phillip was among the 90% of officers who would kill him if the suggested/implied carnal escapades were to be betrayed.  I took the anachronistic "what happens on tour, stays on tour" to definitely be shorthand to the current-day audience regarding what the club members would have inferred from those letters.

Next we get the scene where Phillip appears to succumb to a form of temptation in the person of the beautiful reporter, only to realize he is not ever going to be treated like a ordinary person, just exploited for their own ends.  This encounter/realization was particularly important as it stirred up his painful childhood past and in a cold and unsympathetic way.

Later, after pondering his own family life growing up due to this unpleasant encounter, he is presented with an opportunity to do something good for an ordinary seafaring man (like himself) adrift and away from his family. He finds the sense of self Elizabeth sent him on the trip for and uses his privileged position for the benefit of an ordinary man without privilege. Michael's letter to "the club" is read as voice over and the beginning deals with the wonderful family/community the rescued man is being returned to in conjunction with images of Phillip surveying this wonderful sense of family/community.  Michael's letter then goes on to what he knows his fellow club members want to hear - about the women - and is read in conjunction with images of Michael, in particular, engaging with said beautiful women. (I mention this in particular because is seems the writer is being very careful to avoid direct association of Prince Phillip and those questionable goings on).

Then, after the press frenzy over his best friend's impending divorce, we're given Phillip's honest, heartfelt Christmas message, and Elizabeth's moving response to it.  (and get to see each of their reactions to each others words)

It is then that we are shown Phillip's return to her short note that she left with the video camera and are shown Phillip "hearing" it from a completely different perspective. One that is saying to him "You are not alone, you have a family now".

Yes, it doesn't become happily-ever-after but is shown as an epiphany on Phillip's part that will have to weather the storms his past associations (and behaviours) have brought upon him.

I find that brilliant writing. 

[SoWindsor]

HOW much is this episode was accurate? I searched for Prince Philips Christmas speech on YouTube but found nothing.

[Anothermi]

1 hour ago, SoWindsor said:

HOW much is this episode was accurate? I searched for Prince Philips Christmas speech on YouTube but found nothing.

From Wikipedia:

1956 - The Duke of Edinburgh spoke from HMY Britannia during a voyage around the Commonwealth before the Queen made her speech live from Sandringham House in which she referred to the Duke's message as the one that gave her and her children the greatest joy listening to and wished him a good journey before expressing her sadness at being separated from him. She also expressed her sympathies to those who, unlike her, do not enjoy a united family or cannot be at home for Christmas or who are alone or have been driven from home and asked listeners to think especially of those who have been driven from their homelands by war or violence, refugees, asking that they be given true refuge and, in a reference to the story of Christ's birth, be given room at the inn. As in previous messages, she compared the Commonwealth to a family in which, despite its differences, "for the sake of ultimate harmony, the healing power of tolerance, comradeship and love must be allowed to play its part."[53] The broadcast was criticised for the Queen's continued refusal to have it televised and for having "too many ponderous platitudes written into it by her officials" and for presenting "a false picture of the Commonwealth as one big happy British family — all Anglo-Saxons under the skin."[54]

[jjj]

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 8:08 PM, CeeBeeGee said:

Actually I thought the waitress from the club looked a lot like Diana! Same short hairdo and everything.

I completely agree -- in fact, I did not hear a lot of what she said at the solicitor's office, because I kept thinking, "she is the image of Diana at 18".  She had the same complexion and rounded face that Diana had when she was a teacher's helper in her late teens, plus the haircut, as you note.  

[Paloma]

On 12/27/2017 at 9:25 PM, Anothermi said:

On 12/9/2017 at 5:31 PM, ProudMary said:

I hadn't been bowled over by Matt Smith's performance prior to this episode, but I thought he was excellent here in an episode where the focus was on him.

I loved the use of Elizabeth's note left in his briefcase.  The first time Philip reads the note, I believe he sees it annoyingly as a warning, a guideline she's setting for his behavior, "Don't forget you have a family."   Then, after the interview with the journalist where she opens old wounds of the broken family of his youth and the ensuing homesickness it awakens, he looks at the note differently.  "Don't forget you have a family;" a place where you are loved, missed and where you belong.  Nicely done, show.

Glad others noticed this.  I thought it was brilliant on Peter Morgan's part to juxtapose the intent of the letter and the circumstanses of it's reception at the beginning and the end of the episode.

At the beginning we see Elizabeth feeling loved and feeling close to her husband when she wrote the note. This was followed by her discovery of the photo of the ballerina when she clandestinely planted her original feelings and good will in his briefcase before his departure.  Her attitude turns sour towards him. 

Next came the discord of his best friend's marriage being featured and said friend's negative pronouncement on marriage in general.  This was the context in which Philip read her short note:
"Don't forget you have a family." Of course he (and we) took it as an "or else" kind of order. At this point both Elizabeth and Phillip's feelings become similarly wary of each other.

When watching the episode I wondered if, after she discovered the photo of the ballerina, Elizabeth actually replaced the original note with the one we later saw Philip reading (which could be taken in different ways, as you both have noted). The reason I thought this was that it seemed like a logical reaction: if I were a wife unexpectedly discovering evidence suggesting that my husband was having an affair just as I was putting an affectionate note and gift in his briefcase as a surprise after he went away, I would be hurt and angry enough to change my mind about leaving the note (and probably also the gift). It doesn't seem impossible that she could have scribbled a new, cooler note to leave in the briefcase in place of a presumably warmer, more personal one.

[Anothermi]

4 hours ago, Paloma said:

When watching the episode I wondered if, after she discovered the photo of the ballerina, Elizabeth actually replaced the original note with the one we later saw Philip reading (which could be taken in different ways, as you both have noted). The reason I thought this was that it seemed like a logical reaction: if I were a wife unexpectedly discovering evidence suggesting that my husband was having an affair just as I was putting an affectionate note and gift in his briefcase as a surprise after he went away, I would be hurt and angry enough to change my mind about leaving the note (and probably also the gift). It doesn't seem impossible that she could have scribbled a new, cooler note to leave in the briefcase in place of a presumably warmer, more personal one.

BIB (bit in bold):

I can see how that thought might cross your mind.  I was surprised at how short and non-loving the note seemed. But by the end I recognized the deliberate planning that went into constructing the (fictional) story of this episode to lay over the known facts which were: Philip was on tour for 5 month; with a close friend; who, during that time, became a press item due to his wife filing for divorce; and the press created suspicion of Royal Scandal.

The reason I said it was brilliant writing was that the episode was deliberately constructed to lead us to certain conclusions (or to feel certain things) about the story line they wanted to tell. It would make very little sense if they showed Elizabeth doing what you suggest. It would make sense that Philip - who to that point had been shown experiencing a warm leave-taking from Elizabeth - would be perplexed and disappointed with the terse note. Especially in light of his best mate's pronouncements on marriage just before. BUT when they showed him reading that same note with a more positive spin it would not make sense to viewers because we would have seen Elizabeth switch the note and know it shouldn't be read that way.

The other thing that we've been shown about Elizabeth is that she IS quite terse (and pithy sometimes) regardless of the emotional state she is speaking from.  Body language and tone are very subtle with her.  It is well within possibility that the short note could mean more than one thing with the way she wrote it. Come to think of it, the note with the camera made absolute sense.  She had been the one to document  their previous trips together with the newly invented portable film camera- as we learned in S01 - and the note with the camera was a way of telling him "please carry on this family tradition, we'd love to share your adventures".

Aside from the intent behind the writing, they had also shown us that Elizabeth only had 1 hour before that bag was taken to the ship (as per the servant Elizabeth spoke to about getting the note and camera secretly into his luggage); that bag was in a distant location within the palace (scene of a long walk by Elizabeth); and I didn't see any place where she could get a pen and paper within a short distance from the location of Philip's  bag (plus I'm pretty sure there is stationary specific to Elizabeth that is reserved to identify her). 

I agree with you that it would be logical for a woman who believes she's found evidence that her husband has been cheating on her would want to Do Something. But if she was prepared to pro-actively react to the feelings she was experiencing in that moment, it would have been more natural to abort her mission to secretly send the camera and take it all back. The problem with that is that I believe there is factual evidence that Philip did make home movies on that trip for the family.

This entire story line was clearly speculative all in all - not fact based.

[Ciarrai]

On 1/2/2018 at 0:45 AM, jjj said:

I completely agree -- in fact, I did not hear a lot of what she said at the solicitor's office, because I kept thinking, "she is the image of Diana at 18".  She had the same complexion and rounded face that Diana had when she was a teacher's helper in her late teens, plus the haircut, as you note.  

I'm going to have to go back and look now because I thought the waitress just had her hair in a braided updo, not cut short.

[jjj]

2 hours ago, Ciarrai said:

I'm going to have to go back and look now because I thought the waitress just had her hair in a braided updo, not cut short.

This was specifically when she was sitting in the solicitor's office (when she said she could not testify because of the damage to her reputation) -- I thought it was a short haircut.  At any rate, her complexion and round face and the way her hair framed her face really made me think of 18- or 19-year-old Diana when she was teaching young children and was afresh face in the news. 

Edited January 6, 2018 by jjj

[Roseanna]

On ‎2‎.‎1‎.‎2018 at 11:38 PM, Anothermi said:

It would make sense that Philip - who to that point had been shown experiencing a warm leave-taking from Elizabeth - would be perplexed and disappointed with the terse note.

But Elizabeth's leave-taking was not warm. They had been in good terms and evidently enjoyed sex together, but after finding the ballerina's picture, Elizabeth used the usual pretence ("I don't feel well, I must go to bed") and in the plane her leave-taking was very formal. 

[Hanahope]

I noted that they deliberately kept it ambiguous as to whether Philip had affairs or not, despite the implication that a man away from his wife for 5 months would of course stray with very willing women.

I certainly chuckled at Elizabeth's comment about not wanting other parts of the empire think about independence.  Ah, the USA and India still sting.

I was totally expecting that female journalist to be shown sitting next to Philip at the Olympics.  I too was very surprised at her questions, though likely it was just a plot device to give us info about Philip.

[AnnieBeez]

5 hours ago, Hanahope said:

I noted that they deliberately kept it ambiguous as to whether Philip had affairs or not,

I didn't see any ambiguity in the scene on Tonga that had him being led away by the hand from the fire, finger to lips as he looked back at shipmates. 

[Hanahope]

14 hours ago, PuhLeeze said:

I didn't see any ambiguity in the scene on Tonga that had him being led away by the hand from the fire, finger to lips as he looked back at shipmates. 

Oh, I thought that was Mike.

[Anothermi]

15 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Oh, I thought that was Mike.

And you thought correctly. 

I checked it again and there is a scene of a group of women dancing by a fire. Mike is watching and smiling broadly. Philip is sort of smiling and sort of watching, but seems not to be focused in the same direction as Mike.

The women come forward and one reaches out to Mike and he takes her hand and stands up while another reaches out to Philip who actually holds his palm up and shakes his head indicating he is declining the offer. Mike is led away, and looks back at (us) Philip, but there is no finger put to lips from him either. The next scene is Philip and Mike on the beach preparing to be rowed out to the ship.

All this was juxtaposed with the fellow at the club reading Mike's letter aloud as a kind of voice-over.

I'd written up thread that the writers were very careful about actually showing Philip being unfaithful. They just placed the scenes in the context that led to the scandalous speculations at the time and let us draw our own conclusions.

ETA:

The interesting thing about this scene is that there is not a lot of Philip in it.  He is there, but pretty subdued. The main camera focus is on Mike - who's letter is being voice-overed -  and I had to rewatch a couple of times just to remember to focus on Philip who's movements of declining the offer were 1) only seconds long; and 2) completely overshadowed by what was going on between the 1st woman and Mike.  The scene was structured to focus on the infidelity hinted at in his letter with just enough Philip to make viewers know he was also present.  It's easy to understand how we could leave that scene with the thought that Philip had also participated. There was only a couple of seconds - easily missed - to suggest that he didn't. But they ARE there...   and proof against libel.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Anothermi
clarity

[AnnieBeez]

17 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Oh, I thought that was Mike.

Really?! Damn. I'm visually-impaired but I would've sworn it was Philip. Never mind

Edited January 13, 2018 by PuhLeeze

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, Anothermi said:

And you thought correctly. 

I checked it again and there is a scene of a group of women dancing by a fire. Mike is watching and smiling broadly. Philip is sort of smiling and sort of watching, but seems not to be focused in the same direction as Mike.

The women come forward and one reaches out to Mike and he takes her hand and stands up while another reaches out to Philip who actually holds his palm up and shakes his head indicating he is declining the offer. Mike is led away, and looks back at (us) Philip, but there is no finger put to lips from him either. The next scene is Philip and Mike on the beach preparing to be rowed out to the ship.

All this was juxtaposed with the fellow at the club reading Mike's letter aloud as a kind of voice-over.

I'd written up thread that the writers were very careful about actually showing Philip being unfaithful. They just placed the scenes in the context that led to the scandalous speculations at the time and let us draw our own conclusions.

ETA:

The interesting thing about this scene is that there is not a lot of Philip in it.  He is there, but pretty subdued. The main camera focus is on Mike - who's letter is being voice-overed -  and I had to rewatch a couple of times just to remember to focus on Philip who's movements of declining the offer were 1) only seconds long; and 2) completely overshadowed by what was going on between the 1st woman and Mike.  The scene was structured to focus on the infidelity hinted at in his letter with just enough Philip to make viewers know he was also present.  It's easy to understand how we could leave that scene with the thought that Philip had also participated. There was only a couple of seconds - easily missed - to suggest that he didn't. But they ARE there...   and proof against libel.

Thank you.

However, the scene happened after Philip decided to bring the captain to his home and understood the importance of the family. 

[Anothermi]

21 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Thank you.

However, the scene happened after Philip decided to bring the captain to his home and understood the importance of the family. 

I have no disagreement with that. I didn’t place that scene in any context. I was just confirming that my memory & Hanahope’s memory were correct. Sometimes it’s not. Memory can be a tricky thing. 

[justmehere]

On 12/17/2017 at 7:11 AM, Inquisitionist said:

The guy in charge of the ship, who tells Philip they can't detour to return the man found at sea to his home.  He has a fuller face than in his Wickham days, but still handsome.

No, actually. Greg Wise plays Lord Mountbatten, who was trading insults with his wife about infidelity:

[LilWharveyGal]

4 minutes ago, justmehere said:

No, actually. Greg Wise plays Lord Mountbatten, who was trading insults with his wife about infidelity:

In the Jane Austen bad-boy universe, Greg Wise was Willoughby.  Adrian Lukis was Mr. Wickham.

 

[justmehere]

You're absolutely right. I realized the mistake just after I posted and was in the process of editing when you posted your reply.

[IDreamofJoaquin]

How expensive was this tour?? That's all I could think of.  

[Lonesome Rhodes]

During the tremendous film of the various shots of Britannia and the scenes on the island, I was totally channeling the various depictions of the Bounty.  In each story, the crew were virtually helpless from falling hard for the native women and the tropical settings.  Of course, the life on each ship could not have been more different.  FWIW - I don't buy that Philip ever fully strayed.  

I also was struck by the coincidence that my first viewing occurred right after a horrible tragedy has befallen Tonga.  God bless and keep them all.

The one criticism I have is that when the landing party arrived, there was zero hint of the loss of everyone else from that fishing boat.  I get that Morgan wanted to present a fantasy visit.  

The confrontation with the Captain would never, ever, ever have been in the presence of anyone else.  I felt for the Captain as the pressures he was under from any number of senior officers and royal staffers to pull it all off as scheduled were immense.  Then to stay at the island for three days?!  Huh?  Bad, bad, Philip.

The reporter well represented the struggles of female journalists.  On the one hand, one has to be better than the men who are competing for advancement, and two, her best advantage can be feminine charms.  For my money, this one most certainly flirted and most certainly dressed to accent such.  She was also very well informed and she was relentless with the Prince.  

Finally, I was struck that Adeane allowed himself a moment of humanity by speaking of his wife's difficulty being with a man who had such demanding duty - very much like Elizabeth.  If we don't see more of this softer side, this will have been a poor choice by Morgan.

I think I'd be just fine with my primary care physician simply prescribing Jamaican rum as curative.  But, I would not turn down an expenses-paid sabbatical there.