But Will There Be Corgis? Thread Where We Discuss Netflix's THE CROWN

marming like a badass

= tommy lascelles (rhymes with tassles)

his royal mustache

I rather enjoyed this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3657397/A-most-devoted-subject-and-a-most-exacting-critic.html

Tommy's bête noir was the Prince of Wales, later King Edward VIII and ultimately Duke of Windsor. "He is the most attractive man I have ever met," Tommy declared on appointment to his household in 1921. Disillusionment was swift. "I have wasted the best years of my life," he said after resigning in 1929, outraged by the Prince's neglect of duty and loose morals.

Half a century later, when I was writing a biography of George V, I asked Lascelles what he remembered of the King, who had summoned him back to royal service in 1935. He said: "The King gave me an MVO for looking after his son. It was the hardest-earned medal I ever had." From a man who had won a Military Cross on the Western Front, that was indeed a savage epitaph on the Prince.

He wrote no less bitterly of Mrs Simpson in his retrospect of the Abdication crisis printed in the present volume: "The vast majority of the King's subjects… would not tolerate their Monarch taking as his wife, and their Queen, a shop-soiled American, with two living husbands and a voice like a rusty saw."

Also what the hell:

Tommy undoubtedly gave a steadying hand to a master notorious for his outbursts, and it was his diplomacy that kept both the King and Churchill on dry land after each had declared his intention of watching the D-Day bombardment of the French coast from a cruiser.

whoa

I loved that awesome temper tantrum by the King in ep1 when he is getting ready

And learning about Antony Eden's health problems, jeez:

Eden had an ulcer, exacerbated by overwork, as early as the 1920s. His life was changed forever by a medical mishap: during an operation on 12 April 1953, to remove gallstones, his bile duct was damaged, leaving Eden susceptible to recurrent infections, biliary obstruction, and liver failure. He suffered from cholangitis, an abdominal infection which became so agonising that he was admitted to hospital in 1956 with a temperature reaching 106 °F (41 °C). He required major surgery on three occasions to alleviate the problem. Eden would almost certainly have become Prime Minister when Churchill suffered a severe stroke on 23 June 1953, had he not been recovering from corrective surgery in the United States on the same day.

He was also prescribed Benzedrine, the wonder drug of the 1950s. Regarded then as a harmless stimulant, it belongs to the family of drugs called amphetamines, and at that time they were prescribed and used in a very casual way. Among the side effects of Benzedrine are insomnia, restlessness, and mood swings, all of which Eden suffered during the Suez Crisis; indeed, earlier in his premiership he complained of being kept awake at night by the sound of motor scooters. Eden's drug use is now commonly agreed to have been a part of the reason for his bad judgment while Prime Minister. Eden was secretly hospitalised with a high fever, possibly as a result of his heavy medication, on 5–8 October 1956. He underwent further surgery at a New York hospital in April 1957.

In November 2006, private papers uncovered in the Eden family archives disclosed that Eden had been prescribed a powerful combination of amphetamines and barbiturates called drinamyl. Better known in post-war Britain as "purple hearts", the drug can impair judgement, cause paranoia, and even make the person taking them lose contact with reality. Drinamyl was banned in 1978

Lascelles was great, yeah

best moment in the show is the dressing down the Queen gives to Churchill and Salisbury

the drug can impair judgement, cause paranoia, and even make the person taking them lose contact with reality.

The ideal modern politician.

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to invade Egypt"

lol

bennies, huh. well that's the most fun anyone's had as PM surely

Something else I didn't realize -- Eden's widow is still alive...and is a niece of Winston Churchill!

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

looked up the lascelles family, vaguely hoping they'd been Gormenghastly Keeper of the Mustache since the norman conquest, telling monarchs no for 1000 years -- turns out the earliest one that's well enough known to get into wikipedia is francis, during the civil war, who was mp for stank and north allerton -- and a regicide latterly in the barebones parliament

i've probably already posted the story i know abt eden at some point down the years : he was friends with ian fleming -- james bond is also a benzedrine enthusiast -- and after one of his illnesses went to stay in jamaica at fleming's holiday house goldeneye… the awfulness of the food in the fleming household was legendary, and eden was convinced he was hallucinating large rats in the rafters (he wasn't, they were real-life rats)… more rattled than rested, he returned to downing street to handle the suez crisis

Eden and the Suez seems to be a walking, talking 'what not to do.'

yeah no kidding

My gift to ilx is this image of CORGIS IN SWEATERS

http://cdn-img.instyle.com/sites/default/files/styles/684xflex/public/1481064512/120616-Royal-Family-ugly-sweaters-NEW.jpg

lol

Just started this, so good

Based on that photo, one of the important functions of modern British royalty is to provide comic relief. Presumably the UK needs such jollity at the moment.

based on that post, one might think you thought that was a photo of people

the continued existence of the british royalty provides no relief - only disgust

saw a trailer for this prog "it's a revolution from the inside" or some such trash

the only thing I like inspired by contemporary british royalty of which I can think is king charles III a play and I guess anarchy in the UK a song

I'm ashamed to admit that it was only the novelty double sweater that made me realise the above photo is not real.

Anyway, I've been watching this series, just finished episode 8... And while it's very well made and entertaining without falling for needless scandalisation of well-known historical events, I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't really provide any proper voice that'd be critical of the continued existence of monarchy in a Western democracy. Especially since it's such an ensemble piece with multiple viewpoints, and yet the only critical words to that effect so far were uttered by the newspaper editor, who was only a small bit character and mostly painted as a villain who caused poor Margaret's breakup with the Who guitarist.

Some of Philips's quips seem to also hint at this direction, but they're mostly just used to illustrate his frustration of being the Queen Husband with no deeper critical implications.

I mean, I get it that the writer and most of the intended audience are probably staunch royalists, but it seems pretty absurd that in a series that otherwise tries to provide a fairly objective look into monarchy in a time period where is becoming increasigly obsolete, they have no one stating the obvious and saying that it is. Surely 1950s Britain already had some anti-monarchists among leftists etc? The absence of that feels like a gaping hole in the side of the narrative that it just refuses to accept. (Unless that happens in the last two episode that I havent' yet watched?)

"that it just refuses to acknowledge"

The antiroyalist perspective is also missing from Game of Thrones, Excalibur, Frozen, Cinderella, and Star Wars iirc.

I am not sure I agree that "the writer and most of the intended audience are probably staunch royalists"; it's more like "this is the story they wanted to tell."

FWIW ex-King David says some stuff about how it's perfectly rational to prefer ceremonial magic to boring truth.

The Little Mermaid needed more scenes about the exploitation of the mollusks

The antiroyalist perspective is also missing from Game of Thrones, Excalibur, Frozen, Cinderella, and Star Wars iirc.

Are you being serious? In case y
ou are, this series is clearly framed as a fair realistic and multifaceted look into the role of the monarch in a modern society, while

...Cinderella isn't. So it's not unfair to accept the former to address the huge question that's inextricably tied to its central theme. Cinderella deals with something totally different than the justification of the position of the monarch.

"it's not unfair to expect"

i would say it's framed as a fair realistic and multifaceted look into the role of the monarch in a modern society from the perspective of the monarchy and the people who support it

there are like character perspectives in the season from maybe two people who aren't part of the monarchy or supporting government and one of them gets hit by a bus

it's framed as a fair realistic and multifaceted look into the role of the monarch in a modern society from the perspective of the monarchy and the people who support it

Exactly. My examples were over the top on purpose, but if you want different ones they can be supplied. Johnny Cash biopic that is silent on punk rock. Nature documentaries that fail to address the booming nightclub scene. The point is merely that perspective and canvas size are a legitimate concern in making entertainment.

Yes, there is a story to be told about people who don't give a shit about the Duke of Whatsis and the Marquess of Thingydoodle. This is not that story. If you want to film that story go do it; no one is stopping you.

this series is clearly framed as a fair realistic and multifaceted look…

no it isn't, not at all: it's framed as the exploration of an institution and a practice and a belief system strictly as it impacts on the people right in the middle of it, the human drama of the logic of the constitutional issues, which it takes unexpected care to lay out, making little attempt to explore anything beyond the palace walls except insofar as it affects the central characters, and that's one of its strengths IMO

you're also wrong abt the journalists being set up as the villains: the villain in the destruction of margaret's happiness is -- according to how you judge elizabeth's decision to commit to royal duty -- either the institution of monarchy itself (its ruthless sacrificial demands, if you like, and elziabeth courageously bowing to them) or else elizabeth, treating her setting her duty ahead of her firm promise to her sister as a kind cowardice

if they're royalists -- not at all evident to me -- then they're royalists taking an unusually icy and unsentimental view of the monarchy at this particular time: they really dig down into the harshness of this choice elizabeth has to make (in contrast to david, who as edward viii followed his feelings, an act which, as the queen mum's furiously argues and eliziabeth clearly believes, basically killed his brother bertie aka george vi); it's the central topic of this whole first series

in other words, she portray her as faced with a choice between two modes of cowardice, equally unpleasant personally -- and the approach the makers have (fairly rigorously and i think rather admirably) taken is teasing out the contradictions and ugliness of the entire thing from within; and not making a song and dance of them, or giving us anti-royalists anyone to identify with. i think if someone were parachuted to give a nice wave&wink to us moderns that yes, this entire thing is foolish and we know better now, it would be much harder to do that, besides being fairly ahistorical (obviously plenty of people existed in the early 1950s who believed the institution was a bad thing, but they weren't people elizabeth was routinely engaging with)

(it's going to be really interesting in the next series -- when the next phase of anti-colonial activity will greatly ramp up: the mau mau uprising in kenya and so on -- what their treatment is going to be… it's much more ticklish material than anything they faced so far, and their approach may come to pieces, along with my defence here) (i don't have high hopes of the project in the medium term, i think it's bitten off more than it's likely to be able to chew, but so far i've been surprised and impressed)

i think the version you have in mind, tuomas, would just have sentimentalised both sides of the argument -- basically turned into into an earnest and anachronistic op-ed discussion of the pros and cons of a particular constitutional arrangement… what they've done is much more interesting and much more daring, besides i think being truer to quite how alien britain after the war in the early 50s is to us (exhausted, much poorer, with its empire and its might slipping away, determined to believe, not entirely unjustifiably, that almost alone of the european nations 1939-45 it hadn't compromised with fascism, that its ancient institutions had something to be said for them… except also knowing they were going to have to change anyway, and how is this going to happen, and what's it like to be right in the middle of it, from the perspective of a young, fairly bright, very stubborn, extremely oddly educated woman, who never get to resign and move out of the spotlight)

anyway, you should be on my ROBA thread talking abt finnish police procedurals

(its ruthless sacrificial demands, if you like, and elziabeth courageously bowing to them)

^this needs unpacking a bit, since it's not unreasonable to see it more as her "courageously" sacrificing her sister's happiness -- the kind of courage i mean is her basically accepting her role in this is to be the shit, and seen as the shit, becuase that's what duty IS (which she and her dad understand, unlike her uncle who ran away from it); lol a bit like nixon's "secret honor" in the altman film

i said up thread that duty and the ethos of service is an unusual topic for a modern drama, and i stick with this -- even my lovely procedurals rarely explore this element of police life, and when they do it's explored collectively: "the crown" is abt elizabeth's solitude (except for her uncle, who she loathes)

the villain in the destruction of margaret's happiness is -- according to how you judge elizabeth's decision to commit to royal duty -- either the institution of monarchy itself (its ruthless sacrificial demands, if you like, and elziabeth courageously bowing to them) or else elizabeth, treating her setting her duty ahead of her firm promise to her sister as a kind cowardice

Or, in the way the series presents it, E. being machiavellianly manipulated by the machinations of Mustache Lascelles. Who may himself have been operating out of what he thought were good motives - preserve the mighty institution as opposed to the teeny feeeeewings of mere mortals - or he may have just liked the power he could exercise behind the scenes. E. could have chosen to go against all that institutional weight in order to keep her word to her sister, sure. But she also felt she needed advice/advisors, as she was alone and adrift in uncharted territory.

well, yes, lascelles is pretty much presented as the Face of How Things Must Be Done for most of the series, but by the end we know that E is getting a sense of what her powers (and capabilities) actually are, esp.after we see her face down churchill, so the margaret decision ends up being at least partly E's decision, rather than purely the system' inflexibility (as manifested in the mustache gormenghastly tradition)

incidentally i mentioned claire foy's resemblance to my mum's friend to my sister, and my sister said "oh, really?" (she hadn't watched this) and we googled CF and called up some pictures and my sister said "oh. my. god."

mark s otm itt

based on that post, one might think you thought that was a photo of people

It is a photo of the royal personages, which is equally true, whether it is a photo of actual royals, actors, or wax dummies at Madame Tussaud's. Or photoshopped.

Or, in the way the series presents it, E. being machiavellianly manipulated by the machinations of Mustache Lascelles. Who may himself have been operating out of what he thought were good motives - preserve the mighty institution as opposed to the teeny feeeeewings of mere mortals - or he may have just liked the power he could exercise behind the scenes.

this is an interesting type; reminded in a way of francis urquhart in the end of 'to play the king' who says something like, "my family came down with james the first, when you were a pack of german nobodies." the crown is a thing that can't ever be stable enough or legitimate enough for the people closest to it

i have trouble discerning the intent of the show but i think the critique of monarchy -- an idea that everyone has to serve, or beat themselves into a particular shape to serve -- is there

(xp) Looks nothing like Philip for a start.

they really dig down into the harshness of this choice elizabeth has to make (in contrast to david, who as edward viii followed his feelings, an act which, as the queen mum's furiously argues and eliziabeth clearly believes, basically killed his brother bertie aka george vi)

grim irony here in showing everyone smoking, esp mum on her deathbed. but elizabeth doesn't, right?

don't think we see her smoking -- the internet says she smoked as a teen but gave up after the war

i need to rewatch this tbh

she chides Philip for smoking at one point

yeah iirc her father's death put her off smoking for life or something to that effect

Ep 9 is damn good - the portrait of WC and the (vastly dramatised?) marital strife bet. QE and Philip.

She should have known what she was getting into, marrying a Time Lord and all.

started watching Victoria, UK really liking to biopic it's regents right now it seems. Crown is much better than Victoria btw which suffers from that ITV 'no scene longer than 45 seconds' problem

The old Masterpiece Theater series of Lillie and Edward the Seventh made me an Ed7 stan. Dude had his problems but he appears to have known how to live: drinking, fucking, eating, and living in lavish palaces.

We watched episode 9 last night and I have just found this picture of IRL Margaret, which I feel needs to be shared.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/5c/f6/9e/5cf69ef5597b7a7a7c2277313f793f78.jpg