Jump to content

The Crown, Series 2


foxy
This topic is 1459 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just started watching last night, about an episode and a half in, just where George VI dies. I'm curious, the scene at the beginning of episode 1, on the ceremony where Philip is given a medal and takes British citizenship. The character helping the King dress, who helps calm his stuttering by reciting a dirty limerick; is that meant to be Lionel Logue, the speech therapist in "The King's Speech"? I didn't seem him in the credits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, you're right. It was early enough in the show that I was still sorting out characters, but I replayed it last night; that' definitely Peter Townsend.

 

No problem. It is a great series. Parts 1 and 2 are really good. But as Elizabeth ages in Part 3 different actresses play her and Margaret. They are the incredible Olivia Colman and the always wonderful Helena Bonham-Carter. I hope you like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem. It is a great series. Parts 1 and 2 are really good. But as Elizabeth ages in Part 3 different actresses play her and Margaret. They are the incredible Olivia Colman and the always wonderful Helena Bonham-Carter. I hope you like it.

I like it very much so far. Bertie's brother (Edward?), the one who abdicated, seems a bit of a pill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it very much so far. Bertie's brother (Edward?), the one who abdicated, seems a bit of a pill.

 

From what I have read Edward VIII might have tried to help to liberalize the government if certain ways. Although monarchs are supposed to be neutral as far as the various governments that are formed. However, their support of certain groups would certainly move things one way or the other. For instance, if Charles had ever become king and Diana was then Queen consort (I think she would be?) her support of AIDS groups might have helped to legitimize all sorts of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Charles had become King when he was still married to Diana, I think Diana would be Queen, period, not Queen consort. Ancient rules about gender precedence - a woman who succeeds to the throne can't make her husband the King, but when a man succeeds to the throne, his wife is Queen. A King can make a Queen, but a Queen can't make a King.

 

I could be wrong, I'm no expert on royal succession :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Charles had become King when he was still married to Diana, I think Diana would be Queen, period, not Queen consort. Ancient rules about gender precedence - a woman who succeeds to the throne can't make her husband the King, but when a man succeeds to the throne, his wife is Queen. A King can make a Queen, but a Queen can't make a King.

 

I could be wrong, I'm no expert on royal succession :-D

 

This is my understanding as well. Like you, I wouldn’t consider myself an expert either, but what little research I have done, affirms this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Diana would be Queen, period, not Queen consort.

Yes and no. Her title would have been Queen, as were Elizabeth's mother Queen Elizabeth and grandmother Queen Mary (they were the ones for whom the ships were named). Queen consort is not a title, it's a description. When you're talking about the wife of a current king, it's obvious what her status is. But Diana would have been a queen consort, as would Camilla or Kate be next, rather than queen regnant which is what the current queen is. The only queen regnant whose husband was king was Mary, Princess of Orange. She and William III were co-sovereigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So whoever inherits the throne through blood is the reigning sovereign, regardless of gender? With a strong preference for a male, rather than female, inheriting the throne? Why was Mary the only Queen to reign alongside a king? I've googled a bit but it's making my head spin :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So whoever inherits the throne through blood is the reigning sovereign, regardless of gender? With a strong preference for a male, rather than female, inheriting the throne? Why was Mary the only Queen to reign alongside a king? I've googled a bit but it's making my head spin :)

For the British monarchy, males outranked females in the line of succession, but that was changed a few years ago (it required the consent of all the 'Commonwealth Realm', 15 of them IIRC). But there are no first-born females yet who benefit from the change. If anything happened to Prince George, Princess Charlotte would be William's heir apparent over her younger brother.

 

Mary was the daughter of James II so was in the line of succession (but not the heir) and was chosen to replace James when he fled the country and was deemed to have abdicated. They got to ignore the actual heir, because it was basically a coup, and they just could. So she had a valid-ish claim on the throne. William of Orange led an invited invasion force that was what forced James to leave, and he insisted on sharing the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary") was the first undisputed queen regnant. When she married Prince Phillip of Spain he became King, through an Act of Parliament, but only during Mary's lifetime. She equally became queen to titles that Phillip held on the continent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it Queen Mary ("Bloody Mary") was the first undisputed queen regnant. When she married Prince Phillip of Spain he became King, through an Act of Parliament, but only during Mary's lifetime. She equally became queen to titles that Phillip held on the continent.

Yes, Lady Jane Gray was never accorded the title. I don't think Phillip's title was anything more than a courtesy whereas William and Mary were joint sovereigns and he remained king when she died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So whoever inherits the throne through blood is the reigning sovereign, regardless of gender? With a strong preference for a male, rather than female, inheriting the throne? Why was Mary the only Queen to reign alongside a king? I've googled a bit but it's making my head spin :)

[YAWN]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Lady Jane Gray was never accorded the title. I don't think Phillip's title was anything more than a courtesy whereas William and Mary were joint sovereigns and he remained king when she died.

 

From what I read certain things had to go out with both Mary and Phillip's names on them but that even though he did have the title in the end she was the real monarch. What was began thinking about is the situation where Mary was actually able to produce a male heir and then he became king of Spain (and all the other stuff associated with that title) would that heir then basically become the monarch of a hell of a lot of Europe. During much of Mary's reign Phillip was trying to get her to enter into a joint war against France but England might be more willing to do that knowing that the king or the future king (or queen) would be this warring giant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...