The Crown [Netflix]

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Risto said:

Honestly, this was the first time I have seen her. And the role reminded me of another Windsor PR project "Queen" with Helen Mirren. And let me say, as much as I love that performance, in a year with Judi Dench in "Notes on the Scandal" and Meryl Streep in "Devil Wears Prada", to win every God damn award, making it almost unbelievable landslide (which lately has become a fashion with Blanchett, Moore, Larson and  Stone doing the same), it was a role that screamed "Oscars" so much. So, while I was ready to give Ms Foy a chance, I was already "against" the hoopla that the role was going to create (and it did create a lot of buzz). But, she is amazing. And there is no point denying that. Not many great actresses on TV can do so much without speaking (Robin Wright and Julianna Margulies come to mind) but Foy manages to make the text itself redundant. Her eyes and her face is so expressive even when she is still, without any sort of facial movements. In my opinion, it is truly amazing.

I felt Julianna Margulies really didn't get the credit she earned either.  For some reason a great deal of the audience fixated on Kalinda's character -- which, though I liked it a lot in the first season or two, felt got more ridiculous all the time because the writers / showrunners didn't know what to do with it so they kept amping up the dark dangerous mysterious quotient.  Archie Panjabi must have felt quite the same because some time even before leaving The Good Wife she was in roles that cast her in plain jeans, little make-up, sneakers, etc., entirely against the Kalinda figure in tight leather corsets and spike heels that in reality wouldn't have allowed her to breathe much less fight.

[Mladen]

I just finished episode 5 and I have to say it was one of the saddest things I have watched this year.

In "Queen", Tony Blair famously said that "it's becoming to look like bullying" when he referred how journalists and the nation treated Queen after Diana's death. Every human being should be equal, that is the ideal, but the world is, as we all know, far too complicated for that to be the actual true. As was said in Episode 5, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but can we truly defend the freedom of speech when it borderlines with bullying? I do believe that Grigg's intentions were noble and the episode points that out, but we can see what impact it has on this woman who, in her own words, can't even respond. Stripping that absolutism isn't a nice job and in most monarchies it required severing heads, killing children or organizing assassinations. So, in comparison to that, this one looks almost tame. But, nonetheless, it looks hurtful. I sympathize with Elizabeth, not just because she was being stripped of her power, but because she has no right to say "no". In this episode, the choice is something she doesn't have. She is loved all over the world. she is considered to be powerful and yet she has no word in even how her hair will look like. IDK how others felt about this, but for me, this truly hit the nerve. 

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

I felt Julianna Margulies really didn't get the credit she earned either. 

While it is possible that to be true, the fact remains that she is one of the most awarded TV actresses of all time (counting both ER and TGW). Alicia Florrick was one of the most influential female characters on TV for half a decade. Of the three ladies of TGW, the most underrated one was certainly Baranski. And I pray to Gods of Entertainment that one day Diane Lockhart gets the praise and acknowledgement she so richly deserves. 

 

ETA: As much as Episode 5 was sad for me, when Phillip commented Elizabeth's hairstyle, I laughed my ass off. Yeah, I know it was mean and uncalled for, but still...

[HexMachina]

I thought Foy was alright/good in Season one but was not especially memorable. Gradually making my way through season 2 and think she is way better than Season 1, definitely worthy of the praise you are all giving here. 

I’m looking forward to seeing Coleman in the role next season though.

[Zorral]

7 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I thought Foy was alright/good in Season one but was not especially memorable. Gradually making my way through season 2 and think she is way better than Season 1, definitely worthy of the praise you are all giving here. 

I’m looking forward to seeing Coleman in the role next season though.

She's going to be incredible.

Also agree w/u about Foy in season 1.

As for pitying Elizabeth and any of the others -- not happening over here.  They have too much, none of which they got by their own efforts and whose ancestors, particularly the Victorian ones, stole from over the globe from those to whom it was rightful.  They aren't admirable people, not really.  Not compared to the single mom of whatever background with no money who gets up ever damned morning to put food on the table for her kids,l get them into clean clothes and to school and get to a horrible hardly paying job without benefits -- also often a legacy of what the Windsors accumulated via thank you colonial empire.v  I can never forget that stuff.

Watching this stuff, the viewer must never forget that this is FICTION, not history, not biography and it is structured that way, even to the point of tugging on heartstrings.  The real people and the history are not the same as what you are viewing on screen.

 

[Mladen]

20 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Watching this stuff, the viewer must never forget that this is FICTION, not history, not biography and it is structured that way, even to the point of tugging on heartstrings.  The real people and the history are not the same as what you are viewing on screen.

Well, TBH, I do sympathize more with Foy's Elizabeth (and Mirren's by that extension) than the one occupying Buckingham Palace at the moment. The show is a nice PR, but all in all, I see them separately. As you say this is a fiction and I approach to the character as a creation of writers, not the embodiment of real-life monarch.

23 minutes ago, Zorral said:

As for pitying Elizabeth and any of the others -- not happening over here.  They have too much, none of which they got by their own efforts and whose ancestors, particularly the Victorian ones, stole from over the globe from those to whom it was rightful.  They aren't admirable people, not really.  Not compared to the single mom of whatever background with no money who gets up ever damned morning to put food on the table for her kids,l get them into clean clothes and to school and get to a horrible hardly paying job without benefits -- also often a legacy of what the Windsors accumulated via thank you colonial empire.v  I can never forget that stuff.

I agree that countless people had much harder life than the one Windsors had. The life that allowed them to demonstrate the true strength of humanity, but sometimes also the depth to which we can sink to. I pity a person with no choice, rich or poor, it is not a life worth living unless you find it worthy of the cause you believe in. That is why Foy's Elizabeth evokes such feelings in me. Because her Elizabeth is woman who almost has no choice, who can't voice her opinion and whose worlds are colliding from all sides. For me it is sad (and also speaks about the power of Foy's performance), and I am in no way trying to make her a martyr. 

[Mladen]

And so it ends... Claire Foy was a force of nature this season, through and through. Given the news of second season of "Handmaid's Tale", it will be interesting to see how the award-winning bodies will decide between Foy and Moss. Right now, I would give a slight edge to Foy.

I will try to go through all of this by discussing arc by arc.

1. Phillip. This one was always weird for me. Is it love, duty, inability to do anything else? All of that? Call me hopeless romantic, but I am truly convinced that what they have is real. Not real in Grey/Shepherd way, but far from Underwoods. The closest one for comparison would be Phillip and Elizabeth Jennings (I see the irony now, LOL). That said, I feel bad for Phillip. Emasculation is a word we can laugh nowadays, given all the choices we can, but can you imagine its meaning to a traditionalist in 1960s? He provided both moments of laugh and joy and the infuriating moments when I wanted to bash his head. The entire thing with Charles was so devastatingly sad, a case of bad parenting, but then you see how they fed Charles, how spoiled he was becoming. And the question remains, how to deal with that situation? Phillip was undoubtedly wrong, but it should be noted that I seriously doubt that Elizabeth was right here. They wrote that Charles let William and Harry go to Eton, but the thing is, those boys had Diana in their early childhood, which played an important role in the raising of Princes. So, that is the factor that poor Charles missed, which is why Phillip's reluctance to give him what he wanted makes some sense. His bullying, however, doesn't.

2. Margaret. OK, she is an idiot. The way she is portrayed, juxtaposed to Elizabeth, simply makes her look terrible. I am sorry, we all have our grievances, we all have issues, but hers are so madly infuriating. Spoiled little brat. And the highlight of her storyline was when Elizabeth mocked her "egalitarian" views. 

3. Prime Ministers. I know little of British PMs during Elizabeth's reign, but the two we had this season were hopeless. Abandoning country when it's the most difficult, it is borderline treason. And to see that happening two times in such short period, it is crazy. So, when she lashes out to McMillan, finally holding a ground, having an opinion, she speaks for all those whom they have abandoned. And she has resounding point there. They are all quitters. 

4. Mrs Kennedy. Again, I have no idea how much of this actually happened, but it did provide us with the marvelous Foy's performance. I doubt Jackie was so open about her husband's and her own health issues to a foreign monarch. 

5. Nazi uncle. If hearing what Jackie thinks of Elizabeth, made Foy's speaks volumes, then the truth of her uncle, the former King, spoke entire Britannica. We all know that, well in all fairness, not just Windsors, but many rich aristocrats and royal families have supported Hitler before the war, many of them even making close encounters and pacts. And those were the sins many Europeans were able to forgive and forget once war began and the lines were clearly drawn. So, to hear to what extent former's King treasonous behavior had gone, was something I find difficult to forget. Tommy had no mercy and I was stunned as Elizabeth was. It was perhaps one of the most powerful scenes this season.

Brilliant performance by Foy, amazing music and nicely written episodes was something that puts Crown in the very top of things I have watched this year. I will miss Foy, but I am looking forward to what Olivia Coleman will bring to the role. 

[Maltaran]

17 hours ago, Risto said:

3. Prime Ministers. I know little of British PMs during Elizabeth's reign, but the two we had this season were hopeless. Abandoning country when it's the most difficult, it is borderline treason. And to see that happening two times in such short period, it is crazy. So, when she lashes out to McMillan, finally holding a ground, having an opinion, she speaks for all those whom they have abandoned. And she has resounding point there. They are all quitters.

I'm pretty sure Eden was forced out by his party rather than quitting of his own accord.

[Zorral]

All that biz with Jackie is made up out of whole cloth.  As mentioned, also is the biz that they don't know the proper protocol with royals, as they both were brought up within those and many other protocols.  They weren't hicks from Arkansas, and even hicks from Arkansas go to Oxford on Rhodes scholarship and are thoroughly briefed by the state dept. beforehand.  I really resented this utterly useless ficitonalizing, unless it was to make Elizabeth look as glamourous as Jackie -- and that was historically also bs.  She was already out of the game by then.

As for Margaret and Tony -- they're still infamous in my city for their spectacularly awful behavior to each other and everybody else everywhere they went and they were here for it seemed like forever.  There are plenty of people still alive who were there and never forgot.

 

[Mladen]

2 hours ago, Maltaran said:

I'm pretty sure Eden was forced out by his party rather than quitting of his own accord.

As I said, I know basically nothing when it comes to the earlier British PMs. That said, I think I would have known, or at least I think history would make quite an example out of those two if the events occurred as the TV show portrayed them.

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

All that biz with Jackie is made up out of whole cloth.  As mentioned, also is the biz that they don't know the proper protocol with royals, as they both were brought up within those and many other protocols.  They weren't hicks from Arkansas, and even hicks from Arkansas go to Oxford on Rhodes scholarship and are thoroughly briefed by the state dept. beforehand.  I really resented this utterly useless ficitonalizing, unless it was to make Elizabeth look as glamourous as Jackie -- and that was historically also bs.  She was already out of the game by then.

Well, I think there are the usual levels of Jackie vs Lilibet scenes:

1. They wanted to show Elizabeth jealous and to show us that even Queen is not above that. 

2. The usual jab at Americans and their lack of "traditional" values (Remember Downton Abbey, this was like Dowager Countess v Cora's mother)

3. They wanted to demonstrate Elizabeth's steely nature (especially juxtaposed with honest, vulnerable Jackie)

There are more, for sure, but I am sure the good mix of presenting Elizabeth as the "Real Queen" and simultaneously making a jab at "American royalty" was not far from true. All British TV shows do that. One way or another  

13 minutes ago, Zorral said:

As for Margaret and Tony -- they're still infamous in my city for their spectacularly awful behavior to each other and everybody else everywhere they went and they were here for it seemed like forever.  There are plenty of people still alive who were there and never forgot.

From what I have read, they were a mess. Both of them. But that is what you get when you get entitled brat and promiscuous party boy mixed together.

[Maltaran]

11 minutes ago, Risto said:

As I said, I know basically nothing when it comes to the earlier British PMs. That said, I think I would have known, or at least I think history would make quite an example out of those two if the events occurred as the TV show portrayed them.

 

History generally paints Eden in a pretty bad light due to Suez, it's just that not very many people know about that particular part of history. I don't think many of the PMs between Churchill and Thatcher have left much of a mark on the public conciousness (or at least, what mark they did leave has faded away by now).

[Martini Sigil]

I want to know where they found a kid with the same perpendicular ears as Charles.... the way they set it up, The story should be as much about him as it is about Elizabeth next season... 

Personally, I find the entire idea of a monarchy sickening.... even one with no political power like this.... At their best, they are despicable... Edward not only belonged in jail, but he needed a daily beating... instead he got to live on a lavish allowance, which he did nothing to earn.... the likes of which few of us will ever experience... 

The scene with Elizabeth and her mother complaining that they were forced to spend a day with "regular people" is nauseating... Of course Margaret is an insecure, self absorbed mess, who if she was born into a different family would be waiting tables in a diner...... but nevertheless she is still "royalty"...  In a just world, they send the lot of them to work in the coal mines... 

[Mladen]

1 hour ago, Martini Sigil said:

Personally, I find the entire idea of a monarchy sickening.... even one with no political power like this.... At their best, they are despicable... Edward not only belonged in jail, but he needed a daily beating... instead he got to live on a lavish allowance, which he did nothing to earn.... the likes of which few of us will ever experience... 

Honestly, I don't oppose monarchy as much as the others. What I do object is when the powers are being misused for the personal gain. The show blatantly stated that Edward was ready to make British die so Hitler would put him on the Throne. Elizabeth, in the show, represents the ideal monarch, the one that is all about service, not privilege. But, we all know it is not like that. 

[Zorral]

6 hours ago, Martini Sigil said:

Personally, I find the entire idea of a monarchy sickening.... even one with no political power like this.... At their best, they are despicable... Edward not only belonged in jail, but he needed a daily beating... instead he got to live on a lavish allowance, which he did nothing to earn.... the likes of which few of us will ever experience... 

The scene with Elizabeth and her mother complaining that they were forced to spend a day with "regular people" is nauseating... Of course Margaret is an insecure, self absorbed mess, who if she was born into a different family would be waiting tables in a diner...... but nevertheless she is still "royalty"...  In a just world, they send the lot of them to work in the coal mines... 

[DMC]

So just finished binge watching both seasons in the past few days and I have mixed feelings.  It is incredibly well made in production value, acting, directing, and structure.  In terms of the latter, I really like how they actually favored self-contained episodes while still giving a sense of serialization.  While they got away from this a bit (perhaps one could say even quite a bit) in the second season, it still confounds expectations for a Netflix show; and really speaks to the skill of Peter Morgan to almost shift genres between episodes while maintaining season-long threads. 

Also, in terms of the writing, the dialogue is certainly in the upper-echelon of TV shows, and lends itself to a sense of realism by limiting the amount of cheeseball and even exposition.  In terms of acting, I thought Foy was great - but I also thought Vanessa Kirby was equally impressive as Margaret, and I absolutely love whomever plays Tommy Lascelles.  Really wish we somehow could have gotten more of Harris as George VI, and Lithgow is of course a blast as Churchill.

The score is very heavy handed and leads me to my criticisms.  Throughout the series they seem to have a triumphant theme to emphasize these are "very special moments," but the actual reality of these being very special moments is only in the head of Peter Morgan.  I give him credit for almost willing the audience to care so much about, say, Margaret having to choose between being with Townsend or continuing to be a princess, but when you step back it's borderline farcical.  And that's the main problem with the series - there's no real stakes. 

The first season largely entails Elizabeth trying to defy what she's being told to do...only to eventually acquiesce to what she's being told to do.  That's why the best episodes in the first season were on the London Smog, or the character "portrait" episode on Churchill, or the one where Elizabeth realizes she doesn't have an education.  The first is really great historical fiction, and the latter two are great character studies.  But overall, I'm not sure why I should really care about this show other than it's really well made from all facets and, again, because Peter Morgan cares so much about the historical figures.  I thought the first season was much better than the second, and I'll go through the season two arcs taking a page from Risto above:

1.) Phillip - his character was somewhat redeemable in the first season, but I found him insufferable for most of the second season.  He's become a one-note whiny brat.  The only caveat to this is the episode about his schooling where you get his backstory - which I did not know and was fascinating to wikipedia afterwards.  That was really well done.  But overall, he's just a major dick who not only never really apologizes but has the gall to blame Elizabeth for all the problems he creates.  Plus, we have the annoying ambiguity about his widespread infidelity that the show heavily implies but never has the balls to outright address (not to mention this is frustrating in terms of historical accuracy because there's zero real-life implication he was involved in the Profumo affair).  

2.) Margaret - I don't mind her being portrayed as a spoiled brat because by most accounts I've read they're actually holding back on this.  I wouldn't say she's an idiot though.  Impetuous sure, but the show does a good job demonstrating her charm and wit.  Agreed about Elizabeth telling her she's the least egalitarian person she knew - that was great.  My main problem with Margaret is her relationship with Elizabeth.  They seem to almost solely focus on when the two sisters are at odds.  It'd be nice if there was more emphasis on scenes showing they did still maintain a loving relationship (some of this is due to them changing how Elizabeth historically dealt with the Townsend affair), which would make the conflict between the two land harder rather than seem like cat-fighting.

3.) Prime Ministers - As a political scientist this is one of my biggest pet peeves.  I get that Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan (Qyburn!) are ancillary characters, but you don't need to depict them as feckless hacks just to make Elizabeth seem more shrewd and/or noble.  That's just lazy writing.

4.) Kennedys - The way JFK and Jackie were portrayed almost suggests anti-American sentiment on Morgan's behalf.  Peggy Noonan recently sounded off on why their depiction (and Macmillan's) is so historically inaccurate.  And the implication that JFK was physically abusive to Jackie is quite offensive, especially when you consider the kids-glove way he's treating the Windsors in this series (excepting Phillip I suppose).  The episode itself, however, was quite great in showing the pressures that eventually bonded Jackie and Elizabeth.  While the conversation in which Jackie apologies was wholly unrealistic, I really liked how Elizabeth stated afterwards how she wanted to express understanding/empathy, but didn't.

5.) Edward's Nazi Ties - glad they addressed it, and I think it was a good narrative decision to wait until Elizabeth (likely) found out about it herself in 1957.

[DMC]

After reading over this thread have to say I find the amount of antipathy directed towards the royal family, if not surprising, rather interesting if you're watching this show.  Generally, I think ceremonial heads of state are great ideas - totally would be included in my ideal constitutional design.  And ceremonial heads of state not only serve an obvious purpose, but they also do have essential functions.  They may seem meaningless to the politically inclined like myself, but they do the work nobody wants to do but is necessary in any state - monarchy, democracy, or otherwise.  Comparing them (or in this case the royal family) to the Kardashians is ludicrous.  Remember when Philip officially retired last summer it was mentioned he did, like, over 20 thousand engagements just on his own since 1952.  That's what, well over 300 a year?  (In contrast, our current president spent a third of the past year on vacation, but that's neither here nor there.)

Now, should the ceremonial head of state be elected?  I think so, certainly - and this show is almost an argument for that in and of itself emphasizing how Elizabeth would have much rather "became invisible" than devote her life to public service.  But I don't look down (or up) on countries that want to keep a monarchy steeped in tradition if they want to.  As for the costs/benefits of the crown, quick googling finds a lot of different estimates on that.  I really don't care about getting into the weeds of those arguments, but the royal family certainly contributes something to the tourist industry (which is very important to the economy) independent of the attractions themselves.  Without the crown, Buckingham Palace becomes Versailles, which is now seeking paying guests.

Could the family's costs be mitigated?  Certainly, but I have to say looking at any of the links above I thought the royal family would cost much more - the overall costs of POTUS (even before Trump) are comparable to even the highest estimates.  And there are certain things that can and should be done - like, for example, more transparency in the management of the privy purse/duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.  I dunno, if I was going to get into a tizzy about British relics, I'd be more inclined to wonder how there are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords - or even why there's still a House of Lords at all for that matter.  At least the queen and (most of) the royal family actually do things.

[Eggegg]

Even outside the economic argument the Royal Family have been really important in  creating a sense of identity for Britain, they are a source of continuity and stability, and remind Brits of their history and traditions, which a lot of people find very useful, something people from other countries might struggle to understand 

[Zorral]

20 hours ago, dmc515 said:

After reading over this thread have to say I find the amount of antipathy directed towards the royal family, if not surprising, rather interesting if you're watching this show.  Generally, I think ceremonial heads of state are great ideas - totally would be included in my ideal constitutional design.  And ceremonial heads of state not only serve an obvious purpose, but they also do have essential functions.  They may seem meaningless to the politically inclined like myself, but they do the work nobody wants to do but is necessary in any state - monarchy, democracy, or otherwise.  Comparing them (or in this case the royal family) to the Kardashians is ludicrous.  Remember when Philip officially retired last summer it was mentioned he did, like, over 20 thousand engagements just on his own since 1952.  That's what, well over 300 a year?  (In contrast, our current president spent a third of the past year on vacation, but that's neither here nor there.)

Now, should the ceremonial head of state be elected?  I think so, certainly - and this show is almost an argument for that in and of itself emphasizing how Elizabeth would have much rather "became invisible" than devote her life to public service.  But I don't look down (or up) on countries that want to keep a monarchy steeped in tradition if they want to.  As for the costs/benefits of the crown, quick googling finds a lot of different estimates on that.  I really don't care about getting into the weeds of those arguments, but the royal family certainly contributes something to the tourist industry (which is very important to the economy) independent of the attractions themselves.  Without the crown, Buckingham Palace becomes Versailles, which is now seeking paying guests.

Could the family's costs be mitigated?  Certainly, but I have to say looking at any of the links above I thought the royal family would cost much more - the overall costs of POTUS (even before Trump) are comparable to even the highest estimates.  And there are certain things that can and should be done - like, for example, more transparency in the management of the privy purse/duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.  I dunno, if I was going to get into a tizzy about British relics, I'd be more inclined to wonder how there are still 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords - or even why there's still a House of Lords at all for that matter.  At least the queen and (most of) the royal family actually do things.

The bolded -- they wouldn't exist without a monarchy.  Read the history of these matters and you will comprehend this.

It is the enormous amount of royalty's inherited resources (just as hereditary peers get their inheritances of rank and wealth and possessions) - land they control for only their own benefit, and the fathomless wealth that comes with it, which really is far too much, extracted from colonial oppression from around the world and at home  Plus the arrogance of class division, which is based on nothing concrete other than inherited wealth they never did a thing to earn -- not achievement, accomplishment or utility to the people they supposedly rule. This is what people object to.  Surely that can't be difficult to comprehend?

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The bolded -- they wouldn't exist without a monarchy.  Read the history of these matters and you will comprehend this.

This is irrelevant to my point that while the crown as head of state still has a clear purpose and carries out essential functions, the House of Lords no longer does, more or less.  But thanks for the history "lesson."  And yes, I'm well aware of the republican objections to monarchy, and particularly the British monarchy.  Like I said, what I find interesting is directing this antipathy at the royal family for aspects of those objections - particularly colonial oppression and class divisions - that they now have little to no control over.  One would think watching this show viewers would develop that understanding as it clearly tries to evoke empathy, or stop watching the show.  As for the land and "fathomless" wealth (which is in actuality eminently fathomable), I also addressed this in the previous post.

What I do completely agree with is I've always found the unhealthy obsession with the Windsors very nauseating.  As was said upthread, I don't need to to see pictures of William's son's first day of school.  It's completely peculiar to me.  Then again, I equally don't get that same type of celebrity obsession here in the states anyway.  Hell, even though I'm an avid sports fan, I don't really get the pomp involved when going to games, and I never really understood school spirit either.  So I try not to judge too much, maybe I'm the weird one.

[Dr. Pepper]

If the show was trying to evoke empathy for this family, I think they failed.  At least with this viewer it merely served to make me feel less empathy for them.  I feel tremendous sympathy for the children.  They have no choice and it really does horrify me that their parents both choose to have them and raise them under that system and in the spotlight.  It makes me hate them.  And then they complain about it all.  Not that they have no right to complain, but they willingly choose this life and act like it's all forced on them.  It isn't, their uncle proved it's a choice.  It's even more true for those who marry into it or secondary members like Margaret.  No one is forcing her to stay and keep the titles and the wealth and the glamour.  She could have ridden off into the sunset with her old man, but then no one would be bowing for her anymore.  

And yes, as Zorral writes, all that wealth. It's sickening, truly.  All these centuries of these people keeping grasp of it and pretending like they do it for the good of Britain.  Give me a break.  I have no doubt that the tourist industry could easily adjust if these people made a true sacrifice and gave it all up.  

[DMC]

Well my take is the show does do a good job of showing that Elizabeth too was one of those kids that was thrown into a role she didn't want and continued it out of sense of duty.  Sure, that duty is inextricably linked to the rank elitism that takes Lord Altrincham (one of my favorite Season 2 eps) to make Elizabeth acknowledge, but I really don't think I'd keep watching if I didn't at least empathize with her.  As for Margaret, I think the show demonstrates how she felt trapped in Elizabeth's shadow - but also establishes that she had every chance to get out but she won't give it all up as Elizabeth tells her.  As I said above, Philip has devolved to a pretty one-note character I can't stand.  And it is frustrating because he chose to marry into the family, although I thought it was kind of interesting that he was the, if not progressive, democratizing voice of the family in the first season.  As for the Queen Mom, I really liked her arc in that first season episode where she tries to buy the broken down castle in Scotland, but that's the only time they've really focused on her.  Other than that she just served as a voice for the old guard.