Discussing Margaret and Peter's Marriage | The Crown (Claire Foy, Victoria Hamilton, Pip Torrens) 

Do we know if they did it for real?

@@monmothma3358 We don't, of course. This could all be fictional.

According to Margaret's biographer, the wait and Peter's transfer to Belgium caused her feelings to fade which made it easier to choose her lifestyle over him.@@monmothma3358

@@monmothma3358no. Every scene in private is entirely fictional. It’s highly unlikely that Elizabeth did not know about the royal marriages act. She almost certainly would not have needed her private secretary to explain it to her. Tommy’s part here is almost certainly just exposition to explain it to the viewer. It is likely that the queen mother intervened to stop the marriage, and she likely had the support of the royal court. The queen mother was really the last remaining royal individual from the time of the abdication and for the rest of her life she was insistent that things be done a certain way to protect the monarchy from a similar situation. She, like many traditionalists of the time, saw divorce as a scandal and could not fathom a member of the royal family willingly marrying a divorcee. The queen mother saw any potential scandal as equal to the abdication and did not believe the institution could survive anything similar. She would do it again when she intervened to stop anything from developing between Charles and Camilla. She believed that because Camilla had “a past” that she was unsuitable to be the wife of the heir to the throne, so she conspired behind the scenes to stop it. A lot of this was because the queen mother, like many people of the depression/war generation were ultra conservative and never adapted to the post war modernization of life, the culture shifts of the the 60s and 70s and general changing attitudes toward marriage. And I don’t mean to put it all on the queen mother. Much of the conservative cabinets under Churchill, Eden and MacMillan thought the same way. All of that put Elizabeth in a difficult spot regarding Margaret. She was bound to follow the advice of her government, which included the cabinet and the church. They both said no. The queen mother said no. And Elizabeth simply did not have the clout at the time to overrule them. Had George VI been alive at this time, he, perhaps, could have found a path through - he was, after all, the beloved monarch who led the country through the war. The government and church might have relented if he insisted that his daughter get what she want. Elizabeth was simply too green to challenge the establishment and it cost her sister. But more than that, it cost Charles, and he was ultimately forced into an unhappy marriage with a woman he did not love, and it had a calamitous effect on the royal family. Despite everything the queen mother had tried to do to protect the institution from another scandal, she arguably created one that was worse and the only reason the monarchy was saved was because by this time Elizabeth II had the clout to overrule her mother and the objections of those in the royal court and followed the guidance of the government. She may not have been happy about it but she knew it had to be done. And once the queen mother died and Elizabeth truly did become the matriarch of the family, she was able to make the necessary changes to the institution to keep it alive. The final 20 years of her reign were far more successful than the first 50 and that’s largely because she no longer had to contend with the queen mother’s traditional beliefs.

​@@jasonkoch3182 agreed, the late Queen wasn't perfect, but it think it would be an overstatement to say that every scandal was solely her fault.

not even that. Just her place in the succession. She said she wasn't committed enough to go through with the marriage

Margaret was third in line to the throne. We would also have needed a regent for Charles if Queen Elizabeth had died young.

Very idea, give up the title “princess”. She was a BLOOD princess. A princess by birth. Giving up a title would have accomplished nothing. They couldn’t have prevented her from using that title anyway, it was her birthright.

​@@alastairhopkins245But the reality of Margaret's becoming Queen was always unlikely. She waa third in line to the throne at this point. Queen Elizabeth also wanted more children and gave birth to two more, moving Princess Margaret to fifth in line. The succession wasn't really a sufficient reason for her not to marry Peter Townsend.

Exactly. Margaret wanted her cake and to eat it, too.

There wasn’t a struggle. The queen mother generally won in the end. If you look at the queen’s reign, the last 20 years, after her mother died, were far more successful than the first fifty when her mother routinely got in her way.

@@jasonkoch3182Agreed, and the Queen also seemed so much happier and "fun" in her later years.

Keep in mind that Margaret was free to marry Peter, as a free citizen. She'd have to give up the title, perks and money. Peter would, however, have provided for her quite well. She didn't love him enough to give up the title.

@@madeleinegrayson8372 This is true, but at the same she would have likely ended up as an outcast (not only in terms of titles, but also affection).

@@davideiceman Yeah, it is kind of a big ask for someone who has grown up accustomed to royal privileges to renounce them. Love conquers all, but it really doesn't in most cases. It sounds a bit like if she did get married and turned down her titles, they would have been a bit of a social pariah in Britain and likely needed go live elsewhere.

Yeah well the British establishment for you

@BoardLicensedTherapist but at least the river would’ve run its course. I don’t think they would’ve though, it would’ve been less disastrous than her marriage to Tony.

@@rickheady2298 How many lives did they fuck up so far?

She could’ve married him but didn’t want to give up her privileges and the money because the royals despise being the same as the “common people”

​@@lordalessanso many 😅

Different time back then Elizabeth had 3 of her 4 children divorce ? She ended up doing a very good job !! The swinging 70’s didn’t arrive yet ? Margaret had an unaddressed drinking problem ?

yeah I know I hear you loud and clear on this matter. yeah I didn't know that either. but yeah the british people were always in trouble most of the century.

@@Rae.taylorsversion Good!!!

Royal Marriages Act, not possible. However, Margo was free to marry Peter as a private citizen. She just wouldn't give up her title, money and tiaras.

@madeleinegrayson8372 So that was where her heart ❤️ was. Thank you very much for your explanation. Perhaps, it worked out best for everyone concerned, in the long run. Thank you again, take care.

yeah and I've noticed how this channel has put out videos for Season 1 I would like to see some published for Season 2 cause I Just watched Season 1 in clips now i am ready for Season 2

You need a vicious man in your cabinet to keep things in line.

Effective you mean

He was loyal, protective and wise.

That's so true. There seem to have been a lot of bad luck within the Royal Family's marriages and relationships. Even Queen Victoria had to endure decades of a very profound grief, when her beloved Albert died. Love seems to be beyond their reach. I mean, true love and the happiness that comes with it. I'm not even sure whether Elizabeth and Philip had a perfect marriage neither -- behind closed doors and beyond the view of the public eye. I feel bad for the women of the Royal Family. They have been enduring big heartbreak and grief for many generations.

How has H and M's marriage lead to devastating results? The couple are happily married with 2 children living a life on their own terms. And the monarchy according to the British media is thriving so that's not a devastating result. Happiness cannot always be measured by the monarchy and its standards. As for Fergie and Mark I think they were fine for the environment it was simple a case of two individuals falling out of love or not being able to cope with the pressures of being a royal partner.

@Kashish4Eijaz Meghan and Harry's marriage is devastating from the standpoint that they routinely air their dirty laundry on international television whenever they need a moment in the spotlight. They badmouth and throw their family under the bus every chance they get even though this is entirely a private family matter. Anything to get people to rally behind them. If they were really happy and living life on their terms, why keep dragging this on? Happy people don't complain about their lives as much as they do. As far as Anne and Mark, maybe they couldn't cope with being royal, but their actions were devastating. Mark had an affair that resulted in a love child, and Fergie got in trouble with the police for attempting to sell Prince Andrew's time to businessmen and foreign officials. I don't see how that isn't devastating in ways beyond affecting the royal institution.

Well, that's just life.

How are you so sure William’s and Catherine’s marriage is great? And that Harry’s and Meghan’s is bad?

True. She had that option and it was presented to her.

When this decision was made Charles and Anne were children it was not a sure thing that Margaret and her line wouldn't inherit the throne.

Guilt about Margaret and Peter surely informed HM's decision re. Charles and Camilla's marriage -- very good. Guilt over Diana permitted Megan into the fold -- a disaster.

@@exaudi33 The thing with Charles is Elizabeth could have died at any time even in the 2000s and Charles had the leverage of being able to marry Cammila anyway. Elizabeth didn't know she would live until 2022 and probably could have fillibustered the marriage. In her mind she could either say yes or Charles could marry Camilla when he was King.

To be fair, Princess Anne re married in Scotland

​@@lilyannalinaMore importantly, Anne's second husband wasn't divorced.

Yes, some people did care. She should have married the Man, she loved. All of this Bull..that she couldn't marry the one she loved. I feel sorry for her. Now one of the family is king and his affair when he was married is queen. That is a big laugh to me. How could this ever be? Elisabeth s uncle gave up the title because he loved a woman that was already divorced. Margaret couldn't be with the one she loved. And now Charles beeing King even puts his affair as queen. That isn't right at all.

⁠@@bettiradecker8118 If you defend Margaret, you should defend Charles as well because the exactly same thing happened to them both…. They both was forced into marriages with people they never really loved and was terribly unsuited with… The ONLY reason is that Charles was the heir and Margaret wasn’t…. After the Church of England changed their statutes to allow divorced people with living former spouses to remarry AND after The Queen Mother died in 2002, things got much much easier for The Royal Family…… Wonder why 😉 The Queen Mother didn’t even think twice to destroy the happiness of her children and grandchildren…. The only reason why QEII got away lightly is because she outranked her mother

The queen mother and Tommy both had little understanding of how society had changed. Every decision they made reflected their fears of another abdication. They had no understanding that societies view of divorce had dramatically changed after the war. The Church of England and parliament were both behind the times, too. Eden, a divorced man, couldn’t get the cabinet to accept Margaret’s potential marriage to a divorced man. The church wouldn’t relent. Yet if the people had been polled, it’s likely they would have overwhelmingly supported the marriage.

Some he "inherited" from his Mountbatten uncle.

The difference is legitimization.

Actually that probably would have been for the best, if not easy for Princess Margaret and Townsend.😮

She did wait, and then they changed their tune again and said no. But she was free to marry him anytime, she just wouldn't give up the title, money and lifestyle.

​@@cherylhulting1301they did wait the 2 years, then were told again there was another issue. The 2 years was a ruse to hopefully see them lose interest.

They were so out of touch because the only people telling them things were their courtiers. People like Tommy; who were also out of touch. If only they had fired most of the old farts and gotten some new people in

@@pdawg2716 the royals seemingly get no choice in these courtiers etc so who would be in the position to fire them ?

@@miserableben7968 the royals. They have no political power. I don’t think anyone in the government really cares how they run their household. Who they pick to be their private secretary is so irrelevant. The courtiers just keep them isolated and lie to make it seem like if they picked their own secretary then the whole monarchy would collapse. If the king fired a bunch of old out of touch courtiers, would anyone really care. I doubt it would even make the news

She knew how tenuous their legitimacy was, how easily the people could turn against them. It was her job to protect the crown. And Lascelles' job to advise them all.

She had that option from day one. No one is forced to retain their title. Even the monarch can renounce their title.

And the same thing would happen to Charles 28 years later…. Somehow things got much easier after The Queen Mother died in 2002…. Wonder why 😉

Making her unhappy was considerably NOT the goal.

Everyone here is presenting more background to suggest that the Queen and Prime Minister were actually trying to help her. It was Margaret who decided that Townsend wasn't worth giving up her place in the succession.

Poor Margaret could have married Peter anytime as a free citizen. She just wouldn't give up the title, money and perks. That's not love.

She can't amend the Royal Marriages Act. That was passed by Parliament.

Because the British people tolerate it for for some reason. I don't get it either - on that note, the U.S. isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but at least its founders got rid of all that pretentious wasteful b.s.

The people didn’t care. The monarchy was just so out of touch thinking that anyone gave a crap who they married

He was private secretary to four monarchs. He knew more about the rules, history and protocol here than all of the women in that family combined. He gave most of his life to serving the crown with unwavering loyalty. He absolutely belonged there and the Queen mother asked him to be there.

Only 3 of the 4. Edward and Sophie are still married.

@@lindaborgert589 oh good

Margo was free to marry Peter, she just refused to give up her title and perks. That ain't love.

Yes, if they loved eachother.

Then she didn't love him. Pretty simple.

​@@Ariana-wv4pfagreed. Everyone overlooks that. Margo could have married Peter anytime, but she wouldn't give up the title and money. So it was never love.

Tommy was a loyal servant to the Crown and one of the best advisors they ever had. He served under 4 monarchs and took his duties very seriously.

@@madeleinegrayson8372 he did, but to the detriment of many. Margaret should have married Townsend, Prince Philip more authority, Queen Mother to completely butt out!

They could have changed it. But they preferred the life they all lived. No mercy from me

@@bettiradecker8118 I don't have any regard for Monarchism. It's only slightly educational seeing how much work all this crapp is.

Isn't Harry about to resign his royal privileges?

Charles' marriage to Camilla is completely fine and has shown no problems

Why should someone have to give up their birthright to marry someone? Doesnt sound very rational.

Don’t forget ELIZABETHS UNCLE couldn’t marry either THE QUEEN CHNged it later

Yes, it's called learning from prior disasters, finally. And?

She was allowed to marry him, but had to give up her place in the line of succession. Anything else would be hypocrisy, Edward and Wallis were still alive and would've called out the Royal Family about their double standards.

@@cg8397 I think in the end things would have worked out. Margaret was a bit like diana. Margaret knew her life wasn't going anywhere anyway. She said so herself. Im second. You're first.

​@@cg8397Good point.

Lascelles was the best thing to happen to that family. He served under 4 monarchs with unwavering loyalty. He was a soldier who fought in the war and put his duties as a private secretary to a monarch above all else. He was strong, educated, loyal and that's why he was called upon for so many years to advice them all. Margaret was free to marry Peter, she just wouldn't give up the title, money and perks. That's not love. BTW, it's said Lascelles was a devoted husband and father to his 3 children. So no, not a prick. But she was a selfish, money loving hypocrite.

@@madeleinegrayson8372 still a prick

The Queen can't ignore ecclesiastical and parliamentary law. She ruled as a constitutional monarch.

Because it was brilliant.

@@hazelmccloy1136 no she dint they did the British establishment is a joke

No, she did that to herself. She was free to marry Peter, as a free citizen. She just didn't love him more than her title, money and tiaras. 😂

How did you spell so many words wrong in one sentence

@@jeroen3468 He posted 3 comments on this thread. Not one without glaring spelling errors.

You don't get how anything works there eh? She was free to marry Peter. She just wouldn't give up her title, money and tiaras.

Yeah, except the Evangelicals in America are doing everything in their power to put their religious beliefs into our laws. And in many states, they're succeeding. Freedom of religion shouldn't mean your right to impose your own religion on others. So, in a way, the Evangelicals are doing the same thing in America that the Church of England did back then. Also, we didn't throw the monarchy out over freedom of religion. We threw them out because we wanted to run our own commerce and taxes without the King imposing his will on us.

Bollox. Seppos are the most deluded fools

Okay dude we're not in the 90s anymore. The evangelists are trying to take over your home!

@@hutch1197 I ask for you’re opinion that’s right no I dint the Church of England is a joke

It's adorable that you believe that.