And from Eden's guilty look you can clearly see that he got the message. Because this small, fine agreement to attack was not only kept from Parliament, but also never made it into the red boxes for Her Majesty. And that meant Eden was on the ropes and had to resign three months later.
1:14 The discomfort on Eden's face at the Boss asking a direct question about how he's been acting in her name is priceless. Like when he skates around "this government" to avoid using the subtextual "your government".
The Suez Crisis marks the end of European states (namely UK and France) being able to independently swap global events without the support of either the US or the Soviet Union (in this case, both the US and USSR opposed).
It was what Queen Mary warned her about. The there were going to be occasions, which she would be dealing with corrupt power hungry men, and at least one devious woman, who will abuse the system. And even when their actions border on unconstitutional she’ll being in a situation in which there will be absolutely nothing she can do. Strong argument for updating the constitution. Even in a parliamentary republic, the head of state should have some mechanism to activate in the event they suspect foul play in the government.
@@unematrix Nothing. The crown serves as head of government in name only. Its the same with the Church of England. Officially, the crown is the head of the church, but in name only. They fought a few nasty civil wars over this.
Worth adding that if the Queen were to refuse her support, it signals that she has no confidence in her government and Eden would have to resign. Unprecedented in modern times and hence Eden's shock and fear when she hesitates. To my knowledge, the last time we came close to this was when Queen Victoria refused Robert Peel's instructions to replace her ladies-in-waiting. This meant he refused her commission to become prime minister and only Prince Albert's intervention with a compromise calmed the crisis.
Eden could always arrange for more powers to be stripped from the King/Queen unless she obeyed him. The “Sovereign” is technically the “Queen/King in Parliament”, not the current occupant of the throne; in other words, the monarch is the Government’s hand puppet, not vice versa.
I don't think it's a question of powers. I think it's a matter of personalities. Eden was of the old school and considered himself a gentleman. If the Queen had said she didn't support him, I think he would have resigned. In contrast, during the 1980s, the Queen could hardly have been more explicit that she didn't support Thatcher's South Africa policy. But I doubt that it even occurred to Thatcher that she should resign. But then perhaps the Queen squared the constitutionality of it in her own mind by saying she opposed the policy wearing her Head of the Commonwealth hat rather than her UK crown so there wasn't really a clash.
@@davidweihe6052 Sure. If Eden wanted to be a great big booby and perpetuate a public feud with the Crown. Which would have done him absolutely no good and would equally have led to his losing party confidence.
This was a key moment in Elizabeth's reign. She knows that what Eden is doing is wrong, and she disagrees with his decision with all her heart, but she decides that her duty is to support her PM no matter what her personal feelings. This cemented her belief that the Crown must always stay neutral in matters of politics in order to survive. The look on her face at 2:43 is haunting. She knows that Eden is nearly deranged in his hatred of Nasser, but she has no choice but to support him.
I agree but I also wonder... Are there some moral responsibilities that the Monarch should consider as greater than the survival of the monarchy? Say Eden wanted to go to war with France or fire nukes at the Americans? Eden's decision here did result in needless deaths. Is the survival of the Crown in the 20th century worth so many (or any) human lives?
Like it or not, Eden was right about Nasser. He was a dictator and a dangerous one. As soon as the US shut down the Anglo/French incursion into Egypt, Nasser jumped into bed with the Soviets and was given a free hand to install his lackeys as leaders in several Arab countries.
As far as I am aware, it is her duty to prevent such things, especially if the general Public is whole heartedly against it. The Sovereign has the power to dissolve parliament in extreme circmstances.@@MrCCollins1993
The nonsense that the crown is always neutral in politics is utter crap. The crown IS political. It cannot be anything else. It relies on politics in order to retain its position. Everything the crown represents is political by its very nature. This little agreement is the reason why Israel behaves like a thug and has done for decades in the full knowledge it will be supported politically by France and the UK. Supporting genocide is not only immoral it is disgusting and the lowest denominator of existence. It is corruption at its finest
@@MrCCollins1993You make excellent points, but in the end the monarch is constitutional. They have no say or choice in what happens in politics because its written in government for them not to. There's a reason the Queen asks if the United Nations or Parliament is aware of the "collusion" because that is the natural order of an invasion. Eden was abusing his power of PM on the world stage, and you can see that in Elizabeth's eyes as she struggles to contain the conflict the best that she can.
Considering that Her Majesty is the Commander in Chief of all British Forces and the PM had kept her out of the loop on Suez invasion is unforgiveable.
unconstitutional actually, treason possibly Yes the Kins/Queens do their pretty parades and such but there is a legitimate reason to have someone with an interest in long term stability as the final shot caller when it comes to crisis.
The head of state being called "commander-in-chief" is an American thing. The last time the British Army had a commander in chief was Lord Kitchener, who was drowned during WWI. There used to be a hereditary head of the English army, the Lord High Constable, but the last one of those, the Duke of Buckingham, was executed for treason by Henry VIII. There's another LHC in Scotland, the earl of Errol, but he lost all his military functions after the union of parliaments in 1707.
I don't imagine it would be that frustrating; choose between the crown stipend, opulent life, deference and becoming an ex-royal like so many on the continent who lost their crowns and went into exile because the got involved in politics.
Brilliant writing. The Prime Minister always has the Sovereign's support. In other words, I support the position, not you, Eden. She knew it was the end of him. Jeremy Northam played off that comment beautiful, playing that Eden knew exactly what The Queen was saying
The Suez Crisis was the event where Great Britain and France had to face the reality that they were no longer World Powers. I guarantee that the Queen was wishing that Winston Churchill was there rather than Eden. Churchill was smart and experienced enough to know that Britain couldn't do what they wanted in Egypt without the agreement of the Americans.
@@w9gb Eisenhower would be aghast at today's U.S. foreign policy, not to mention what's happened to his party. He even warned future Presidents against the military industrial complex, yet here we are spending 15x more than the next several countries combined while we have homeless on the street and people can't afford to go to the doctor or send their kids to college. We've become a big, fat, stupid country.
@@w9gb Eisenhower later described his intervention over Suez as a mistake because as soon as Nasser got what he wanted, he jumped into bed with the Soviets meaning Eisenhower had stabbed two close allies in the back for nothing. Suez also cost the US British support in Vietnam as Harold Wilson despised the Americans for their betrayal.
Us Americans no how to step in it sometimes we think we are fighting for others freedoms and we wind up messing things up even further and sacrificeing our and our allies lives.@@justonecornetto80
The tension is in his realization that a young woman is both informed, and has total power over him. She could refuse her support, and for a moment, she may have intended to.
She had no total power over him, and no, constitutionally, she cannot refuse support. The monarch acts on the cabinet's advice, there is no discretion.
@@theadorablesociologist The monarch acts on the Prime Minister's (not cabinet's, and also Eden didn't consult his cabinet either) advice, but she could have doubts over whether the PM has retained the support of parliament under the circumstances and on the ground dismiss him. It would be a constitutional crisis but she's entitled to do it. Also, not everything has to be formal and official. By virtue of having this confirmation from Eden, she could've leaked it herself.
I don’t remember him being all that against Mussolini and Hitler (in actual history). Churchill was the one who kept ranting about them (correctly) and all the rest of the upper crust Brits deliberately closed their eyes and ignored what was happening- until Poland was invaded.
That's demonstrably untrue. While it is true that Chamberlin's government allowed Germany to invade nations they did so in a bid to gain more time to build up their armies. The UK and France knew a war was coming and did try to prepare for it, the issue was that Germany used that time more effectively. And it is also true that Eden was against appeasement, as was most of the opposition at the time.
Churchill was correct on many foreign policy points. Recently, I read an historical account by an academic who stated that Churchill repeatedly cautioned the Roosevelt Administration about Russia. He made one final attempt near the end of Roosevelt’s life, but was prevented by Harry Hopkins.
@@WilliamMoore-p4g the problem with that as an MP you are commiting treason against the commander and Chief. Meet some of the people in the UK forces, MOST say they would ignore orders if they were told to remove the King if he was clearly right.
You can see in Eden's face how he was hesitating to tell or not the Queen about the involment with Israel, but then he probably realized that he doesn't really has a choise he had to yes or yes tell her
"An anonymous British government official told The Telegraph in 2015 that 'until there is a settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the royal family can't really go there.'” this is from a Times of Israel article
Well I thought that Prince William went to visit the grave of his grandfather's (Prince Philip's) mother, Princess Alice, who is buried in Israel as a great national figure (saved many people during the Holocaust.) @@raczacasbah maybe it wasn't an 'official' visit but it was a visit.
@@eddihaskell I agree with your observation that the Monarch will not travel to a location abroad without the government's consent. But is the opposite true? Can the Monarch refuse to visit where the government requests that they travel? I've read accounts (which may or may not be true) that Elizabeth refused government requests to visit the USSR in the pre-Gorbachev era.
@@ers586 The monarch can of course refuse. The monarch can dissolve the government if necessary. It would undoubtedly trigger a constitutional shitstorm but the monarch is under no obligation to take orders from the government. There is only a gentlemen's agreement that the monarch accepts advice from the government.
@@thetromsky Eisenhower determined that US military would not take any part in the Suez Canal event. Thus the British and French and the Israelis were on their own.
@@thetromsky he purposely set up the French and the British to invade only later to humiliate them both by sending UN troops in to evict them from Egypt. Effectively telling the British and French their Americas little bitches
I always think of the line from the movie "The Dish". The prime minister of Australia was visiting a small town to watch the moon landing. He told the mayor there could be a place higher up for him in government. He then added the policy they follow. "Don't F*ck up". That's it. Eden was on his own if the plan went bad.
will someone please correct the titles / subtitles of these videos - Anthony Eden and not Princess Margaret is with the Queen in this clip - I have only started watching these videos today and already seen half a dozen incorrect titles - if you’re clever enough to edit and post then you should also be clever enough to figure out who is actually acting in each clip 🤨
See now, that's the kind of brash blanket statement that would get you laughed out of a room. You do realize that this is a work of fiction, right? You do realize that the British monarchy's apolitical nature is its strategy to continue existing, right? I agree, it's wild to think that, because absolute monarchy and dictatorial power is so corrupt, it is a leviathan, a last resort to maintain social order. This conversation in the clip is not a transcript of real life. Do not act like it is, and that it would justify an absolute monarch.
Be honest viewers who noticed the big boo boo about this great scene??? The prim minister turned his back as he left the queen, no one is allowed to turn their back on the queen, I'm not a loyalist or ever watched any of these seasons of God knows how many. But even I know that no 1 turns their back on the queen or king now actually 🤔
“I do have one or two questions. When you mentioned the Israelis had launched an attack, you didn’t seem surprised.” I don’t know whether anything like this exchange actually happened in real life, but the screenwriting was pure Columbo stuff, “Just one more thing…”
She may have as a young woman at the time portrayed, but I think nearly all the footage of QEII from her youth was black & white and there wasn't a lot of color photography of her. She was middle aged by the time there was TV footage of her in color, so she might have looked older and duller than in her youth.
This is a brilliant scene. The PM really messed up here. He colluded with France and Israel to launch an attack against Egyptian forces without the knowledge or consent of Parliament. Furthermore, he failed to inform the Queen in a timely manner, which was one of her few rights. The British Sovereign serves as a last check. To listen, advise, and if necessary warn. Elizabeth is horrified. The Queen had to gave her support. Whew, no way that wasn't hard.
Watch the movie "Women Talking"....it's amazing! Then come back here and imagine that Salome (played by Claire Foy) is there instead of The Queen....lol...then you'll understand 👍
Is that the guy from The Tudors? Thomas More? He doesn't look anything like him (granted that was 15 years ago), and his voice is too deep. Yikes, that look on his face, classic hand-in-the-cookie-jar, "shit, how do I spin this??!"
She wasn't informed about a lot of things. Did you even watch this show. The government used to hide so much from her and spring it on the last minute 😂😂. She was clueless most of the time.
As an American, I don’t understand how such an event could happen without presidential knowledge. I understand that things are done quite differently in the UK, but it seems odd to me that the Queen would have been kept out of the loop on this. Can someone please explain it?
I’m English - and this kind of decision doesn’t exactly need the sovereign’s permission (known as “Royal Assent”) or even to let the sovereign know. The Government acts in the name of the sovereign, exercising the king/queen’s power on the king/queen’s behalf. We are democracy, so we vote for who gets to exercise power on the king/queen’s behalf. The sovereign CAN intervene, but that would be considered an abuse of power which is not democratic and would potentially incur a revolution in which the UK becomes a Republic.
@@jojofc88 the only way I can think that she could have intervened is if she had some kind of proof that she could’ve presented publicly that would’ve cemented her case for doing so. And I think in this scene she considered that for half a minute, but then remembered everything, she used to figure it out was classified, and it would be her word against his. So she remembered what her grandmother told her with regards to doing nothing and it taking every fiber of her being to do so.
Some of it may have also been the fact that she was a woman, the first since Queen Victoria to have the job. And they may have felt at liberty to exclude her based on the gender bias of the 1950s.
The Queen did end up being right about the Suez Crisis, which is what they were keeping secret from her. When she said that "Parliament had not been told, nor the United Nations," she was hinting at the extreme trouble Eden's government would find by colluding with Israel in secret like that. Eisenhower in Washington and Khrushchev in Moscow had not been told either, and both men were LIVID! Eisenhower actually started screaming obscenities in the White House when he found the British had betrayed him. Eisenhower's anger was so profound that he threatened to sell off the enormous amount of UK government bonds held by the U.S. government, which would've meant a crash of the British pound and a recession in Britain if British troops did not withdraw from the Suez Canal immediately. Eden did as he was told, as he didn't want to crater the economy on account of a foreign adventure of this sort. When Eden quits a bit later, in disgrace, the Queen accepts his resignation in disgust--Eden's secrecy and scheming had totally done him in, and had destroyed British international prestige irrevocably in the process. So the Queen was sooooo done with him.
This was an outrageous thing for the Prime Minister to do. There is a thing called the privy Council, chaired by the monarch, which predates Parliament. To declare war, without consulting the privy Council, is not part of our democracy. Only equaled by Tony Blair's declaration of war on Iraq.
When was Eden right about Mussolini? When Mussolini was Hitler's strongest opponent in Europe and the leader of the Stresa Front? That alliance was thrown out by the UK in order to make their own agreement with Germany to keep their naval advantages, and then when they got all sanctimonious about Italy's colonial border war with a slave-holding monarchy, which drove Italy into an alliance with Germany instead. The problem was not that no one was listening to whomever was right about Hitler, it was that the UK was utterly impotent to do anything about it. The cheers that greeted Chamberlain was that Hitler gave them peace when he had nothing to fear from the UK at the time. Germany was a much larger country than the UK and all their stuff was in the same place, instead of scattered around the globe so that the sun never set on them. Put it this way. In the Great War, the UK and France went to war against German & its allies. The UK was allied to Japan, Russia, Italy & Romania and they only managed to get a victory after a long, brutal and bloody slog, that was not decided until the US weighed in. In 1939, the UK & France went to war against Germany and its allies. However, of the UK & France's allies from the prior conflict, the US President was running for reelection on a pledge not to join the fighting in Europe, and Japan, Russia, Italy & Romania were all allied to Germany! Good intentions and the will to eliminate a dangerous enemy are nice, but you had better have the power to make your fight stick. Eden learned that lesson the hard way in the Suez conflict.
Eden had hoped for, if not support, a grumbling acquiescence from old friend and ally Eisenhower. Total opposition, threatening the stability of the pound was not in the cards, so he had to fold. But he was right about Nassar. Next time, collude with the US, not the French.
This Gaza genocide really exposed the culture in some countries. I think they knew all along, throughout the decades, what they were doing to the Palestinians. And it was on purpose. I cannot think of a longer holocaust than that of the Palestinians
The west, especially the UK and America, were terrified of Egypt President Nassar because he was uniting the entire Arab world under secular, nationalist leadership. American and the Brits wanted their oil money, and Israel was always happy to help f--k up their neighbors' governments in any way they could. (Israel's always been good like that.) The Suez issue was just one example.
Nope, the US had nothing to do with this particular affair. As much as they disliked Nasser they knew that Britain and France trying to topple himwas a stupid move that would be seen in the rest of the world as two european colonial powers trying to turn back the clock and give the soviet union the chance to place itself as the champion of decolonialization. So once they learned of it they not just put a stop to it, they publicly humiliated those two countries.
@@gildor8866 Okay, let's all just pretend that Israel wasn't doing our bidding in Egypt, as Israel does everywhere else when we need to f-k up things in the middle east. The U.S. and Brits were also terrified of democratically elected Iranian PM Mosaddegh in the 1950's, which is why the U.S. and U.K. orchestrated a coup and put in the Shah. The U.S., Europe and Russia have been f-ing up the middle east for a century.
@@gildor8866 In this case you're right. Despite the countless involvement of the Americans with Israel in situations like these, this time America was not involved in this war and attempt to gain power of the suez canal
@@jasonkoch3182right, he doesn’t need her approval to act on HER behalf 🙄 The monarchy is sooooo important. Yet, it’s neutered in every way that actually matters. As long as show up at charity events! That’s what really matters to them.
It was the opposite. Israel didn't want war but Nasser had seized the Suez Canal. The British and French couldn't accept that but couldn't invade themselves. They told Israel to invade and they'd intervene to end the war. The charade was exposed when Israel didn't reach the canal quickly. Israel had egg on their face from doing Eden's bidding. They gained nothing and got universal condemnation. It would never happen again.
@@gildor8866 No other country on this planet has been allowed to get away with the crap Israel has pulled in plain sight for the last 60 years. America has invaded countries for doing less to people than what Israel has done to the Palestinians. Look around. The world has had it with that country. No argument you make on this thread will change the trajectory.
“The Prime Minister always has the Sovereign’s support” was her way of saying “If this goes south, it’s on you.“
And then of course it did go south and Treacherous Marge found somebody to hang in her place.
Marge? If you mean Margaret Thatcher you're 23 years too early. So... maybe read a history book.@@PiedmontRiffRaff
more like "i don't support you personally, but I have no choice but to support you officially"
What?@@PiedmontRiffRaff
And from Eden's guilty look you can clearly see that he got the message. Because this small, fine agreement to attack was not only kept from Parliament, but also never made it into the red boxes for Her Majesty. And that meant Eden was on the ropes and had to resign three months later.
The way she says "collusion" ... Brilliant.
"Ke-looooooooded" lol ik its fantastic
1:14 The discomfort on Eden's face at the Boss asking a direct question about how he's been acting in her name is priceless. Like when he skates around "this government" to avoid using the subtextual "your government".
CaLOOded.
Queen:(thinking to herself)
This is going to blow up in everybody's faces
And it sure did... the suez crisis was the last nail in the coffin for the British empire as a super power
The Suez Crisis marks the end of European states (namely UK and France) being able to independently swap global events without the support of either the US or the Soviet Union (in this case, both the US and USSR opposed).
What she said: The Prime Minister always has the Sovereign's support.
What she meant: I don't agree with your choice, but I'm obliged to support it.
It was what Queen Mary warned her about. The there were going to be occasions, which she would be dealing with corrupt power hungry men, and at least one devious woman, who will abuse the system. And even when their actions border on unconstitutional she’ll being in a situation in which there will be absolutely nothing she can do. Strong argument for updating the constitution. Even in a parliamentary republic, the head of state should have some mechanism to activate in the event they suspect foul play in the government.
a line delivered like a backhand smack across the face
I also took it as "I support you but no one else will."
then... what's the point of her even being there? what does she actually do?
@@unematrix Nothing. The crown serves as head of government in name only. Its the same with the Church of England. Officially, the crown is the head of the church, but in name only. They fought a few nasty civil wars over this.
Claire Foy....magnificent.
She expresses what she is feeling and thinking without a spoken word.
Worth adding that if the Queen were to refuse her support, it signals that she has no confidence in her government and Eden would have to resign. Unprecedented in modern times and hence Eden's shock and fear when she hesitates.
To my knowledge, the last time we came close to this was when Queen Victoria refused Robert Peel's instructions to replace her ladies-in-waiting. This meant he refused her commission to become prime minister and only Prince Albert's intervention with a compromise calmed the crisis.
Eden could always arrange for more powers to be stripped from the King/Queen unless she obeyed him. The “Sovereign” is technically the “Queen/King in Parliament”, not the current occupant of the throne; in other words, the monarch is the Government’s hand puppet, not vice versa.
@davidweihe6052 all well and good but remember who's the commander in chief of the armed forced and who the armed forced swear loyality to
I don't think it's a question of powers. I think it's a matter of personalities. Eden was of the old school and considered himself a gentleman. If the Queen had said she didn't support him, I think he would have resigned.
In contrast, during the 1980s, the Queen could hardly have been more explicit that she didn't support Thatcher's South Africa policy. But I doubt that it even occurred to Thatcher that she should resign.
But then perhaps the Queen squared the constitutionality of it in her own mind by saying she opposed the policy wearing her Head of the Commonwealth hat rather than her UK crown so there wasn't really a clash.
He should have been made to resign for not informing her or parliament about planned military action
@@davidweihe6052 Sure. If Eden wanted to be a great big booby and perpetuate a public feud with the Crown. Which would have done him absolutely no good and would equally have led to his losing party confidence.
This was a key moment in Elizabeth's reign. She knows that what Eden is doing is wrong, and she disagrees with his decision with all her heart, but she decides that her duty is to support her PM no matter what her personal feelings. This cemented her belief that the Crown must always stay neutral in matters of politics in order to survive.
The look on her face at 2:43 is haunting. She knows that Eden is nearly deranged in his hatred of Nasser, but she has no choice but to support him.
I agree but I also wonder... Are there some moral responsibilities that the Monarch should consider as greater than the survival of the monarchy? Say Eden wanted to go to war with France or fire nukes at the Americans? Eden's decision here did result in needless deaths. Is the survival of the Crown in the 20th century worth so many (or any) human lives?
Like it or not, Eden was right about Nasser. He was a dictator and a dangerous one. As soon as the US shut down the Anglo/French incursion into Egypt, Nasser jumped into bed with the Soviets and was given a free hand to install his lackeys as leaders in several Arab countries.
As far as I am aware, it is her duty to prevent such things, especially if the general Public is whole heartedly against it. The Sovereign has the power to dissolve parliament in extreme circmstances.@@MrCCollins1993
The nonsense that the crown is always neutral in politics is utter crap. The crown IS political. It cannot be anything else. It relies on politics in order to retain its position. Everything the crown represents is political by its very nature. This little agreement is the reason why Israel behaves like a thug and has done for decades in the full knowledge it will be supported politically by France and the UK. Supporting genocide is not only immoral it is disgusting and the lowest denominator of existence. It is corruption at its finest
@@MrCCollins1993You make excellent points, but in the end the monarch is constitutional. They have no say or choice in what happens in politics because its written in government for them not to. There's a reason the Queen asks if the United Nations or Parliament is aware of the "collusion" because that is the natural order of an invasion. Eden was abusing his power of PM on the world stage, and you can see that in Elizabeth's eyes as she struggles to contain the conflict the best that she can.
Brilliant acting performance. Indeed, She is a consummate actress.
Its always when Claire Foy doesn't speak that her body and her eyes do all the acting is the best
Considering that Her Majesty is the Commander in Chief of all British Forces and the PM had kept her out of the loop on Suez invasion is unforgiveable.
unconstitutional actually, treason possibly Yes the Kins/Queens do their pretty parades and such but there is a legitimate reason to have someone with an interest in long term stability as the final shot caller when it comes to crisis.
The head of state being called "commander-in-chief" is an American thing. The last time the British Army had a commander in chief was Lord Kitchener, who was drowned during WWI. There used to be a hereditary head of the English army, the Lord High Constable, but the last one of those, the Duke of Buckingham, was executed for treason by Henry VIII. There's another LHC in Scotland, the earl of Errol, but he lost all his military functions after the union of parliaments in 1707.
@@faithlesshound5621 Actually he's right. The Monarch is head of HM Armed Forces, including the RN and RAF.
🦁 ☀️ 🐝 ⚡ 🦅 ⚡ 🐝 ☀️ 🦁
So what? They can move a division by asking a general to do it. Otherwise, their “command” of the military is just ceremonial.
@@aquilifergroup Yes it called a "Order" you know that chain of command thing.
That look at 0:51 was when Elizabeth realized Eden couldn’t be trusted and might actually be willing to flat out lie to the Crown if it suited him
God, she is brilliant!
❤❤❤❤❤
To not support him would’ve created a crisis- she didn’t want to do it, but she had no choice. That must be a frustrating position to be in.
I don't imagine it would be that frustrating; choose between the crown stipend, opulent life, deference and becoming an ex-royal like so many on the continent who lost their crowns and went into exile because the got involved in politics.
The long, long silences which follow HM's question to Eden, and later Eden's question to HM, indicate beyond doubt the answers to come.
I really loved this show. All the Queens were so well portrayed and actually learned a few things about the UK and the Monarchy.
When I heard Claire Foy was going to play Elizabeth in this series, I thought she would do a good job. I under estimated her. She did a great job!
She...is .fabulous!!
Brilliant writing. The Prime Minister always has the Sovereign's support. In other words, I support the position, not you, Eden. She knew it was the end of him. Jeremy Northam played off that comment beautiful, playing that Eden knew exactly what The Queen was saying
The Suez Crisis was the event where Great Britain and France had to face the reality that they were no longer World Powers.
I guarantee that the Queen was wishing that Winston Churchill was there rather than Eden.
Churchill was smart and experienced enough to know that Britain couldn't do what they wanted in Egypt without the agreement of the Americans.
… and Eisenhower kept US out of the conflict (direct intervention).
He received criticism, at that time, from some foreign policy hawks.
@@w9gb Eisenhower would be aghast at today's U.S. foreign policy, not to mention what's happened to his party. He even warned future Presidents against the military industrial complex, yet here we are spending 15x more than the next several countries combined while we have homeless on the street and people can't afford to go to the doctor or send their kids to college. We've become a big, fat, stupid country.
@@w9gb Eisenhower later described his intervention over Suez as a mistake because as soon as Nasser got what he wanted, he jumped into bed with the Soviets meaning Eisenhower had stabbed two close allies in the back for nothing. Suez also cost the US British support in Vietnam as Harold Wilson despised the Americans for their betrayal.
Us Americans no how to step in it sometimes we think we are fighting for others freedoms and we wind up messing things up even further and sacrificeing our and our allies lives.@@justonecornetto80
@@justonecornetto80I seriously doubt that's the reason why Wilson didn't commit troops to Vietnam.
The tension is in his realization that a young woman is both informed, and has total power over him. She could refuse her support, and for a moment, she may have intended to.
She had no total power over him, and no, constitutionally, she cannot refuse support. The monarch acts on the cabinet's advice, there is no discretion.
@@theadorablesociologist The monarch acts on the Prime Minister's (not cabinet's, and also Eden didn't consult his cabinet either) advice, but she could have doubts over whether the PM has retained the support of parliament under the circumstances and on the ground dismiss him. It would be a constitutional crisis but she's entitled to do it.
Also, not everything has to be formal and official. By virtue of having this confirmation from Eden, she could've leaked it herself.
Even if she refuses support, it would have no impact on the outcome.
this kind of political background that made me love this show
Which basically went out the window after season 3 and the show became the princess Dianna story.
Yep, it was interesting with all the politics. When Diana stepped in the scene they stopped caring about the political side
I don’t remember him being all that against Mussolini and Hitler (in actual history). Churchill was the one who kept ranting about them (correctly) and all the rest of the upper crust Brits deliberately closed their eyes and ignored what was happening- until Poland was invaded.
eden resigned as a protest to the betrayal of Czechoslovakia
That's demonstrably untrue.
While it is true that Chamberlin's government allowed Germany to invade nations they did so in a bid to gain more time to build up their armies.
The UK and France knew a war was coming and did try to prepare for it, the issue was that Germany used that time more effectively.
And it is also true that Eden was against appeasement, as was most of the opposition at the time.
Eden was hugely against appeasement
Eden was one of the few Tories who fully supported Churchill in the latter half of the 1930s and early 1940s.
Churchill was correct on many foreign policy points. Recently, I read an historical account by an academic who stated that Churchill repeatedly cautioned the Roosevelt Administration about Russia. He made one final attempt near the end of Roosevelt’s life, but was prevented by Harry Hopkins.
The very slight head tilt after he say “…what?” may as well have been a slap across the face and her saying “Do you think I’m an idiot?”
Assuming this is true, it was a bit of cheek to ask for her support having witheld facts from her which she had to drag out of him
Well, if you're going to dip your toes in potential war crimes, tell as few people as possible.
@@WilliamMoore-p4g the problem with that as an MP you are commiting treason against the commander and Chief. Meet some of the people in the UK forces, MOST say they would ignore orders if they were told to remove the King if he was clearly right.
You can see in Eden's face how he was hesitating to tell or not the Queen about the involment with Israel, but then he probably realized that he doesn't really has a choise he had to yes or yes tell her
Yes, he was imprudent enough to do it behind her back, but prudent enough to recognize that she was onto him.
The Queen obviously needed a much better network of informants, to the point of knowing the collusion even before it was to happen.
Foy is a great actress
In all her years as Queen of England, Elizabeth II never ever visited Israel. Could this be the reason?
"An anonymous British government official told The Telegraph in 2015 that 'until there is a settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the royal family can't really go there.'” this is from a Times of Israel article
Well I thought that Prince William went to visit the grave of his grandfather's (Prince Philip's) mother, Princess Alice, who is buried in Israel as a great national figure (saved many people during the Holocaust.) @@raczacasbah maybe it wasn't an 'official' visit but it was a visit.
The government would have to approve any visit. The Monarch of the United Kingdom cannot go against her government's advice.
@@eddihaskell I agree with your observation that the Monarch will not travel to a location abroad without the government's consent.
But is the opposite true? Can the Monarch refuse to visit where the government requests that they travel?
I've read accounts (which may or may not be true) that Elizabeth refused government requests to visit the USSR in the pre-Gorbachev era.
@@ers586 The monarch can of course refuse. The monarch can dissolve the government if necessary. It would undoubtedly trigger a constitutional shitstorm but the monarch is under no obligation to take orders from the government. There is only a gentlemen's agreement that the monarch accepts advice from the government.
Eden stuffed up in that he almost totally misread US President Eisenhower and paid the penalty.
Could you elaborate about Eisenhower?
@@thetromsky Eisenhower determined that US military would not take any part in the Suez Canal event. Thus the British and French and the Israelis were on their own.
@@thetromsky he purposely set up the French and the British to invade only later to humiliate them both by sending UN troops in to evict them from Egypt. Effectively telling the British and French their Americas little bitches
Thank you for the explanation @@michaelhayden725
I couldn't figure out where I recognized him from then realized he's Sir Thomas Moore! From The Tudors!
Jeremy Northam, one of UKs finest actors.
I always think of the line from the movie "The Dish". The prime minister of Australia was visiting a small town to watch the moon landing. He told the mayor there could be a place higher up for him in government. He then added the policy they follow. "Don't F*ck up". That's it. Eden was on his own if the plan went bad.
“Have we colluded with Israel? In any way?”
Oh, honey…
You mean like the millions of Muslims illegally settling and colonising Europe?
Yes. Quaint in these times.
She gave support to the Prime Minister.
Not him personally.
The Queen: I have a very bad feeling about this.😒
Yes Sir you are going to have a tricky day
will someone please correct the titles / subtitles of these videos - Anthony Eden and not Princess Margaret is with the Queen in this clip - I have only started watching these videos today and already seen half a dozen incorrect titles - if you’re clever enough to edit and post then you should also be clever enough to figure out who is actually acting in each clip 🤨
It’s actually kind of wild to think how much better off Britain would have been as a country if Elizabeth was ruling as an absolute monarch.
See now, that's the kind of brash blanket statement that would get you laughed out of a room. You do realize that this is a work of fiction, right? You do realize that the British monarchy's apolitical nature is its strategy to continue existing, right?
I agree, it's wild to think that, because absolute monarchy and dictatorial power is so corrupt, it is a leviathan, a last resort to maintain social order. This conversation in the clip is not a transcript of real life. Do not act like it is, and that it would justify an absolute monarch.
I doubt it would have been better. Dictators don't make good leaders.
Be honest viewers who noticed the big boo boo about this great scene??? The prim minister turned his back as he left the queen, no one is allowed to turn their back on the queen, I'm not a loyalist or ever watched any of these seasons of God knows how many. But even I know that no 1 turns their back on the queen or king now actually 🤔
“I do have one or two questions. When you mentioned the Israelis had launched an attack, you didn’t seem surprised.” I don’t know whether anything like this exchange actually happened in real life, but the screenwriting was pure Columbo stuff, “Just one more thing…”
The queen of peace
she was right.
MORE PLSSS SCENCE CITY
Very enjoyable scene with Foy and Northam but all their scenes together could be called as such.
Eden lying to his boss lol
The people are his boss. She was a mascot.
He turned his back on the queen walking away, I thought that was a no no ?
God that feels so strange.
The last gasp of the British Empire - America didn't back them.
She has gorgeous eyes
If only the real Queen was so blessed
She may have as a young woman at the time portrayed, but I think nearly all the footage of QEII from her youth was black & white and there wasn't a lot of color photography of her. She was middle aged by the time there was TV footage of her in color, so she might have looked older and duller than in her youth.
This is a brilliant scene. The PM really messed up here. He colluded with France and Israel to launch an attack against Egyptian forces without the knowledge or consent of Parliament. Furthermore, he failed to inform the Queen in a timely manner, which was one of her few rights. The British Sovereign serves as a last check. To listen, advise, and if necessary warn. Elizabeth is horrified. The Queen had to gave her support. Whew, no way that wasn't hard.
The Sovereign's position must be really hard.
Hmmm...I kinda wish Salome (Women Talking) would have handled that instead of the Queen...LOL! The whole horrible mess would of been avoided....
huh?
Watch the movie "Women Talking"....it's amazing! Then come back here and imagine that Salome (played by Claire Foy) is there instead of The Queen....lol...then you'll understand 👍
Too risky to even try
That was the real issue
I know why we have democracies but sometimes I think the Sovereign MUST interfere and be like "This is utter BULLSHIT"
I hope you understand what she means, exthing.
He went behind the queen's back, parliament and the United Nations, how is tis not treason?
"Prime Ministers always has the sovreign's support"
In reality Elizabeth was saying, "You're f**ked."
Is that the guy from The Tudors? Thomas More? He doesn't look anything like him (granted that was 15 years ago), and his voice is too deep. Yikes, that look on his face, classic hand-in-the-cookie-jar, "shit, how do I spin this??!"
Boris Johnson would have no qualms about lying to the monarch.
Can’t believe he actually did that especially behind old Liz’s back
@@ehrichan6726 She played by the rules. He didn't. Which of the two outlasted the other in office ? 😉
🦁☀️🐝⚡🦅⚡🐝☀️🦁
CHRUBBULLLL IN THE SUUUUUUUEEEEZZZZ
She didn't start the fire
No collusion...
Every country should have a sovereign as wise and informed as Queen Elizabeth was.
She wasn't informed about a lot of things. Did you even watch this show. The government used to hide so much from her and spring it on the last minute 😂😂. She was clueless most of the time.
@@nomahope3182 Most politicians are creeps.
As an American, I don’t understand how such an event could happen without presidential knowledge. I understand that things are done quite differently in the UK, but it seems odd to me that the Queen would have been kept out of the loop on this. Can someone please explain it?
I’m English - and this kind of decision doesn’t exactly need the sovereign’s permission (known as “Royal Assent”) or even to let the sovereign know. The Government acts in the name of the sovereign, exercising the king/queen’s power on the king/queen’s behalf. We are democracy, so we vote for who gets to exercise power on the king/queen’s behalf. The sovereign CAN intervene, but that would be considered an abuse of power which is not democratic and would potentially incur a revolution in which the UK becomes a Republic.
@@jojofc88 the only way I can think that she could have intervened is if she had some kind of proof that she could’ve presented publicly that would’ve cemented her case for doing so. And I think in this scene she considered that for half a minute, but then remembered everything, she used to figure it out was classified, and it would be her word against his. So she remembered what her grandmother told her with regards to doing nothing and it taking every fiber of her being to do so.
Some of it may have also been the fact that she was a woman, the first since Queen Victoria to have the job. And they may have felt at liberty to exclude her based on the gender bias of the 1950s.
The Queen did end up being right about the Suez Crisis, which is what they were keeping secret from her. When she said that "Parliament had not been told, nor the United Nations," she was hinting at the extreme trouble Eden's government would find by colluding with Israel in secret like that. Eisenhower in Washington and Khrushchev in Moscow had not been told either, and both men were LIVID! Eisenhower actually started screaming obscenities in the White House when he found the British had betrayed him. Eisenhower's anger was so profound that he threatened to sell off the enormous amount of UK government bonds held by the U.S. government, which would've meant a crash of the British pound and a recession in Britain if British troops did not withdraw from the Suez Canal immediately. Eden did as he was told, as he didn't want to crater the economy on account of a foreign adventure of this sort. When Eden quits a bit later, in disgrace, the Queen accepts his resignation in disgust--Eden's secrecy and scheming had totally done him in, and had destroyed British international prestige irrevocably in the process. So the Queen was sooooo done with him.
This was an outrageous thing for the Prime Minister to do. There is a thing called the privy Council, chaired by the monarch, which predates Parliament. To declare war, without consulting the privy Council, is not part of our democracy. Only equaled by Tony Blair's declaration of war on Iraq.
When was Eden right about Mussolini? When Mussolini was Hitler's strongest opponent in Europe and the leader of the Stresa Front? That alliance was thrown out by the UK in order to make their own agreement with Germany to keep their naval advantages, and then when they got all sanctimonious about Italy's colonial border war with a slave-holding monarchy, which drove Italy into an alliance with Germany instead.
The problem was not that no one was listening to whomever was right about Hitler, it was that the UK was utterly impotent to do anything about it. The cheers that greeted Chamberlain was that Hitler gave them peace when he had nothing to fear from the UK at the time. Germany was a much larger country than the UK and all their stuff was in the same place, instead of scattered around the globe so that the sun never set on them. Put it this way. In the Great War, the UK and France went to war against German & its allies. The UK was allied to Japan, Russia, Italy & Romania and they only managed to get a victory after a long, brutal and bloody slog, that was not decided until the US weighed in. In 1939, the UK & France went to war against Germany and its allies. However, of the UK & France's allies from the prior conflict, the US President was running for reelection on a pledge not to join the fighting in Europe, and Japan, Russia, Italy & Romania were all allied to Germany!
Good intentions and the will to eliminate a dangerous enemy are nice, but you had better have the power to make your fight stick. Eden learned that lesson the hard way in the Suez conflict.
Eden had hoped for, if not support, a grumbling acquiescence from old friend and ally Eisenhower.
Total opposition, threatening the stability of the pound was not in the cards, so he had to fold.
But he was right about Nassar. Next time, collude with the US, not the French.
resigned in protest of the sellout of the Czechoslovakians
Simmetry?
Jeremy was so handsome with that mustache...
Pfff...
I remember the crush i had on him
This fella? Oh mr (...) you are so sweet. No you dont have my support. You have betrayed my kin.
This Gaza genocide really exposed the culture in some countries. I think they knew all along, throughout the decades, what they were doing to the Palestinians. And it was on purpose. I cannot think of a longer holocaust than that of the Palestinians
The west, especially the UK and America, were terrified of Egypt President Nassar because he was uniting the entire Arab world under secular, nationalist leadership. American and the Brits wanted their oil money, and Israel was always happy to help f--k up their neighbors' governments in any way they could. (Israel's always been good like that.) The Suez issue was just one example.
Nope, the US had nothing to do with this particular affair. As much as they disliked Nasser they knew that Britain and France trying to topple himwas a stupid move that would be seen in the rest of the world as two european colonial powers trying to turn back the clock and give the soviet union the chance to place itself as the champion of decolonialization. So once they learned of it they not just put a stop to it, they publicly humiliated those two countries.
@@gildor8866 Okay, let's all just pretend that Israel wasn't doing our bidding in Egypt, as Israel does everywhere else when we need to f-k up things in the middle east. The U.S. and Brits were also terrified of democratically elected Iranian PM Mosaddegh in the 1950's, which is why the U.S. and U.K. orchestrated a coup and put in the Shah. The U.S., Europe and Russia have been f-ing up the middle east for a century.
You do realize that the US and the USSR put their thumbs down, that's why this crisis ended? You've deceived four people because of your ignorance.
In fact, it was Eisenhower’s criticism of the other Western nations and siding with Egypt that led to unraveling of the whole
Anglo-French scheme.
@@gildor8866 In this case you're right. Despite the countless involvement of the Americans with Israel in situations like these, this time America was not involved in this war and attempt to gain power of the suez canal
Imperialists being Imperialists
Of course, nowadays, the PM would simply tell the King to get stuffed, what Israel wants the UK will provide, and how dare the Crown question Israel.
Eden told the queen to get stuffed, too. He was obligated to keep the queen informed. He didn't need her personal approval for anything.
still crying for your terrorist friends?
@@jasonkoch3182right, he doesn’t need her approval to act on HER behalf 🙄
The monarchy is sooooo important. Yet, it’s neutered in every way that actually matters. As long as show up at charity events! That’s what really matters to them.
It was the opposite. Israel didn't want war but Nasser had seized the Suez Canal. The British and French couldn't accept that but couldn't invade themselves. They told Israel to invade and they'd intervene to end the war. The charade was exposed when Israel didn't reach the canal quickly. Israel had egg on their face from doing Eden's bidding. They gained nothing and got universal condemnation. It would never happen again.
¡Hola, buenas tardes!
So I guess they’re not victims after alll
MFr lucky he wasn't FIRED.
...Sht, it doesn't work that way, does it.
Eden was sacked by the Tories after the war and replaced by Harold Macmillan
Ah, Israel. Always the "peaceful friendly neighbor" since day one.
Makes you wonder, about certain things.
Last I checked the neighbors weren't much friendlier from day one either.
@@gildor8866 No other country on this planet has been allowed to get away with the crap Israel has pulled in plain sight for the last 60 years. America has invaded countries for doing less to people than what Israel has done to the Palestinians. Look around. The world has had it with that country. No argument you make on this thread will change the trajectory.
Found the anti-Semitic terrorist sympathizer.
@@gildor8866 True. But in fairness, I wouldn't be very friendly to the people who bulldozed my neighbours house in order to become my neighbour.