Winston Churchill trudging through Buckingham Palace while grumbling the weather is the most British thing I’ve ever seen.

@mjremy2605

8 ай бұрын

Grumbling ABOUT the weather.

@pbhoulden8212

8 ай бұрын

And played so convincingly by an American actor. Then again Churchill himself was half American

@ragingshibe

6 ай бұрын

Only thing missing is the tea

@EPICFAILKING1

Ай бұрын

@@mjremy2605 oh, give it a rest

@Stefanthenautilus

7 күн бұрын

​@@mjremy2605 No, in this case, the man definitely Grumbled The Weather

The level of acting in this show is just incredible

John Lithgow as Sir Winston Churchill is amazing...he's such a great actor ❤

@Baelor-Breakspear

4 ай бұрын

Too tall

The grunting at the end always kills me 😆

I wouldn’t say I’m a fan of the monarchy but when Churchill started shouting I thought “how dare you raise your voice at the Queen”

That was great. Lithgow is so talented.

Churchill was a grumpasaurus-Rex.

@doreendaykin6693

4 ай бұрын

👏👏👏👏👏Best comment of the lot!!!🏆👍👏👏

@justinanthony0890

3 ай бұрын

He was a fine leader during the war. By the 50’s, he was a geriatric, cantankerous has-been. A shadow of his former self. It was a dumb move by the Brits in 1951 re-electing Churchill as Prime Minister.

It's funny watching Lithgow play Churchill as he tries to restrict Prince Philip - who he also played!

@AndyHoward

4 ай бұрын

That's where I first saw him, and then on DEXTER, and now this.

Lithgow's best performance. The guy was unreal, in this clip. It boggles the mind that he was also in 'Third Rock from the Sun.'

@elitefencer777

3 ай бұрын

Lithgow will go down as the greatest, most versatile actor that the world largely remembers for a gimmicky sitcom from an era of terrible sitcoms; the poor b******! XD

@DaveFisher-cq2dr

2 ай бұрын

yes indeed, but did you also see Gary Oldman portray Churchill in the movie "Darkest Hour"?

@ShannonFreng

2 ай бұрын

@@DaveFisher-cq2dr No, but I'm going to check it out.

@DaveFisher-cq2dr

2 ай бұрын

@@ShannonFreng oh it's really good, Gary Oldman won best actor for that role

@ShannonFreng

2 ай бұрын

@@DaveFisher-cq2drI just checked out Oldman's, Lithgow's and Robert Hardy's, Dave, but I must go with Hardy's. But they're all good.

You'd think John Lithgow a long shot to play Churchill wouldn't you. They're careful with the camera angles to not make him look too large (he's a very tall actor). He pulls it off magnificently doesn't he.

@KaiserFranzJosefI

4 ай бұрын

Lithgow is nearly a foot taller than Churchill!

i'm not a history buff, nor do i usually watch these sorts of shows, or much tv at all..However.. i've been seeing this show reccommended a lot lately, and these clips have been amazing. John Lithgow and others, bringing these legendary characters back from the dead, is just flippin amazing.

Lithgow nailed it.

John Lithgow & Pip Torrens were spellbinding in the earlier seasons

To think his life began under a Queens rule and ended under another's.

It’s funny hearing Churchill calling Charles “the future king of England” when he’s only just become King recently. 😂 Edit: Also if you think about it Charles III is the last British monarch to have known Winston Churchill. He met him as a child.

@thfdljsxnuyql

9 ай бұрын

I thought he referred to Philip, not Charles

@TheArrowedKnee

9 ай бұрын

@@thfdljsxnuyql Philip could never become king, he was only the Prince-Consort.

@sumbigdumkunt

9 ай бұрын

Well, that is how time works. It is indeed the future from Churchills pov.

@red.aries1444

9 ай бұрын

@@TheArrowedKnee That's not exactly right. Through his mother, grandmother and great-grandmother he was a descendent from Queen Victoria as well as his wife, so he was in the line of succession. 🙂But to become king he would have hade a lot of "work" to do...

@TheArrowedKnee

9 ай бұрын

@@red.aries1444 Yeah that's fair, however, i should've said, he had no realistic chance of ever becoming King.

These 2 together are great!! 💚 O+

Lithgow plays a Vogon quite well.

John Lithgow is one of the finest character actors of our time, hands down.

Well that told her!

Honestly, whatever admiration and respect the Queen would have had for Churchill should have evaporated here. The show, accurate or not, seems to imply that despite becoming the monarch, literally everyone around QE2 from the PM, to her Private Secretary, to her own mother were undermining her authority at every turn during the early years of her reign.

@keithammleter3824

28 күн бұрын

Since it is reported that she retained fondness and respect for Churchill (and funny enough, dramatised later in this series) it seems that this scene is a complete fabrication and nothing like it ever took place.

Its time.

"...prevailing over faschism, evile and tyranny..." He said _evile_ folks!

Churchill would turn in his grave regarding the republicans. Heaven forbid Trump appeasing Putin!

John Lithgow os a national treasure.

How could Elizabeth possibly restrain herself from smacking him?

@Bigmojojo

9 ай бұрын

Because it's a show and they have to maximize the drama in everything.

@Xerxes2005

9 ай бұрын

Because he's more or less England's saviour, or seen as such, that she admires him a lot and that he's also much older and experienced than her.

@sickpup820

9 ай бұрын

along came Harold Wilson. He is credited for teaching Elizabeth about the "real world" with his blunt honesty and about the North/miner towns. He was one of her favourites. @@Xerxes2005

@bluemarlin8138

9 ай бұрын

Because she was still young and inexperienced, while Churchill was much older and more experienced, with a very forceful personality. Had she been 20 years older and able to go back in time, I doubt it would have gone the same way.

@DDELE7

8 ай бұрын

@@bluemarlin8138although you have to admire her political acumen when early on in season 1 of The Crown she cleverly deduced the reason Churchill delayed her coronation ceremony was to buy him more time in power and called him out on it.

This perfectly encapsulates the best of Britain. Better than any country in the world we balance power between the monarchy and parliament. Parliament since King Charles 2nd is supreme! The monarchy, in effect, keeps supervision. 🇬🇧💜

American actor played British Minister and It really natural. Even American talks british accent, nobody think he is an American.

I wonder if Churchill would have ever spoken to the Queen that way.

@shrimptonpalace232

9 ай бұрын

I reckon so, she looked upto him a lot and he knew it.

@viewfromthehillswift6979

9 ай бұрын

I doubt it; he was very good at modulating his language and was a monarchist through and through.

@hutch1197

9 ай бұрын

@@viewfromthehillswift6979 Perhaps. But he was known to be quite the bully and hot-tempered. Also, back then, men were far less deferential to women, even the monarchs. He was known to treat her more like the "Former King's Daughter" than the Queen.

@bluemarlin8138

9 ай бұрын

Probably. He was known to be a bit gruff, and she was a young, I experienced queen who looked up to him nearly as much as she looked up to her father, if not moreso.

@idreeskhan8885

9 ай бұрын

I mean come on Churchill was almost a legend at this point and the age of her grandfather. Churchill was old and likely grumpyish too.

would be funny as Churchill was speaking serious matters to the Queen she was doing tequila shots from behind a small corner mini bar

It’s fog mam

Something interesting: When planes first came to Britain, Churchill was not only alive, but married. Fascinated by the inconceptable concept of leveling with the birds, and maybe even the clouds, he was possessed by a determination to learn to fly. In this crusade, he himself crashed several times-and in front of his wife, too. Though I’m sure he eventually learned to keep in the air. I’m not sure how good he was once up in it.

The monarch can't fire a prime minister.

@shauntempley9757

4 ай бұрын

The monarch can. It is just that there is fallout if the monarch does that.

The Queen failed to inform the PM that as the Marshall of the RAF he was entitled to be a pilot, and certainly would not command the respect of the RAF's pilots were he not.

John Lithgow was wonderful in this but I don't think Churchill, or any prime minister of the 20th century, would have spoken in this manner to a Monarch during a meeting.

@SirMrShanks

7 ай бұрын

Then you haven't educated yourself enough to understand the complex and admirable relationship WC and HMTQ had.

@ricardotella1864

6 ай бұрын

Definitely possible. A very young and inexperienced Queen talking to a Prime Minister regarded as the Father of the nation.

Would Churchill or any Prime Minister raise their voice at the Sovereign?

@CatroiOz

3 ай бұрын

Absolutely not

O respecfully disagree. Im not reacting, they are. I have cteated the oportunity.

Wow. I wonder if Winston Churchill and Princess Diana have something in common?

@ProtheroeVideos1

10 ай бұрын

They were related

@inigobantok1579

8 ай бұрын

Both were spencers, and always can be pissed off at the right place and time.

@frname7665

6 ай бұрын

What on earth do you mean

I thought Prince Philip was in the Air Force even before he married Princess Elizabeth. What was he doing prior to their marriage?

@justonecornetto80

6 ай бұрын

He served in the Royal Navy.

Wasn't Churchill a pilot himself? If so why is he upset over HRH wanting to fly

@thebadcellist

Күн бұрын

He was almost killed when piloting a plane before WWI. He had to give it up out of consideration for his family.

@98hkg63

Күн бұрын

I had heard that Churchill was a difficult student and occasionally loved to take the helm once in a while when he flew as a passenger

I thought I recognized Dr. Lizardo from the thumbnail. What is he doing in this?

Churchill was in cabinet when the Treaty of 1921 was drafted under Lloyd George as Prime Minister at which Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith took part in, which Eamon De Valera refused to take part in - the Treaty resulted in a very bitter Irish Civil War of 1922 which divided Irish families for generations - and after which Eamon De Valera refused to assist the British in WW2, drawing the anger of Churchill - in the Irish Free State, WW2 was known as “the emergency” yet many Irishmen defied De Valera and Catholic Archbishop John Charles Mc Quaid to fight alongside the British against the Nazis

@kasterborous1701

6 ай бұрын

The Irish Free State effectively ceased to exist before WWII in 1937, when the Constitution came into effect on 29 December.

I thought these meetings were supposed to last 20 minutes. This didn't even last 5.

@Merlin4193

9 ай бұрын

So what, u want them to just talk for 20 minutes which would take up almost half of an episode? Please use your brain and think that this is just a damn show.

@zacmumblethunder7466

8 ай бұрын

​I see this in a lot of shows these days. In police dramas they will travel out to interview a witness, ask two questions then go. Even if they wanted to ask only two questions they would be there longer. There are ways of implying more time has elapsed than has been shown. A fade out on the greeting and fade in on a piece of inconsequential dialogue is the traditional way. The writers these days, though, have to drive the plot at a certain pace and that detracts from realism in scenes like this. Whole stories are told by having characters belch out plot points with none of the side conversations, etc that flesh out characters and situations.

I didn't even know Lithgow was still alive.

@Maddym365

4 ай бұрын

According to IMDB he’s only in his late 70’s

Elizabeth was never going to fire Churchill. He was her favorite PM. This show invents some fictional drama indeed.

@tarielkaroldan4106

9 ай бұрын

Maybe so, but if it had been needed she would have. The queen understood the necessity of putting kingdom over personal preferences and likes

@PaulRoneClarke

8 ай бұрын

The Queen could only remove Royal Approval - she could not fire him. While it could have amounted to the same thing - in practice it almost definitely would not have. Had any monarch after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 tried to fire an elected minister - it is more than likely that it would have ended the monarchy - not the minister.

@will_it_work

8 ай бұрын

@@PaulRoneClarke Actually, she can dismiss the PM and dissolve the parliament and call for new elections. Do such would cause a stir, but hardly "end the monarchy".

@PaulRoneClarke

8 ай бұрын

@@will_it_work The monarch insisting that a democratically elected government was replaced would, I'm sure, end it, and quickly. It is more likely that the monarch would say "I am unable to endorse this government and withdraw my patronage" Then leave the constitutional experts to sort it out. That's not the same thing as demanding a new government. While it retains about 60% popularity at the moment, the younger generation are more republican 41% of under 28's and 47% of under 16's support the monarchy. This shift towards republicanism in the young is quite new. In 1977 there were roughly the same number of under 25's supporting the monarchy as there were over 50's.And that was over 80% of the population. The monarchy interfering with a democratically elected government - whether it is one you support or not - would not go down well and the constitutional crisis would - I'm sure - end the monarchy, Just because people hate the current government does not mean they would embrace the tyranny of a singular unelected head of state exercising dictatorial power.

@zacmumblethunder7466

8 ай бұрын

Harold Wilson was her favourite PM. They used to do the washing up together when he stayed at Balmoral.

nuts

Christ, not Man, is king - Oliver Cromwell

This scene is almost certainly a complete fabrication and probably nothing like it ever took place. It is curious though, because in real life Philip, while skilled in aircraft handling, turned out to be a bit of a menace as a pilot, e.g., ignoring air traffic control instructions, landing helicopters in inappropriate places.

2nd and early 😊

Churchill like Washington is that leader I have conditional respect for. They did what they had to do for their country and did it mighty well but thats it. Their treatment to other people was horrifying even by the standards of their times.

@hutch1197

9 ай бұрын

I'm not sure if he was thinking about the well-being of his country when he kept his incapacitating illness and that of his Foreign Secretary a secret. He put the country in a vulnerable position for the sake of holding on to power.

@mikeym1479

9 ай бұрын

How was Washington’s treatment of people worse than others of his time? Seems to me that he had average morals for then, even better than average

@philipgodsworth4764

8 ай бұрын

@@mikeym1479dude was legitimately was confused why his slaves didn’t like work.

@McKamikazeHighlander

7 ай бұрын

You shouldn't. Washington was a fool that started a war against the French over nothing, lost more battles against the Brits than he won and when things got hairy as POTUS he resigned. He was also a slave-owner who only ordered his slaves freed after both he and his wife had died. Churchill was a drunk and a racist that was referred to as a nuisance by his generals (Churchill didnt want to attack Normandy but the Balkans and kept obsessing over it - so the idea that he won the war is laughable), no one in his own party liked him as he was seen as a dinosaur even then and he was directly responsible for millions of Indians dying by taking away their food during a famine and when his cabinet expressed concern, he said "Indians are a beastly people with a beastly religion. If they're dying, it's their own fault for breeding like rabbits". Neither men should be worthy of your respect

@kevinkearns7719

7 ай бұрын

Both were recognized as exceptional, great men in their time. Even great men can be assholes. Might be part of what made them so great.

As far as I know, the British Monarch doesn't have the constitutional power to sack an elected Prime Minister. 🤔

@egohde

9 ай бұрын

As there is no formal constitution, more of a collection of conventions, the office of the prime minister formally is appointed by the crown and in effect could be dismissed as such, would that actually happen I doubt it I expect if such a situation arose it would take the form of stepping down then a formal dismissal.

@crispincoque

9 ай бұрын

@@egohdeNo, you've got it the wrong way round. In reality, the Monarch is only a figurehead doing as they're told by elected figures. Their asking the elected Prime Minister to form a new government after the election is a mere formality. So is the Prime Minister's visit to the Monarch before an election, so as to the dissolve the current Parliament. The Monarch has no power to choose which individual will be Prime Minister, nor when an election takes place. Any Monarch trying to sack an elected Prime Minister would be ignored, and possibly also censured in some way.

@salvatore8898

9 ай бұрын

You are not completely right about this one. The hole thing is the difference between the theoretical power of the monarch and what happens in reality. In theory the monarch asks a random MP (or member of the House of Lords) to form his government. And because it his his government, the monarch can sack the PM at any time and appoint a new one. While the monarch has this power theoretically, using this power would basically lead directly to ending the monarchy or at least ending the own time on the throne. There is no real constitution saying: the monarch can do this and that. It‘s just how history developed

@crispincoque

9 ай бұрын

@@salvatore8898No, I'm definitely right. Because the Constitution is not written down explicitly, it's executed by consensus and what happens in practice, changing over time. The Monarch once had the practical power you describe, but no longer does, according to those terms. Therefore, that constitutional power no longer exists.

@michaelmccomb2594

9 ай бұрын

@@crispincoquethey don’t have the real power no, but legally and constitutionally the King/Queen appoints the PM and has the right to sack them. But, yes in reality today this would not happen.

a horribly evil man, somehow lucked into hero worship