She won a BAFTA for Best Supporting Actress in 2017 for The Crown.

I thought some of her privileges would have been stripped?

​@@xxwhispersxx2856 from what I know Margaret would have lost her title if she married Peter

@@xxwhispersxx2856 Part of the plan was for her to keep both, her kids just wouldn't be part of the line of succession (like it mattered lol)

Δεν είμαι καθόλου σίγουρη ότι υπήρχε τελικά αυτό το σχέδιο για την Μαργαρίτα. Ίσως χρησιμοποιήθηκε αργότερα ως δικαιολογία για να " αθωωθεί " η Ελισάβετ για την άρνηση της. Μια άρνηση που τελικά κατέστρεψε τη ζωή της αδερφή της. Πάντως ακόμα και αν το σχέδιο αυτό όντως υπήρχε πιστεύω ότι η Μαργαρίτα δεν είχε ιδέα. Ο Townsend στην αυτοβιογραφία του δεν ανέφερε κανένα τέτοιο σχέδιο, αντιθέτως είπε ότι για να γίνει ο γάμος τους η Μαργαρίτα έπρεπε να χάσει σχεδόν τα πάντα κάτι που δεν το ήθελε ούτε ο ίδιος γιατί ήξερε ότι η θυσία που θα έπρεπε να κάνει η Μαργαρίτα δεν μπορούσε να αναπληρωθεί. Άλλωστε μην ξεχνάμε τον καθοριστικό ρόλο που έπαιξε η βασιλομήτωρ η οποία υπογείως έκανε ότι μπορούσε για να μην γίνει αυτός ο γάμος, κάτι που δικαιολογημένα η Μαργαρίτα δεν της συγχώρεσε ποτέ. Αν η Μαργαρίτα γνώριζε ότι η μόνη θυσία θα ήταν τα παιδιά της να μην έχουν τίτλο σίγουρα θα παντρευόταν την αγάπη της ζωής της. Άλλωστε τα παιδιά της από τον γάμο της με τον απαίσιο Τόνυ δεν έχουν τίτλο και η Μαργαρίτα δεν είχε κανένα πρόβλημα με αυτό.

​@@lordalessanWell yeah it doesn't until it does. Ask the heir to Princess Anne

She could’ve chosen him as other family members chose love. She chose not to.

She could have married him for God's sake ! She had to renounce her titles... and she refused. She preferred to be "Princess Margaret" than being Mrs Peter Townsend.

Meanwhile, he moved on within two years 😂 to another very young woman. He was such a creep.

Η Μαργαρίτα είχε ήδη δει την κατάντια του θείου της που παράτησε τα πάντα για μια γυναίκα και κατέληξε ένας άνθρωπος χωρίς καμία αξία, παραμερισμενος από όλους ακόμα και από τη γυναίκα που διάλεξε. Μέχρι το τέλος της ζωής του τον ακολουθούσε μόνο η φήμη του προδότη, του ανάξιου, του ανθρώπου που εγκατέλειψε το λαό του και την οικογένειά του για μια γυναίκα με άσχημο παρελθόν. Σήμερα βλέπουμε το ίδιο έργο σε επανάληψη με τον Harry. Προτίμησε την αγάπη και τώρα αντιμετωπίζει ότι και ο Edward με τη Simpson, μίσος και ανυποληψία. Η Μαργαρίτα λοιπόν είχε δίκιο που δεν τα παράτησε όλα για την αγάπη. Απλά δεν έπρεπε να υπάρχει κανένα εμπόδιο και καμιά προϋπόθεση για να παντρευτεί τον αγαπημένο της. Δεν έπρεπε να αντιμετωπίσει κανένα δίλημμα για την ευτυχία της. Δεν έπρεπε να είναι αναγκασμένη να διαλέξει ανάμεσα σε όσα δικαιωματικά της ανήκαν και στον έρωτα της ζωής της. Ήταν άδικο. Η Ελισάβετ κατάλαβε το λάθος της αλλά ήταν αργά.

Why didn't she marry him and renounce her titles? I am sure her sister would have still have supported her financially.

Exactly. I was never a fan of Elizabeth due to her hypocrisy and inability to be human. She ruined her sister truly. And she ruined Diana.

@@nylotusIn what way did she ruin Diana?

I think she voted have married him but it was the queen mother who was against it and gad hom transferrred to Brussels

​@@nylotusCharles scandal it's her karma

​@@F1fan4eva She knew her son was in love with another woman but instead forced him to marry a 'blue blood' from the House of Stuart, Scotland's ruling family before the British took over

It's hard to eat sausages after eating caviar your whole life

Hardly a housewife. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

He gave what women are expected to give without complain.

He gave his titles but gains new ones to. This is not possible for Margaret.

Yet she bent the rules for Camilla the tramp. Such hypocrisy.

Philip was strongly opposed by the King and Queen and by the courtiers. The Queen strongly distrusted Lord Mountbattan as a schemer

He had no name. No country. He had three suits and no visible means of support. He got lucky.

Doing that must be harder than it looks, because Prince William of Gloucester didn't manage it either.

Well that's easier said than done. First of all, the main problem wasn't keeping the titles. Under the royal marriages act 1772, it was legally impossible for her to marry without the Queen's consent before she turned 25. Any marriage would've been null and void. There were later some discussions about making an exception if Margaret renounced her claim to the throne, but even that would've been complicated since it would've been a change in the line of succession as well as an exception from the law of the land (as the royal marriages act 1772 had no provisions for what would happen if a royal descendant renounced their claim to the throne) and for both the approval of parliament as well as the parliaments of the other dominions and commonwealth realms was necessary. Margaret couldn't have been certain, that they would get that approval, so she might've renounced her claim and still have been unable to marry Peter. It was way easier to just wait two more years when Margaret was 25 and allowed to marry without royal consent and having to renounce her rights.

@@shimanopetermann9068 thus she stayed sad the rest of her life knowing Peter was always her true love

@@elijahbee34 Was he, though? It took only two years of waiting to kill that relationship.

Knowing her character--and I'm not judging her--I doubt the marriage would have lasted.@@elijahbee34

I noticed that.

Simple, Charles, despite being an adulterer, is male and the heir. Margaret was female and simply a relict.

But Margaret wasn't prepared to give up being a royal for Peter. She made her choice.

Me too. Elizabeth and the rest of the family would be dead to me after this.

I guess she learned from her mistakes

@@NATALIA4176 not really, it’s basic favouritism.

@@jamiete-whau595 Favouritism? Lmao. She didn't reject Margaret's marriage. She had no choice because the Church would have gone to war with the Crown over it. By the time Anne remarried, divorce was much more accepted even by the Church. It was not the same context whatsoever.

As the head of the Church of England she can’t preach about divorce person’s being able to remarry and turn a blind eye when her daughter does it. It’s hypocritical.

@@jamiete-whau595 She wanted to allow Margaret's marriage. She couldn't because the Church would have gone to war over it.

I agree, considering that Margaret was given everything she needed in life (she never had to worry for food, shelter, or even clothes), it's hard to feel sorry for her just because she couldn't marry who she wanted. So while it is sad, I don't feel sorry for her either.

She grew up like this. She cant refuse all this easily and also Love won't feed you so her decision is relatable

I wish she would've chose him. Clearly others in the family have left for love and are still together. I think she would've been much better off with whatever funds she had. She was also adored by the public. She could've gone on to do great things instead of the tragic life she lived.

She would have lost her family too.

Granted her was probably over money but I know people who left the love of their life because they had to choose between being with him or seeing their family because their family would never except him. Though this person was not getting fame or money out of it.

Harry was given 17 million and still wasn't enough

@@ninab.4540 Harry is a better person than you are.

There is no such thing as karma

@@ironcross6719yes it is

I wouldn't say Karma is the right word here. That implies that Elizabeth had refused to consent to the marriage out of malice, when in reality, she had no choice. Elizabeth was in favour of the marriage, but her government and the church were strictly against it, and she couldn't just ignore that as a constitutional monarch and head of the church.

​@@ironcross6719its is

​@@shimanopetermann9068she had the same Choice as she was able to have when she was able to change everything for her little baby boy to get everything he wanted. She's a terrible hypocrite, especially with how they covered up for Prince Harry's crap and now that he's out everyone can see who he really is.

Μην είσαι τόσο σίγουρος για αυτό. Ο πατέρας της την λάτρευε και σίγουρα θα έκανε τα πάντα για να την δει ευτυχισμένη. Είχε πείρα και θα διαχειριζόταν την κατάσταση έτσι ώστε η λατρεμένη του κόρη να μπορούσε να ακολουθήσει το δρόμο της καρδιάς της χωρίς περιττά διλήμματα και απαγορεύσεις.

Yeah....George VI had his own bs

Maybe not! George VI had called Margaret his 'joy'! I think he may have been willing to defy his ministers and even his Queen Consort so his younger daughter could have had a chance for happiness! FWIW, her last words evidently were 'Dear Papa' some 50 years after his own death!

@@wardarcade7452 OK!

I doubt it. George wasn’t like that and wanted his daughters to be happy. If he could have done that then Phillip wouldn’t have had a shoot at Elizabeth

it'd be tempting to stay single, have a string of babies and name them after ped0phile mountbatten, the archbishop of Canterbury, (Geoffrey Fisher) and the politicos like "Cecil" who vetoed the marriage- all with the surname "Saxe Coburg Gotha"

She didn't bent the rules to anyone, times changed, and a lot of issues presented in Margaret's intended marriage weren't present later. In 1955, there were threats of Cabinet ministers resigning for disagreeing with purported marriage, in 1992 when 3 royal marriages broke down or in 2005 with the marriage of Their present Majesties no issue like that aroused. People seem to forget that the world has changed beyond recognition since the 1950s. The Royal Family changed itself, too.

@@marlonmaciel3007 The rules didn't change. She changed the rules and she could've back then. She chose not to. And when did times change to accept the mistress as a queen. Get real.

@@nylotus have you read anything I've written above? 1955 wasn't 2005.

@nylotus furthermore, you seem to forget that there were other women who were mistresses and yet became Queen like Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, and Catherine Parr, 4 centuries ago.

@@marlonmaciel3007hypocrisy through and through. Times have not changed. You’ve just convinced yourself of that. People who look like you still would not be welcomed in that family

I know that why it became a thing in the first place.

Well, I think this is because Peter was already divorced at that point. So granting him an annulment after the fact would not have been possible. Plus he had been married for years, had consummated his marriage and even produced children from it, so annulment at that point would be extremely hypocritical and he wouldn’t have grounds for it. The Queen would never have done something that would make her seem like she was abusing her power. Henry VIII got away with a lot during his time, more so than he would’ve during the current time period. Elizabeth II was not Henry VIII, they’re on opposite sides of the spectrum as far as monarchs go.

@@Vashtibucket I appreciate your non-toxic reply. My comment was meant to poke fun at the hypocrisy of this whole "Defender of the Faith" non-sense. Especially as three out four of Elizabeth's children are divorced, Anne multiple times. But certainly the times have changed. Henry was a murderous tyrant, Elizabeth just a constitutional institution.

can't annul a marriage with kids unless he was forced into it or it was incestuous or something else illegal. When Henry was kind the position was more like a dictator. But in the 20th century they had way less power.

That's your opinion.

@@usualsuspects42but if one is not an inner member of the royal household then then you cannot be sure of your assertions.

In real life....probably yes. But in the tv show...absolutely not! He broke her heart with his cheating...multiple times.

​@@usualsuspects42me pregunto si realmente vimos el mismo show, durante toda la primera temporada se ha estado comportando como un absoluto idiota, ¿O acaso no recuerdas cuando se burlo del padre de ella diciendo que el señor hubiera preferido tener cáncer a que cumplir con sus labores? Como se burlo de ella diciéndole que tal vez si seguía haciendo sus deberes con suerte esperaría a que su padre volviera y le dijera la prefiere a ella antes que a Margarita o todas esas veces que se iba a un bar y volvía a altas horas de la noche actuando como un inepto, llamaba circo a toda la monarquía pero se beneficiaba de ese circo viviendo allí cuál parásito porque cada que abría la boca destilaba veneno, Felipe nunca ha sido un buen esposo ni compañero con Elizabeth, tiene suerte ella lo amara tanto a pesar de ser un completo idiota.

@@crystal-fz6oq I did not make my comment based on the show. I do not know how historically accurate The Crown was in its depiction of Philip and of the marriage. I made my comment based on how things seemed historically, and of course we may not have known all the things that went on. Historically, it appeared that he supported Elizabeth and didn't make trouble for her and he liked her as much as she liked him.

It was her choice to stay.

Probably because it's a TV show and not how it actually happened in real life.

Well… Margaret was given the option to marry Peter , the only catch was she would lose her titles and not receive as many privileges that she usually would as a princess and a lower amount of allowance, Margaret was the one that gave it up as she did not want to lose those benefits

​@Insaiyanman The amount of people who don't realise this is not a documentary is staggering.

May I suggest that you not accept at face value what is presented in The Crown. Yes Elizabeth did fact promise Margaret that she be permitted to marry Townsend. However around the time Margaret turned 25 the PM, the senior Cabinet ministers and most importantly the Archbishop of Canterbury presented the Queen with their legal and religious advice. I understand that Margaret was advised she could marry Peter but she would have to give up her HRH status and the Civil List salary as she would no longer be performing Royal duties. She apparently did receive some inheritance from her father King George VI. I also think her mother was also against the marriage. Would she have been happier with Peter, probably yes, but we will never know.

Yeah but Margaret put her sister in an absolute terrible position. There were MILLIONS of men to choose from but she chose him and she had to know it would cause serious problems. Be careful who you fall in love with people!

Maybe. But they were sisters through and through.

I think both were a bit jealous of eachother. Margaret was more spunky and lively and promiscuous because she could, it's not fit for a Queen to act that way so Elisabeth smothered that side of her, if she ever had it. Maybe Elisabeth wanted a bit of Margaret's freedom and effortless charm, but for sure Margaret wanted to be Queen and thought of herself as better suited (she wasn't). Like, seriously, can you imagine her as Queen of England? The Institution means something, Monarchy must symbolise tradition, dignity, duty and conformity, and must uphold and protect the values and tenets of Christianity, including those that don't recognise divorce, and the laws (Royal Marriages Act 1772 ). And Peter Townsend was a divorcee. And at that time divorce wasn't as common or acceptable as today to warrant a change of law. BUUUT Margaret inherited money from her dead father (the King) plus "The Civil List Act 1952 provided that she should receive, on her marriage, a further sum of £9,000 a year in addition to the £6,000 a year which she has already. It also makes clear that it had been decided that the wedding would take place in a register office in London" She could also keep the HRH. All that with Peter Townsend. £15 000/year (about $191,960 today) was more than enough for a princess used to luxury. But, surprise, surprise, Margaret wanted a slightly more lavish lifestyle with servants and royal engagements and access to the most beautiful jewels so she let Peter go. How in love could she have been??????? The Crown is making it to be the tragic love story that never was.

That is called evolution

Times change

@@ninab.4540 And not for the better.

What if Charles forced his mother's hand? Remember, Prince Andrew is in a lot of trouble but he was being protected by his mother being the Queen. Once she died, it left Andrew's fate entirely in Charles' hand... What if she had no choice but to approve Camilla being Queen in order to protect Andrew?

And King C never married in the Church of England the second time which is a requirement as king. Parliament has no backbone. They should demand DNA tests for H & M's kids. If they do not share both parents DNA then strip the Harkled all 4 if the kids exist, of their titles.

Cheater Charlie and Strumpet CowMilla.

What a sad situation that is.

Happy, alive and in love

Yep. Trash.

Cheater Charlie and Strumpet CowMilla.

Margaret could have married Peter. The real price she had to pay was her place in line to the throne. She was already only third in line and destined to slip back further while Elizabeth was still fertile so the choice was really on her. She said in an interview that she didn't feel committed enough. But in the 50s, the church and society's values dictated that the nuclear family was the only option. Plus, this was still within the lifetime of the abdication. Any more upsets could jeopordise their position. Aand also, with only two very young heirs in front of her, the legitimacy of her consort or her children could not be up for debate. Charles married decades later, when values and even the church has changed, after having to spend ten years in an arranged marriage to a woman completely unsuited to him, and who wasn't exactly faithful either, having been denied the marriage he wanted. He was also technically a widow. There are also loads of legitimate adult and child heirs and Camilla and Charles aren't going to have kids while on the throne.

" But what ? "

Elizabeth had no choice. Her position as queen forced her to feel that way.