The only forbidden thing about it was the fact that Peter Townsend had been divorced from his wife.

I dont understand why she didn't choose to marry him?Yes, she would lose her Royal title and the privileges that it comes with, but she would still live in comfortable and luxurious life, and she had her sister support,but we will never comprehend her decision.

@@gabrielamayorga-kintanar6729he was also about 20 years older than her. It’s a little creepy.

@@shadowing_song Because the price was not woth the prize for her. She saw what happaned to King Edward when he did the same choice. Yes , she was not queen but she was a Royal princes. She had a life a privilege that she had to throw away for him and she chose not to.

@@kerriethompson2073 Just look back through the history of the British Monarchy - age doesn't mean anything. If the King/Queen wants someone, they will have them, regardless of how many years difference... Many were also forced into arranged marriages through their families at a very young age. In some cases, the betrothed couple had more than 20 yrs difference in age.

No. Romance usually Fades. Royalty is FOREVER.

​@@user-kf8wb2cq4f royalry puts you in prison. Love sets you free

It also happened to their ancestors. It's in no way a modern thing.

She wasn't denied. But she did not want to be mrs Townsend. She could have married him in city hall.

Firstly, the music and whistling should not compete with the scene. Secondly, Margaret's decision to not marry Peter Townsend shows her real character. I liked Princess Margaret throughout The Crown so I was hoping that she would have been her usually impulsive self and say good bye to her title and castles and pampering lifestyle. Maybe, Townsend could have taken her out of her confinements and Margaret could have adjusted to his world. The thought of Townsend dealing with the constant turmoil and intrusion of the media would have probably been just a daily circus for him. Poor guy. Townsend had to get on with his life and he met someone else. Margaret's ego was bruised and that's why Margaret was very quick to announce her engagement first!! And for revenge and don't upstage ME and I am dumping YOU! Her marriage to Anthony Armstrong Jones was an unbelievable disaster because of his lifestyle and choices but I don't want to get into all of that. Thirdly, it's sad, how this turned out but again Margaret couldn't let go of her royal life - who could?

@@JoanMorrison-vq2jcShe seems to have raised her kids right tho. Her kids & grandkids have led uncontroversial lives, especially compared to the constant drama Elizabeth's line keep drumming up.

​​​​@@umitencho Yes, a good point about Margaret's children and I think her son and daughter wanted to be just "normal folks". They weren't drawn to the spotlight. David and Sara were both very sensible and bright individuals.

He got sent away behind her back and she wasn’t allowed to marry a divorcee. Shame on you.

@@hazeleverett1064 Yep, Peter Townsend was '" sent away" by the royals and just plain old kicked out! I honestly didn't see "The Crown" - except in bits and pieces but I think Townsend wasn't the type of man who would just shut up and take the Royal Family's abuse about having Margaret for his SECOND wife. And then there is Princess Margaret Rose herself who wasn't about to bend to the commoner's way of life. All this does factor in. Not feeling any shame here.

I saw that scene on here lol

@@LaDiaF am asking for complete scene .from queenphillip convo in horse Farm , car fight and ending convo queen asking can u honestly look me in the eye and say the same . I have just watched only once want to watch again that's why am asking here .

Uh, it’s not really the same thing. He LEFT the family because he wanted too. She didn’t WANT to leave her family but was threatened with being completely cut off if she married him. AND he got to marry a divorced woman- if she had been able to marry Peter, which they didn’t allow because he was divorced, and stay in the family, she WOULD have. Harry didn’t HAVE to choose between his family and her. He was able to have both. He just fcked his family over instead…for no reason really other than his wives manipulation. AND by the way, for ALL his talk about her terrible and horrible and racist they are, he sure has no problem taking their money and using his title and calling his children by their titles - even though they actually DONT have any because he left the royal family. He can’t have it both ways. He can’t say they’re these and that and he wants no part of it and doesn’t want to be a Prince anymore AND take their money, use their privileges and use his title when it’s to his advantage. Either you’re in or you’re out. You don’t get it both ways.

​​​​@@bradenharris8718 Good points here. After Charles and Diana divorced, Diana went to Prime Minister Tony Blair and asked him to ask the queen if she could have her old charities back. The queen said no and she said "Diana is learning now that you are either in or you are out. You cannot have it both ways". Queen Elizabeth was right of course and I also think that the royal family viewed Diana as a whiner. They didn't trust Diana especially after that Andrew Morton book and all her extra marital affairs. Now, Harry wants to be half in and half out and Harry states so often that he is just like his mother. Harry AND his brother William want to ride on their mother's coattails ( or apron string ). Diana probably wanted her old charities back because she missed the applause and attention. Diana, may have felt unfulfilled and restless after the divorce whereas Charles probably felt relief knowing that Camilla and him would be officially together someday....

Harrys wife controls him

@@JoanMorrison-vq2jc No, Diana would still have had attention wherever she went.