This message has been deleted.

Who cast the very tall Lithgow to play the short Churchill?

This comment was typed in front of a live studio audience.

I don't think I've seen him in anything else and I'm pretty impressed with him in this. For the first time I'm finding Philip likable, despite how under his wife's thumb he was. I also think he's handsome enough, and his delivery of the one liners is great.

I like the casting. I find Matt Smith attractive enough and I think he does a great job portraying Phillip.
Doctor Who didn't spring to my mind during watching, which I attribute to Matt's nuanced acting and the fact that I've never been too fond of 11th Doctor (10th is my favorite.)
"It's only 56 months till I retire, then I get outta this shthole for good" - Steve Billings

I find it amusing that Matt Smith was cast as Phillip because I can't stand either one of them.

The whole thing gets 1/10
better than GOT.you are nuts.
If I knew what I was doing,it would not be called research.

Thanks, Delta. It's really rewarding to have someone get what I'm saying and agree. Have you seen Doctor Foster? That's a good one. Also, Scott & Bailey.

The way Matt Smith plays him he's more like a bratty child
The way he looks up at her from under those deep-set eyes is absurd
lol! But yes, I agree he's not a good cast for this. When I saw him on the trailer, I thought I might not like the show because of him. I'm glad I decided to watch because it's turned out to be one of the best shows on tv, at the moment (imho). (I still don't like him though).

tbh, this is the only thing stopping me from watching this show! I've noticed British TV shows often don't have a good choice of actors..dunno if it's a matter of choice or some convention they adhere to! Matt Smith is hardwired in my brain as The Doctor and it's very hard to get out of such a character..
Also,I'm sure Prince Philip was just a human and not perfect physically or anyhow as people want him to be here but still, they should've chosen a fresh face for such a historical show that could match the persona of Philip

I thought Matt Smith was an interesting choice to play Phillip.
If it's all the same to you, I'll have that drink now.-Loki (Marvel's Avengers)

Having never seen Matt Smith before, I think he's is terrifically cast and acting the part very well. See the cast's interview on Charlie Rose where Lithgow compliments him several times for his great performance. He is not as handsome as Prince Philip, but it doesn't matter. He is very charming in the role and totally believable that Elizabeth would fall for him. They do have great chemistry together. This is an exceptionally well cast show and Matt Smith is part of that.

If Prince Philip was so handsome, how did he father a child like Prince Charles who sort of looks like an unattractive troll? Is he really the father? I'd like to see that episode of Maury. ahaha
You truly think that? I keep getting them mixed up in photographs.
Dad may have looked okay in his twenties, but he and his son look like twins now.
Elizabeth has a round face, and her husband and son both have much longer, horsier faces.

What about his ears?

Charles clearly takes after his mother facially, the only physical thing he got from Phillip is his height.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit?

Nigel Tufnel

I think he's doing a wonderful job. I find him quite handsome and I'm not reminded of the Doctor at all, which goes towards his acting ability, and the suburb writing of the show.

I was looking at recent-ish photos of the four children, along with old pictures of Prince Philip and had a similar thought as you. While I don't see any of Philip in poor Charles, the youngest, Edward, is even more unfortunate looking. Andrew got the best of the gene pool; he is a nice-looking man.

If Prince Philip was so handsome, how did he father a child like Prince Charles who sort of looks like an unattractive troll? Is he really the father? I'd like to see that episode of Maury. ahaha

Yes, I agree that's something else that's missing. There isn't the chemistry between the two, that I believe should be there. Let's face it, the real couple have been together through thick and thin. It may not have always been plain sailing and easy, but you don't last that long without the chemistry.
What other choice do they have? You think they would have had a divorce even if they didn't have "chemistry", whatever the hell that rom com notion is?
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

Indeed they did, but who is the REAL father?

It was! But separate bedrooms certainly doesn't mean no sex - they did have 4 kids after all!
To you, Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

"No sex, please, we're British." Wasn't that the name of a farce on the London theatre circuit some years ago?

All the upper classes and aristocracy have separate bedrooms. it says nothing about their relationship. The characters have wonderful chemistry and are clearly in love, despite the conflict between them
To you, Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

Most people of their class and generation have/had separate bedrooms. But they actually prefer to sleep together unless there is a reason not to. The Fagan incident was a good example of this - Philip's schedule for that day meant he had to be up at dawn that morning so he slept in his own room so as not to wake his wife early.
BTW, many couples do habitually sleep separately which often has more to do with getting good rest than the state of their intimacy. My husband snores while I have chronic insomnia and cannot wear earplugs. We spend each evening together in our bed, then when it is lights out time one of us moves to the guest room so we both can sleep well.

There probably was chemistry at the beginning. But that turned into 'duty', divorce being out of the question. They had separate bedrooms even before the 1982 Michael Fagan incident.