sethgrayson

[sethgrayson]

OH MY GOD. it is so heartbreaking to watch early HoC and see all this really good character writing and know what it will become.

major chapter 11 spoilers I’m going to go insane over one scene

THE FACT ITS FRANK DRINKING THAT CAUSES HIM TO START GETTING VULNERABLE. THE LITERAL THING THAT HIS FATHER DID.

EVEN THE WAY HE LOOKS AT THE BOTTLE WHEN HE FIRST NOTICES IT. HE HAS THAT QUIET CONTEMPLATION. HE REALISES.

You know, when Claire and I were first married, we talked about having children. I told her flat out I didn’t want any. It was selfish but honest. I didn’t have a particularly happy childhood. I suspect you didn’t either. You see, no person avoids pain. And I just didn’t think it was right to bring a child in knowing that. But now when I think back, I… I realise that was cowardly. I see you, and I think, well, there’s a brave man, far braver than me.

i always come back to this one piece of dialogue but it speaks absolute volumes about Frank. he’s so terrified of emulating his father, he doesn’t want to emulate his abuse but he’s stuck in the cycle regardless. he emulates his father and he realises that. he doesn’t want to, hell, he refused to have children to prevent it, but he’s still there. he’s always his father’s son.

Frank: Just relax. You’re home now. Whatever it is you have to face tomorrow, you don’t have to face it now. Right now, it’s just you and me. The rest of the world doesn’t matter. Your children, Christina, they will forgive you, because you’re loved, Peter. Russo: Failed. I failed myself. I failed my family. I failed the campaign. Frank: No you haven’t, Peter.

THIS ENTIRE SCENE IS JUST HIM CONSOLING HIMSELF AS MUCH AS ITS HIM CONSOLING RUSSO. IT’S HIM TALKING TO HIS YOUNGER SELF. IT’S HIM EMULATING HIS FATHER BUT INSTEAD CHANGING IT TO BE HIM OFFERING MERCY. HIS “DEATH” AS A CHILD WAS CRUEL, IN TURN HIM KILLING RUSSO IS A MERCY KILLING. IT DRIVES ME INSANE SO BADLY

[sethgrayson]

Oh.

[sethgrayson]

Something else. The Underwoods and their accents

Both are Southern, but while Frank’s accent is very obvious, Claire’s is very masked. I mean I’m not American, I can’t pick up on American accents well, but linguistically she does not have any Southern traits when she speaks, no pronunciation or dialect.

And this isn’t just her being posh, in the S6 flashbacks her parents have clearly Southern accents. In the scene where Frank and Claire find their first TV interview, Claire’s voice in the recording is very much with a Southern accent

This is very much a case of her adapting her accent as she gets older and more involved in her career, until she sounds completely different

Frank, on the other hand, remains the same. He doesn’t hide his accent, he openly keeps it. Yet what’s peculiar is that this accent isn’t his natural accent as well - S4 implies that his accent growing up was actually thicker but he hides that to a more simpler accent that we know in the entire show

Why? Well given the hints we have about his accent as a young man and his relationship with class and status, he most likely tried to make it simpler and more understandable to fit in with other politicians. Having such a thick accent would have made him seem unserious, unkempt, a laughingstock, yet keeping the accent regardless to point out “this is where I’m from, and I’m proud I’m a self made man”

[sethgrayson]

House of Cards theory — What was the first letter?

In the Season 2 finale, Frank writes to President Walker using a typewriter given to him by his father when he was seventeen. A small detail is what he says when he begins writing.

I’ve only written one other letter with these keys. It did not fail me then. I hope it will not fail me now.

So what was the first letter?

First let’s try to understand what Frank might have used this typewriter for. This is clearly an important typewriter to Frank, and it reflects in the fact he has only in his life written two letters with it, so it can be summarised down to important issues.

We can further supplement this with what Frank says Calvin said to him when he was given the typewriter.

This Underwood built an empire. Now you go and build one of your own.

We can furthermore tell that Frank was in a similar situation to the Season 2 finale when he would have written that letter. In Season 2, Frank is desperate to prevent himself from clawing down, he is in a corner and he is trying to escape it.

Parts of the letter also seep in to a universal theme of Frank, his fight for belonging.

The power. The prestige. Those things have a strong pull on someone like me, who came from a small South Carolina town with nothing.

Yet what could he have written with this first letter? What other event would have prevented Frank from achieving his ambitions and falling back to where he started?

I would like to propose my theory - the first letter Frank wrote with the typewriter was his personal statement to Harvard.

Okay now that might sound a little farfetched. Of course, Frank was a poor boy. Why not a request for a scholarship?

I would like to remind everyone that Frank almost got expelled from the Sentinel because of bad grades, because he spent his time helping with a Senate campaign. Of course he would have needed good grades, but he also had experience, he had the extra credit.

So it would make sense why he would try his best to write a letter using this “special” typewriter to try and get him in. If he didn’t get into Harvard, he probably wouldn’t have even become a politician. He certainly wouldn’t have met Claire, he wouldn’t have had her father’s money to fund his first State Senate campaign.

If Frank Underwood didn’t get into Harvard, there would have been no Frank Underwood to begin with.

[sethgrayson]

Calvin Underwood - The Invisible Antagonist of House of Cards

He would’ve been better off in the grave, and we would have been better off without him.

In House of Cards there is one character that affects the plot in ways you and I can hardly understand. One character who has been dead for 40 years and yet has an effect on everything that happens, even from the very first season.

A humble farmer, an abusive alcoholic, a man of many contradictions. Ladies and gentlemen and those of us who know better, allow me to introduce you to Calvin T. Underwood.

Spoilers up to Season 4.

Calvin Underwood is first mentioned in Season 1 Episode 3, when Frank mentions his death at a church service, lamenting that his father died so young (when he was 43 due to a heart attack to be precise) and that he had hated God for doing such a thing.

This is, of course, only to turn around to the audience and admit he was lying.

Truth be told I never really knew him, or what his dreams were. He was quiet, timid, almost invisible. My mother didn't think much of him. My mother's mother hated him. The man never scratched the surface of life. Maybe it's best he died so young, he wasn't doing much but taking up space. But that doesn't make for a very powerful eulogy, now does it?

Two things specifically to keep in mind when reading further:

1. Frank refers to his father as a quiet, timid man. We will learn later this is not in fact entirely the case but we will also learn that maybe Frank is telling the truth in his own way.

2. A reoccurring thing you will notice if you saw the quote back at the top of this post. Frank admits quite openly that he was happy his father was dead. Why? Well wait and see.

In Season 1 Episode 11 Frank mentions how he didn’t want to have children.

You know, when Claire and I were first married, we talked about having children. I told her flat out I didn’t want any. It was selfish but honest. I didn’t have a particularly happy childhood. I suspect you didn’t either. You see, no person avoids pain. And I just didn’t think it was right to bring in a child knowing that. But now when I think back, I… realise that was cowardly.

The cycle of abuse. Frank is explicitly terrified of falling into it, and he says as much here. Though he mentions his cowardice at not wanting to have children. Why would that be? Is that his background catching up to him, the expectations that someone as high flying as him should have children?

The next time Calvin is explicitly mentioned is during Season 1 Episode 12. In fact he is the very person that Frank learnt his signature knocking from.

Frank: Something my father taught me. It's meant to harden your knuckles so you don't break them if you get into a fight. It also has the added benefit of knocking on wood. My father believed that success is a mixture of preparation and luck. Tapping the table kills both birds with one stone. Tusk: Your father was a peach farmer? Frank: Yes, he was. Not a very successful one. Tusk: Lack of preparation or lack of luck? Frank: Lack of both. He was better at giving advice than following it.

This is a pretty sly dig from Frank’s part - and it is a trait of Calvin that we see as the show progresses and we learn more about him. While he seems to have been mostly ignorant in practice, these things really do shape who Frank will become.

Then we move on to Season 2’s finale. Oh boy. Where do I begin. Season 2’s finale is the first ever actual indicator of Calvin’s abuse of Frank, and Frank goes all out on telling us that this was not in fact simple one-offs.

But first things first, Frank’s typewriter. Frank mentions that the typewriter he owns was given to him by Calvin when he was 17, and that he should build an empire of his own. First of all, these are insanely prophetic words. Frank does in fact go on to build an empire of his own in his path to becoming president. I don’t doubt that it was Calvin’s influence for better or worse that led Frank down the path he did. Though second, this tells us something about Calvin - he wanted Frank to succeed in life. Another part of his strange nature.

But then of course we get to the bombshell - what Frank actually writes in the letter itself speaks volumes about Calvin as a person.

When I was 13 I walked in on my father in the barn. There was a shotgun on his mouth. He waved me over. “Come here, Francis,” he said. “Pull the trigger for me.” Because he didn’t have the courage to do it himself. I said “No, Pop,” and walked out, knowing he would never find that courage. The next seven years were hell for my father, but even more hell for my mother and me. He made all of us miserable, drinking, despair, violence. My only regret in life, is that I didn’t pull that trigger. He would’ve been better off in the grave and we would have been better off without him.

This confirms that the personality of Calvin changed dramatically through Frank’s childhood. Specifically, this attempted suicide changed him so dramatically that he took out his frustrations about himself on his family. I should say though that Frank never, ever specifies what abuse he was put through, just that he specifies it as worse than hell and never expands on it more than that other than he got violent when he was drunk. Calvin’s drinking is clearly as a result of his feelings towards what happened in the barn that day.

This is where Calvin’s two sides of his personality comes out and his contradictory nature is revealed - the timid quiet Calvin Frank describes to the audience at the church is most likely what he was like when he was sober. This is the Calvin who has good ideas he never follows, is rather clumsy and empty, having no real reason to be liked by people. He’s barely anything.

Calvin when drunk is the monster, he’s the being from hell. It seems as if Calvin started drinking after his attempted suicide, and as I said it was to take his frustrations out on his wife and Frank. The reason Calvin attempted to kill himself in the first place will become more obvious as this goes on.

Now again we don’t know precisely what Calvin did to his wife and Frank. I personally have the theory that severe sexual abuse was involved, you can see the link to that analysis at the end of this one. But in general it’s clear he was an absolute monster to them both - and that of course would severely affect Frank as he gets older.

Season 3 Episode 1 begins with Frank visiting his father’s grave. He speaks first of all to his father as he lays flowers down.

Hey, Pop. Been a while, hasn’t it? Did you see that motorcade roll up? It’s the first time that the President of the United States has visited Gaffney. Can you believe it?

Of course it’s the first time a President has visited a very small town like Gaffney, that goes without saying, so we know Frank is saying something underlying here - he shouldn’t be doing this right now. He doesn’t want to be here. In fact he’s above this, he shouldn’t be here. Frank says as much when he talks to the audience.

Oh, I wouldn’t be here if I had a choice, but I have to do these sort of things now. It makes me seem more human. And you have to be a little human when you’re the President.

Again it’s time to read in between the lines. Frank isn’t here because he cares about his father, he’s there for the purpose of images. A President can’t ignore his parents, that would be against every belief of them. So Frank is here to play his role, as he always has done. Hasn’t he always played humane when it comes to his parents?

He couldn’t even afford to pay for his own gravestone. I paid for it, out of my own scholarship money from The Sentinel. Nobody showed up for his funeral except me, not even my own mother.

It hammers in how abusive Calvin was to his family but also how perfectly plain he was. He had no friends, no money. Frank sacrificed his own scholarship for the sake of even buying him a grave, the minimum courtesy he could do. But of course as anyone who’s seen this episode knows, that isn’t the end of it. As Frank says:

But I’ll tell you this though, Pop. When they bury me, it won’t be in my backyard. And when they come to pay their respects, they’ll have to wait in line.

Two things from this part. First of all, Frank’s idea of having an empire is cemented in him. Having a legacy is his only desire to hide from his past, something that he was given by Calvin himself. Calvin is responsible for everything that Frank is feeling, everything he believes in. Frank’s desires were cultivated by Calvin.

And Frank is aware of this. He knows he can’t escape this. So he resorts to his next action - he pisses on Calvin’s gravestone. Why? Probably as a way of asserting his new status. At the same time he’s also boasting - “Fuck you, I’m no longer that scared child.”

In Chapter 33, Tom Yates interviews Frank on his family background when they go to Frank’s old family farm, now turned into a quarry. The interview then becomes something Frank tries to avoid.

Tom: Why didn’t your parents have any more kids? Frank: That’s not relevant to what we’re doing. Tom: I’m just trying to get a sense of your family.

This seems like a simple enough question to answer but Frank completely dodges it. Why? Well, that’s the question. On the surface the answer seems reasonable - they were poor and they didn’t have enough mouths to feed as it was. Frank openly admits quite happily he grew up in poverty. So this can’t be the reason. I’m lost for ideas - the only other explanation I can think of at this moment is that Frank’s mother had an abortion but given the stigma of the Bible Belt especially in the 1960s I have to give this a pass.

What’s especially important though is what Frank changes the subject to.

Frank: The barn must have been somewhere right over there. My father used to escape in there to get away from us. Usually brought a bottle with him.

This confirms something - the barn was Calvin’s own hell. It was the place of his suicide attempt and thus it was what became the rest of his life. If our theory is correct and that Calvin’s drinking began after this attempt, this meant that this was where he got drunk and most likely where he abused his family.

“But he escaped to get away from them!” Frank already tells you from the Walker letter that every case of abuse that Calvin did began with drinking. “Get away” is much more metaphorical here. He’s getting away from seeing them as family or as even people in his mind. In a way in his mind they are responsible for his issues - he married young to his wife and Frank was just an extra mouth to feed that it’s implied as a result especially with the fact his wife didn’t even love him that Frank was conceived out of wedlock.

Then Tom drops the bombshell question: Did you love your father?

Frank’s response to this is as follows,

He was a good man down deep. He cared for us greatly. Worked hard to put food on the table. Didn’t always succeed but that wasn’t for a lack of trying.

Frank’s “he was a good man down deep” comment is definitely about Calvin before his alcoholism and pre suicide attempt. He has a complicated relationship with his father but his answers in this are all extremely vague comments. He doesn’t go into detail. Tom picks up on this and suspects Frank of lying and telling him things that he wants Tom to write.

Given the past scenes we all know Frank definitely doesn’t believe the former. But what about Calvin caring for his family? I think it comes hand in hand with his alcoholism - this is a trait that only shows when he’s sober, and is especially prior to his suicide attempt.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you exhibit B: the KKK episode.

Chapter 42 is a pretty infamous episode. In this episode it’s revealed that at one point in Frank’s childhood, the Underwood family farm was threatened with foreclosure. A bank manager was part of the KKK, and in order to get him to save the farm, Calvin went to a meeting and begged the leader of the local chapter.

The timing of this was probably in the middle 1960s to coincide with the rise of civil rights for black people and the abolishment of Jim Crow laws. This would have made Frank still a child at the time, and also coincides with what Calvin was like before the alcoholism.

Now of course Frank kept this photograph. Why? He explains as much to Claire.

It’s the one time I was proud of my father. Because this man, in this moment, as despicable as it was, is fighting to survive. He is doing whatever it took.

He even gets emotional talking about it. Again, there’s the idea that all Frank valued his father for was his ability to survive and protect others. Frank himself tries to live up to these traits as much as he can, he has a very hardwired survival in him.

In conclusion, all things considered, Calvin made Frank. Everything that Frank has done as a politician, his instincts, his values, everything he thinks about in his daily life, his desire to not slip through the cracks, comes from Calvin. He hates his father, he despises his father, in fact maybe he resents him for dragging him into the way he is. He especially resents him for the abuse. But at the same time he wouldn’t have been the way he is if it wasn’t for having such a conflicting figure.

Maybe I’ll just end with a quote from the HoC infographics: No matter how deep you bury the past, it will come back.

Accompanying analysis:

My theory that Calvin sexually abused Frank can be found here.

My general comments on Calvin’s connections to Frank’s religious trauma can be found here.

[sethgrayson]

Get prepared sane people. I’m going to make the word’s most intense analysis on a character who doesn’t even physically appear

[sethgrayson]

Something important about House of Cards (UK) no one seems to understand:

Mattie Storin does not have a daddy kink, she has an Electra complex. And yes I think there is a difference.

Within their relationship, Mattie clearly sees Urquhart as a fatherly figure, and this is present regardless of what version you look at even without them having their affair.

Also this show aired in 1990. Michael Dobbs did not write in the affair, it was not in the original book, it was the work of the showrunners and later changed.

But I think what proves it most in the novel. In the novel, Mattie has unrequited feelings for Urquhart, and this presents itself quite openly when she thinks about him. While they do have an affair in the revised edition, it isn’t entirely the most stable.

She’d done no more than touch the sleeve of this man but had spent the weeks since then fixated with him, lying awake, jumping when the phone rang, hoping it was him. Conjuring up thoughts she should never have about someone who was three years older than her father would have been. No, her dad would never have understood, least of all approved. Mattie didn’t understand it, either.

While this extract shows she does fantasise about Urquhart, it also shows that this is very much not done in a matter of kinkiness. In fact she herself doesn’t even get why she feels this way - rather she feels negatively about it. That… doesn’t sound very positive to me. In fact when she is with him, she seems more excited to just be around him than be sexually with him.

Her feelings for him are also only potentially influenced by the fact that he reminds her of her father. She thinks that she would never have thoughts about someone older than her father - Urquhart is the exception. Why? Because he reminds her of him. Again, the complex.

Some other extracts:

“Can I talk to you frankly, Mr. Urquhart, not even on lobby terms?” “Then you’d better call me Francis.” “I’ll try—Francis. It’s just that…My father was a strong character. Clear blue eyes, clear mind. In some ways you remind me of him.”

“Did you get on with your father, Mattie?” “I loved him,” she said before finally slipping into the night.

TLDR Yes she has feelings for him but she isn’t happy about it

[sethgrayson]

The Psychosexuality of Frank Underwood

Ah yes, Francis Joseph Underwood. The show's main protagonist and yet one of the most bizarrely atypical in terms of sexuality. Promiscuous, open, yet also a mess. What on earth is going on with him? And why is he a more tragic case than you thought?

This analysis talks about homophobia, kinks and incestuous abuse.

Let's start first with attraction. Frank is canonically bisexual. You could argue it can be interpreted as him being pansexual. But what is important to recognise is that Frank is inherently repressed. He grew up in the 60s and 70s in the Bible Belt, and he attended Harvard and became a state senator when Reagan was President. He grew up in a time of hostility to his sexuality.

His male affairs always carry a protective element in some way. Frank behaves sweetly to Tim, his college affair, and though Tim passes it off as just being kids, Frank says he was attracted to him. Even as adults Frank is hit hard by his disappearance to the point it affects one of his asides. Regarding Meechum, Frank wanted him by his side. There’s a scene where he asks Meechum to stay with him when he’s in his room, for no reason other than to simply be there. Meechum in turn is his loyal bodyguard. Eric seems to lack this trait, but he has a genuine care for Frank.

His primary attraction though is always to Claire. And even though there are very few interactions between them that are sexual, they are undoubtedly the first choice of the other and even then the sexual energy of the two is undeniable. Frank’s famous phrase regarding how he loves her “like sharks love blood” is a rather sexually charged metaphor, being ravenous.

Something else to add, though not entirely sexual, is his relationship with physical intimacy, something he doesn’t truly understand. He is completely bewildered when Doug puts his head on his knee and holds onto it for emotional support.

…

Another thing regarding Frank's sexuality is kinks - and I think this is a rather heavy one to discuss. In the original draft of the pilot episode, he demonstrates a daddy kink during an interaction with Claire.

Claire: You’re right. You’re absolutely right. I’m sorry, Francis. He turns to her with a naughty glimmer in his eye. Frank: How sorry are you? She smirks back at him seductively. Claire: (with a little girl voice) I’m very, very sorry, Daddy. Frank: Good. Now give Daddy a kiss. She leans in very close and places her bare teeth on his neck. Slowly presses them into his skin. He winces with pleasure.

This is a very interesting subversion from the original show with the Elektra complex that Mattie Storin has. Of course, in the actual show, Frank is implied to carry this across in the infamous Father's Day scene.

Frank: Aren't you going to wish me a happy Father's Day? Zoe: You don't have children. Frank: Don't I?

And briefly during an aside in season 5.

Meet your new daddy.

In fact, there are sinisterly familial undertones with the relationships that Frank carries - and with that comes uncomfortable and at times incestuous implications. Let me elaborate a little.

Zoe Barnes - The already discussed Father's Day scene. Edward Meechum - Even though Frank clearly has feelings for Meechum, he does engage in familial activities in him before the threesome such as playing catch with him. Eric Rawlings - Eric played Frank’s ancestor in a reenactment, and during a hallucination in Season 4, Frank imagines him standing in a suit. Later on, Eric becomes Frank’s personal trainer and they start an affair which involves choking. It is also implied that Frank only keeps him around as well because he reminds him of Meechum.

It could perhaps be his way of having children he never had and incorporate that into his affairs. He admits as much to Russo that he regrets his decision to not have children - in fact what he actually says is that he worried that it would be cruel of him to bring a child into a world of pain. He doesn't want a child to be part like he was, in his own childhood.

Frank, however, has the recurring theme of fearing becoming his father, similar to what his counterpart Francis has. Frank hates the idea of being like his father, including at times his cruelty.

Using the undertones of all this, one can make the interpretation, however much of a reach, that Frank himself is the victim of incestuous abuse. Yes I know this is a reach, but there are actually some thoughts to back this up.

Frank never goes into detail about the clear abuse he had growing up, he keeps very vague about it, but he does tell Garrett Walker an ambiguous version of how bad it was.

The next seven years were hell for my father, but even more hell for my mother and me. He made all of us miserable, drinking, despair, violence.

Tom Yates also asks Frank if he loved his father, and Frank gives a response that his father was ‘a good man deep down’ who cared for his family. Tom immediately tells he's dodging.

See? That's not an answer. I asked you if you loved your father but you don't tell me.

The idea is there is something underlying, something unnerving. 

Repeatedly, he does also portray the cycle of abuse that the Underwoods hold, as much as he doesn't want to. This is evident in his treatment of Walter Wryson when they were children. But this also manifests sexually if this were the case. Frank states that he sees sex as being about power - that's all it's there for, power, and it makes it even more realistic with the incestuous parallels in his relationships. It's possible if this is the case that he is projecting his own trauma and rationalise it to be like a version of his father that Calvin should have been - albeit still sexually. The idea of a cycle of sexual abuse is also plausible as during a scene, Frank sexually harasses a union official in order to provoke him into punching him. Something in addition is Frank's complete aversion to sexual assault though, it's beneath him and the part he doesn't want to start acting like. He reacts violently to learning about Claire's rapist, and he blackmails a congressman after finding out about how he raped a classmate at university.

There's also the character of Bill Shepherd from Season 6. "Wait… what does Bill Shepherd have to do with all of this?" The theme of incest comes up with him again, when his sister tells Claire, “You know, I slept with him once” referring to Frank. Claire responds, “Your brother?” The reason this is so important is because Bill Shepherd wasn't suppose to exist. The only reason Bill Shepherd exists is to fill in the hole created by the absence of Kevin Spacey after he was sacked from the show, and most of Bill's role in the sixth season is strongly speculated to be what Frank's would have been if the scandal had never occurred.

…

So where does that lead us precisely with Frank? Why is his sexuality so complex? And where does it lead to understanding his sexual attitudes even more?

It leads in fact to a very similar situation that his counterpart Francis Urquhart has in the original. Urquhart in the original is very sexually insecure, for reasons that as a child he used to sleep in his mother's bed when terrified, but she also looked at him disapprovingly - he was second born and second best, and she had never gotten over the death of his elder brother Alastair. Because of this, Francis associated beds with inadequacy, and ever since was unable to have sex in a bed. Interestingly enough, Frank never has sex on a bed as well. Well, kind of.

Frank has on-screen or implied sex with a known place four times in the show. Out of those four times, two were against a wall (being a scene with Zoe and his choking scene with Eric), one was on the floor (the rape scene with Claire) and one was on a bed with Zoe. This scene, it should be noted however, was the Father's Day scene, it was oral sex and he was giving, and he was not the one that made the first move. Out of all these scenes, Frank was dominant three out of four times (the exception being, of course, the Claire scene). The idea of sex being about power is a central part of his character.

…

In conclusion: Frank’s relationship with his own sexuality is unorthodox and abnormal, and it warrants a better examination. I’m not an expert on this subject, I’ve just done the best I could to examine information with my limited knowledge. But this was an interesting exploration to dig into. And I hope it made you think a bit too.

[sethgrayson]

The Relationship Between Brothers - A Look at the Collingridge Brothers

While Francis Urquhart is the protagonist of the story, his two unspoken victims Charles and Henry Collingridge are not to be glossed over. Rather, they are characters with an impacting bond, more so than most in the franchise. So, I'd like you to hear me out as I explain the bond between Hal and Charlie.

Henry

When Francis describes Henry’s state after resigning in episode 3 of the show, he describes him as someone who shouldn't be pitied.

Not feeling guilty, I hope? If you have pangs of pity, crush them now. Grind them under your heel like old cigar butts. I’ve done the country a favour. He didn’t have the brain or the heart or the stomach to rule a country like Great Britain. A nice enough man, but there was no bottom to him. His deepest need was that people should like him. An admirable trait that, in a spaniel or a whore. Not, I think, in a Prime Minister, hm? And we've done him a favour too, if he did but know it. He was in the trap and screaming from the moment he took office. We simply put the poor bastard out of his agony. After life's fitful fever, he sleeps well.

It should also be noted that when saying these lines, Francis is relieving himself in the bathroom and washing his hands. This is part of his entire demeanour, he doesn’t see Henry as someone worth respecting. It's best, in his eyes, to talk about him in a place where he feels he belongs.

Henry himself is seen in this role as the nice, pleasant figure, the moderate in the party. He has been in power for two years as opposed to the under ten months of the show. His political style, however, is dislikable. He is seen as too moderate, too carefree. He was elected because he was good on television, but his public speaking isn't glamorous.

“It’s rice pudding politics and there’s no energy or enthusiasm left. He’s campaigned with as much vigor as a Sunday school teacher. Another seven days of listening to him mouthing platitudes and I think even his wife would have voted for the other lot. Anything for a change.”

Henry's pleasant persona seems to be a facade, especially later in the story when he is driven more and more to depression by the events unfolding around him. The first sign of this happening is during the election, where Teddy makes a quiet apology, leaving Henry wondering why he’s apologising.

Sorry for what? The fact that my brother’s a drunk? Sorry that I’ve almost thrown away this election, put so many of our colleagues to the sword, done more damage than Goering? Sorry that you’ll have to wade through the sewage that’s about to hit us along with me? But anyway, thanks for caring, old friend.

In private when he's upset, he turns mad and frustrated. In public he's forced to put on his charming persona as required of him, something that greatly unsettles him.

He smiled broadly. It's what you had to do.

In fact, the state of Henry in private when unsettled is completely different. He is described as a “wild Warwickshire ferret” in regards to his attitude, becoming erratic. While this isn't seemingly his true personality, it's testament to the mental decline he has faced in the past years. His lack of happiness has shrouded him and tormented his very self.

Charles

Charles is the older of the two, though he is never in a good state. When he first appears in the book, he's described as such.

Collingridge was in his midfifties, looked older, worn, and hadn’t had a particularly glorious military career, two years of national service that had left him with little more than a sense of his own inadequacy in the order of life. Charlie had always tried to do the decent thing but he was accident prone. It happens when you have a drinking habit.

Off the bat, Charlie's alcoholism is revealed to the audience. His first ever action in the book is to go to the pub. Despite this, he is not made out to be a bad person. While his alcoholism is a flaw, he is told to be a “genial drunk” and all around a good person.

A note I should add is that in the show one scene depicts a newspaper snapping a photo of Charlie drunk leaning over a woman's breasts. This is expanded upon in the novel to reveal that a reporter had tried to get him drunk on purpose hoping to get something out of him, leading to him passing out, and then said reporter paid a girl to lean over him.

The Two

While Charlie is contrasted with his brother, he does not hate “Hal”. In fact, he adores him.

The book itself states that the two are the sons of a manufacturer of bath fittings, with it being the family business. The first time their background is mentioned, Charlie thinks about their father, “reproachable as ever”. Henry was clearly the favourite child for the fact he was more talented, and it seems as if their father was always pushing Charlie onto things he couldn't do. They went to the same school and had the same advantages, but Henry was the better person. Despite this, Charlie doesn’t feel any resentment towards him.

Charles didn’t feel bitter about it, was a generous soul, far too generous, and indulgent. But Hal had always been there to help when he needed it, to offer advice and to give him a shoulder to cry on after Mary had left him. […] Charlie felt—what did he feel, deep down, when he allowed himself to be honest? Angry, stinking bloody one-bottle-a-time furious—not with Hal, of course, but with life. It hadn’t worked out for him, and he didn’t understand why.

In fact, Charles is devoted to him. Even drunk, he's clambering to speak the praises of his brother. It's here where we get a second mention of their father.

“Could have taken over the family business, you know, made it one of the country’s truly great companies, but he always preferred politics. Mind you, manufacturing bath fittings was never my cup of tea, either, but it kept Father happy. D’you know they even import the ruddy stuff from Poland nowadays? Or is it Romania…?”

The impression given by Charlie of their father isn’t a positive one, and he comes across as demeaning and forcing expectations. While Henry could possibly disagree, it's likely their father was an abusive man. In the show, Charlie and Mattie come across Benjamin Landless, a character who is portrayed as brutally honest, fierce and a force to be reckoned with - utterly unpleasant to the point even Francis doesn't particularly like him. Charlie comments on him after his encounter with him.

“It's chaps like that that drives chaps to drink.”

Landless in this scene seems parallel to his own father.

Another thing to note about the two as well is that despite the fact Charlie adores Henry, it's Henry who's protective of him throughout, defending him from his charges, telling him he'll be there for him, being responsible for propping him up. It's a swap of the usual sibling roles.

The first time ever stated in the book from Henry about Charlie is a flashback to when Lord (Teddy) Williams (or Lord Billsborough in the show) asks Henry to do something about the increasing rumours surrounding his brother. Henry responds quite firmly:

“I spend half my time spilling blood, that’s the job I do. Please don’t ask me to spill my own brother’s.”

He also promises to try and regulate Charlie's behaviour but due to his job he doesn't have the time to. In the show, Charlie tells Mattie that Henry sometimes gives him £50 or £100 when he's short, which seems to an extent of what he does. He doesn't have the ability to make time for his brother, which seems to bother him tremendously. Whatever Henry is paying him clearly isn’t enough - the book notes that Charlie is having issues with his electricity bill. However it should be said that Charlie notes he is paid “when he's short”. It’s possible he's hiding his debts so Henry doesn't worry about him.

After Charlie's stint in the newspaper rumours, a photograph of him drunk is run alongside one of Henry holidaying.

The implication was clear. Henry couldn’t be bothered to leave his poolside to help.

Although it's of course clear that Henry cares about his brother and would do anything for him. When the insider dealing scandal comes out, Henry is firmly by Charlie's side.

“Sarah, I’m not going to be the one to finish off Charlie. God knows he’s been trying hard enough to do that himself, but I am still his brother. Will always be that. On this one we’ll either survive, or sink if we must. But, whatever happens, we’ll do it as a family. Together.”

The show depiction of the scene between Henry and Charlie is very different in the novels since it’s over the phone in there. However, unlike the show, this conversation is longer and shows Henry's utter devotion to his brother. In the show, the two are both collected until the end, unlike the book where Charlie is heavily crying and blaming himself for everything that happened. It should also be noted in the show that Charlie has threatened self-harm to the doctors at the clinic. It's in the novel where Henry has a giant speech.

“You have no need to ask my pardon. I’m the one who should be down on my knees begging for forgiveness. From you, Charlie.” “Don’t be stupid—” “No, you listen, Charlie! We’ve always got through our problems together, as family. Remember when I was running the business—the year we nearly went bust? We were going down, Charlie, and it was my fault. Too tied up in my politics. And who brought in that new client, that order which saved us? Oh, I know it wasn’t the biggest order we’d ever had but it couldn’t have come at a more vital time. You saved the company, Charlie, and you saved me. Just like you did when I was a bloody fool and got caught drink-driving that Christmas.” “I didn’t do anything really…” “The local police sergeant, the one who was a golfing friend of yours, somehow you persuaded him to fix the breath test at the station. If I’d lost my license I’d never have been selected for my constituency. I’d never have set foot in Downing Street. Don’t you see, you silly bugger, far from ruining it for me you made it all possible. You and me, we’ve always faced things together. And that’s just how it’s going to stay.” “I don’t deserve—” “No, you don’t deserve, Charlie, not a brother like me. You were always around when I needed help but what did I do in return? I got too busy for you. When Mary left, I knew how much you were hurting. I should’ve been there, of course I should. You needed me but there always seemed other things to do. I was always going to come and see you tomorrow. Always tomorrow, Charlie, always tomorrow. I’ve had my moment of glory, I’ve done the things that I wanted to do. While I watched you become an alcoholic and practically kill yourself. You know something, Charlie? I’ll walk out of Downing Street and be able to say bloody good riddance, screw the lot of them—if only I know I still have my brother. I’m just terrified that it’s too late, that I’ve neglected you too badly to be able to ask for your forgiveness—that you’ve been alone so long you don’t see the point in getting better.”

Henry's neglect of Charlie is consistent in his mind, and he deeply regrets it. He just wants his brother back, no matter what. He's already resigned his position, he's facing a media onslaught and calls that he might be arrested for insider trading alongside Charlie. He would do anything just for him. There's a pause and Charlie finally responds.

“Bloody idiot, you are. You're the best bruv any man could have.”

With which Henry genuinely promises to see him tomorrow. Charlie apologises for all the fuss they caused, to which Henry responds,

“To tell you the truth, I haven't felt this good in ages.”

At the end of everything is reconciliation. Henry is devoted to his brother as much as Charlie is devoted to him. And even though he’s gone through hell, he’s come out of it with a happiness he hasn’t felt in years. His occupation doesn't matter to him, because in that moment he lost sight of what was the most important thing to him - his brother.

[sethgrayson]

Urquhart and Stamper - An Analysis into Sexuality and Dynamics

The relationship between Francis Urquhart and Tim Stamper is perhaps one of the most interesting in the entire trilogy. This analysis was originally part of a three parter I was going to make on homosexuality in the trilogy, but seeing how long it was and how focused it was on Urquhart's relationship with Stamper, I decided to just publish this part. As such there is heavy focus on the nature of Stamper's sexuality and a deep dive into it.

This analysis contains major spoilers for the events and ending of To Play The King in both the novel and the show.

Stamper in himself is a TV-original character who made it into the second novel, although their fates are extremely different. The personality of Stamper in the first series of the trilogy is different in parts to that in the books and the second series, with the second series taking inspiration from both of his previous personality traits shown. Given how Dobbs writes Stamper in the novel, we can show what his intention of Stamper's character may be.

Stamper in the first series is married, that much is certain. A background conversation with him depicts him saying he and his wife are looking into getting at least one son into an expensive school. If Stamper is a closet case as I will argue, that means he married a beard, similar to Mycroft's situation.

When Stamper is first introduced in the novel, he is referred to in a “familiar, almost camp manner”. Immediately the word camp means something - it is a word associated almost fully with gay men. This Stamper is also rather subtly theatrical and mischievous, even if he keeps a distant front of sorts.

It's a scene late into his appearances that depict something that seems slightly unusual for a man with platonic feelings for his friend, mentor and boss. When Stamper is in a meeting with Francis and Sally, Francis commands him to fulfil a task, to which Stamper responds rather jealously.

The ember of understanding began to glow in his eyes, and with it rivalry. She [Sally] was muscling in on his relationship with the boss, and had an advantage not even Stamper with all his guile and gamescraft could match. “I'll get right to it, Francis.” He gathered up two of the images and looked sharply at Sally.

The biggest similarity between Stamper in the novel and Stamper in the show is that both of them conduct negotiations with Bryan Brynford-Jones in a steam bath. Out of every possible place, they choose a steam bath to conduct sensitive discussions. In the novel, the two are established friends outside these meetings and even meet at a masked ball together. I’m not saying something happened between them but it’s a specific thing to keep consistent.

With all that we come to Stamper in the series adaptation of To Play The King. At first, Stamper is played very similarly to how he was in the first series and the question of his loyalty to Francis is not a focus. He has yet to betray him, but it's incredibly important to be aware he has the tape for the entirety of the series. It just didn't come across to him to actually present it - he's loyal to Francis, and that's because he loves Francis.

Stamper: Someone picks up the cassette. Not me, one of my chaps. Nobody knows what's on it except you [Sarah] and me.

Stamper's betrayal of Francis originates from a lack of appreciation by him - and this betrayal is important to analyse regarding Stamper's sexuality. Episode 2 is where things really start rotating regarding their relationship, in which Francis makes Stamper party chairman. Francis decides on this decision after talking to Elizabeth in which he disparages his oldest friend.

Francis: He'll take what he's given. That's the beauty of Stamper, he's loyal and he knows his place.

He doesn't deny here that he knows Stamper is ambitious and would want to take his place, but Elizabeth clearly implies he wouldn't take the position by force.

This leads straight into the scene where Francis makes Stamper chairman. Stamper is shocked by this but Francis is adamant that it's the right decision.

Stamper: I was thinking Carling. Francis: Carling's a loose cannon, there's no comparison, you know that. You could deliver me a landslide, no one else could do that.

Stamper seems quite hesitant to take the role but Francis promises him that if he does well, he'll give him anything he wants, asking him if there's anything in particular. Stamper responds rather humbly.

Stamper: Whatever you think is right for me, FU. And don't worry. I'll sort this one out for you. And we'll do it right. We'll kick the living shit out of them.

We italicised for emphasis. Considering how just previously both of the Urquharts established Stamper's ambitious nature, the fact he speaks so humbly is quite surprising. Normally he would have openly stated what position in the Cabinet he would have liked but he doesn't - in fact Stamper trusts that he will choose the right option for him. The amount of trust that would go into saying that would be enormous. In this way you could calculate that Stamper's trust is so strong that he would risk not getting anything at all - he knows Francis and he knows he will get a good deal out of it. It's devotion, plain and simple.

Now I must turn to the elephant in Stamper's storyline - Bryan (BBJ). BBJ is on the whole an unremarkable character who adds little to the plot. His subplot - if it can even be called that - consists of asking Stamper if he could be considered for a knighthood. BBJ is an editor for the Times, having made it into the strongest pro-government paper, and as such he feels he should be rewarded. However, his knighthood has been declined by the Standards Committee due to the fact almost fifteen years previously, he had pleaded guilty to flashing a woman. In the show, this goes remarkably unexplained - to the point it takes out what an analogy Bryan's story could make from the lens of homosexual analysis.

The show Stamper: If you'll forgive my being frank, I'll tell you what's a delicate business. Getting a knighthood for a convicted flasher. Now that is a delicate business. BBJ: How did you know about that? Now look, look, that was complete nonsense, that was a stupid mistake, it was fifteen years ago for God’s sake! No one would remember it now! Stamper: Have to contradict you there, Bryan. I remember it vividly. Just the sort of thing that does sticks in one's memory. Bryan Brynford-Jones had to be dragged off the Inverness sleeper for waving his willy at a woman on the platform, and innocent you may have been, I think you pleaded guilty at the time, am I right? BBJ: My lawyers told me to, it was my word against hers! I could have fought the case for a year, I still would have lost with every newspaper in the country giving me a mellowing. As it was, I only got a couple of inches in the local rag. The novel Stamper: Pleading guilty to a charge of flashing your private parts at a woman in a public place is not designed to recommend you to the good and the great of the Scrutiny Committee, Bryan. BBJ: For Chrissake, it wasn’t a public place. I was standing at the window of my bathroom. I didn’t know I could be seen from the street. The woman was lying when she said I made lewd gestures. It was all a disgusting stitch-up, Tim. Stamper: You pleaded guilty. BBJ: My lawyers told me to. My word against hers. I could’ve fought the case for a year and still lost with every newspaper in the country having a field day at my expense. As it was it only got a couple of column inches in some local rag. Christ, a couple of column inches is probably all that prying old bag wanted. Maybe I should have given it to her. I’m being victimised! I’m paying for the lies of some shriveled old woman almost fifteen years ago. I’ve worked my balls off trying to make up for all that, to put it behind me. Yet it seems I can’t even rely on the support of my friends. Maybe I should wake up and realise they’re not my friends after all. Not the people I thought they were.

BBJ's story in the novel could be taken as an analogy for being publicly outed. Yes, I'm aware it’s a stretch but analogies can be very interesting sometimes. It's obvious from this context given that BBJ was in fact being victimised - he's not guilty at all and it was something small, innocuous and private, dragged out into a big problem, such as being outed by some stranger. BBJ even talks about how he can't even rely on his friends - if a gay man of a period around the same time was outed, then his straight friends wouldn't stand by him. Even after the Sexual Offences Act 1967, homosexuality was still looked down upon. BBJ in this context makes much more sense plot wise.

In the series main story, Stamper's loyalty starts to show its first cautionary cracks because of Francis refusing to tell him when the next election will be. Stamper when he asks him about it starts getting infuriated as Francis says it would be better if he didn't know.

Stamper: Um. Everyone's heard the election rumour, but nobody knows when it will be or even if for certain. Francis: Fine. (beat) Stamper: When I say nobody, I include myself. (beat) I have to know! I am the bloody party chairman, Francis! Francis: Trust me, Tim. It's better this way. One or two things to sort out first. Stamper: What things?! Francis: Trust me, as I trust you. (Sarah walks in.) Francis: We'll speak soon. (Stamper goes to leave. At the door, Stamper pauses and glared at her as she enters, and then leaves.)

Remember what I said earlier about Stamper's jealousy at being asked to leave the room while Sally was with Francis? His reaction here as well is specifically jealousy. You can tell because it's completely obvious he is glaring at her as she enters, his eyes tracking her movements. At this point of the story there isn’t a relationship between Francis and Sarah, but she has become an intangible part of his time. In a way Stamper has picked up on it, but he is yet to understand why. Possibly he feels that Francis spending more time with her instead of him - especially given Francis refusing to tell him about the next election and Sarah's job as a pollster. It's also as a result of this scene that an unseen gloved hand, which we later learn to be Stamper, takes the tape out of storage. You can even see the hand stroke the tape as if in longing.

Later on in the episode, Stamper calls Francis up from his office, wanting to discuss with him, but Francis brushes him off. Then he delivers this specific dialogue.

Francis: If Sarah is giving me good inputs on political initiatives and handling public opinion… well that leaves you free for all that bullying and kicking the hell out of people that’s so important at a time like this. Stamper: That’s not all I’m good for, Francis. Francis: Tim, of course not, it’s simply a question of horses for courses.

The phrase “horses for courses”, for those unfamiliar, refers to the idea that different people are suited for different jobs. Or to put it simply, Francis is telling Stamper that all he’s good for is in fact a bit of thuggery. But in this case after he hangs up, Stamper's assumption is not on this. Instead his focus shifts on what he said before - Sarah. To Stamper's eyes, all his problems began when Sarah entered the scene. He had a rival for Francis's affections and he's losing.

Stamper: You… owe me, Francis. And you set your whore up over me.

And it's this that causes Stamper to set up the events right afterwards that would lead to Sarah finding out about Mattie Storin. His first target isn't Francis himself, it's Sarah, his “whore”. At this point of his betrayal, Stamper is still unwilling to properly go through with it, he can’t comprehend that Francis is truly the one in the wrong so he thinks Sarah is responsible.

Episode 2 is already seeing Stamper's decline and descent into the realms of betraying him. Episode 3 however is when everything falls into place.

When Francis is dealing with backlash for the TV broadcast from the King, Stamper and Sarah meet with him to discuss damages. When Stamper tries to reassure him, Francis snaps back, blaming him for the party's bad fortune. Stamper's lip even begins twitching and he suggests that if he's unhappy with him, he would be fine with resigning. Francis says he doesn't want that and just wants him to do his job. Stamper asks for a word in private but Francis refuses, leading to Stamper storming out of the room. No glare back, no refusal. Just a look of abject betrayal and a slamming of the door. He's utterly defeated at this point and he can't bear it. And to make his mood worse, all that happened with Sarah watching.

This then leads to another scene with BBJ.

Stamper: Do you ever wonder if the whole game's worth a candle? BBJ: Almost everyday now, Tim. Stamper: Really? … it can be such a swine, Bryan. I don't think he appreciates how much he owes to me. BBJ: Do you ever think about the future, Tim? Next to PM I mean, taking over from FU. Stamper: Not anymore. Not enough of a power base. Who’s heard of me, anyway? I spent my whole political life as Urquhart's stooge.

This properly defines Stamper's origins of his loyalty to Francis - Stamper has been his protege for 30 years (15 in the novels). He doesn't feel right doing this but now he's starting to properly consider his final actions. It could be argued now that maybe he no longer has feelings, but as later seen this cannot be the case. It's most likely Stamper still had lingering feelings until his death day.

Then we have the scene where Stamper storms into Francis's office to find him with Sarah. The usual argument follows until Stamper haphazardly while leaving says:

“Oh, um, I got Staines to do a Point of Order just for the look of it.”

Of course, Stamper doesn't know what will come next. Francis does. And in less than a minute, the audience - and Stamper - know as well. Staines is just about to be arrested on suspicion of committing gross indecency with minors.

I should note here that in the novel Stamper was aware of Marples/Staines's pedophilia before even Francis was and instead was the one who informed him. This change is good for one extremely important reason - it goes to show the lack of trust involved at this stage. Francis is seeing Stamper as a bother, Stamper in turn thinks Francis is consumed by lust for Sarah. Francis is truly getting frustrated with Stamper at this point, even telling Sarah that he will throw him out as a scapegoat if his luck continues to be bad.

The two sides of this relationship are importantly for understanding Stamper's affections. It’s possible at this point Francis is purely using Stamper but we don't know how long he would have been doing such a thing - we don't know how much of Francis's own care for him is on an artificial level, while we know Stamper's is genuine. It makes what happens to him a lot more tragic. A viewpoint of him using this analogy could be as someone who is hiding an unrequited love so badly away that it ruins both of them, or even more tragically given Francis’s personality that he might have been aware or Stamper's affections and manipulated it against him.

Stamper's only saving grace for their relationship is when the two bully a newspaper editor together, leading Stamper to happily quip it was just like old times. This can be interpreted as Stamper still trying to force himself to believe Francis is not treating him badly of his own will. This doesn't last.

Finally we come to the final episode of the series. Stamper originally behaves like the perfect deputy in the beginning of the episode, being by Francis's side and talking with him. It seems for a moment like their relationship has gone back to usual, that they have patched up. That is, until Stamper asks the fatal question of what he will be given after the election. If Francis hasn't been cruel to Stamper at this point, he is certainly being cruel now.

Francis: After the election? Could I just remind you, Tim, that we are yet to win the election? Is it insensitive of me to point out that you are party chairman and we are trailing by 13 points? Do you think this is the best time to be asking me what you get after the election? Stamper: I’d like to know what you have in mind though, all the same. Francis: Would you? Well, I thought Chief Whip again. After all, it’s what you’re best at, isn’t it? Stamper: You led me to believe it would be a senior Cabinet post. You led me to expect Home Secretary. Francis: Well, perhaps it will be. But you’re such a brilliant frightener, Tim, you’d be wasted in one of those kid glove jobs. Stamper: Has it ever occurred to you that you presume too much? Francis: Not in your case, Tim. I think I know you rather well. Don’t you?

Compare this with the scene where Stamper first becomes party chairman. Compare this with the scene on the phone, the horses for courses quote. This is completely a U-turn from what Francis has been telling Stamper even at the worst of times. At this point, Stamper's betrayal is rather justified. Urquhart's tag questions - “don’t you”, “isn't it?” - also puts Stamper on the spot, makes him feel as if he’s obliged to answer yes. There’s a heavy degree of manipulation here. If there’s a moment where Stamper's heart breaks in the show, it would be here.

The next scene depicts Stamper finding Sarah searching through files to find Mattie’s. He isn't necessarily bothered by this, but just curious. Then we get this dialogue.

Stamper: Francis Urquhart has had my total loyalty for thirty years. Sarah: He has my total loyalty, I'm in love with him. Stamper: ... are you? ... I wonder if you know the meaning of the word.

Given the scene that has just occurred, this seems to be Stamper verbally wondering his own affections for Francis. He has worked with him for so long, been around him for so long, and given the heartbreak he has just experienced he feels particularly sensitive to it. This is when Stamper's affections become obvious.

When we next see him, he has just had Sarah dragged to an abandoned building to speak with him and listen to the tape. Sarah asks him why he wanted Sarah to know, and his reply is one of his most heartbreaking lines in the entire trilogy.

Stamper: All I wanted was to serve him. To be… close to him. That was all. But I see now what I should have seen all along, I was always entirely instrumental to him. Disposable. Like one of those little plastic razors they have now. Apparently you can get a few good shaves from them, and then… you throw them away.

His eyes even get a little teary. This is Stamper at his most vulnerable, and it certainly describes his feelings towards Francis at this point. He is completely and utterly heartbroken. All he sees Francis as is someone who was using him. He can't even see a redeeming factor in him, he just sees him as a manipulator who didn't care for him at all. The use of Stamper's language here is telling. “Serve him” makes sense, after all Stamper was very happy to be his deputy, but “close to him” is a bit surprising from someone who’s just a friend. I think personally it’s the deciding line that tells him as romantically interested in Francis. The razor metaphor also counts in this way - after all razors are used for keeping a clean face and in a romantic sense in a relationship this can be interpreted like kisses. Then again I don’t want to push that too much as that can easily go into the realms of sexual abuse and that is definitely not what this analysis is about.

Though speaking of the analysis, Stamper's role in this is done. He will never speak of Francis positively ever again, and he will end up of course dead as a result of his betrayal. Francis however as it should be noted feels guilty for how he treated Stamper.

Francis: No, no, he wanted to serve me. I pushed him too far. I treated him with contempt because it pleased me, because that’s the way it works. If I treated him better, I would be safe now.

Despite everything we’ve been led to believe, Francis's attitude towards Stamper this entire series isn’t because he was angry at him. It was just because he wanted the feeling of power at the expense of his friend.

But of course… he does feel worse about killing Sarah rather than Stamper. So maybe in the end the real tragedy is still on the protégé.

[sethgrayson]

okay no hear me out. the whole point of the Urquhart/Stamper friendship development in TPTK is to demonstrate the tragedy of the corruption of power. if Urquhart wasn’t corrupt with power as prime minister then he wouldn’t have behaved cruelly to Stamper, he admits so himself that he did it just because. in the novel, he doesn’t go that absolutely corrupt and he treats him way better. the tragedy of the Urquhart/Stamper friendship is it was not inevitable it would collapse. it was all Francis's fault. he orchestrated it all.

one paragraph under the cut just because it’s major spoilers for second season

Stamper literally has the tape that would incriminate Urquhart. yet he doesn’t even think about presenting it to the police at all. he is totally fine with covering up Urquhart's murders until Urquhart treats him poorly. I feel like people may frame Stamper's actions as wanting to climb up the ladder and usurp him as prime minister but that is not what Stamper wants. yes he wants to be prime minister but he loves Urquhart too much to usurp him. he wanted to succeed him naturally. the reason he acts is because Urquhart treated him badly and OPENLY TOLD HIM ALL HE WAS GOOD FOR IS A THUGGISH ROLE. he openly insulted Stamper's intelligence. and we know Stamper is intelligent because in the novel he knows things even Urquhart doesn’t (cough Marples cough). the reason Stamper seems less intelligent in the show IS BECAUSE HE IS WEIGHED DOWN BY WHAT URQUHART THINKS OF HIM.

[sethgrayson]

The Staines Scene - The Most Important Adaptational Change

To Play The King episode 3 (House of Cards 2x3) is a vital part of the story structure in the TPTK miniseries, and no scene is more important than the scene regarding Tony Marples/John Staines. On the surface this scene sets up the progression of the Mycroft subplot, although when you dig into it, it demonstrates the plot's ongoing push-and-pull of the Urquhart-Stamper relationship.

Spoilers for this specific episode and also trigger warning for pedophilia.

In summary

So let’s just say what happens in this scene.

Stamper arrives in Urquhart's office to discuss a looming crisis with the House of Lords and the public to find him with Sarah. He asks for something positive to share as the MPs are starting to get jumpy, for Urquhart to tell him the election will be in three weeks. Stamper, upset, goes to leave while trying to keep a cheerful face. As he leaves, he casually remarks, “I got Staines to do a Point of Order just for the look of it.”

Upon hearing this, Urquhart immediately perks up and asks if Stamper can stop him, much to Stamper's confusion, asking if something was wrong. Urquhart responds back, frustrated.

I wish you’d consulted me first, Tim. Staines is about to become a problem.

We cut to Staines arguing against the House of Lords' recent outburst, much to the agreement of the Commons. We then cut to the entrance of the House of Commons where policemen are entering. After some more of Staines's speech we go back to Urquhart and Stamper, where the charges against Staines are being read to the Prime Minister. Staines is subsequently arrested on suspicion of his involvement with underage boys.

Later on, Francis and Sarah are watching television footage where Francis becomes more and more frustrated about Stamper.

I never cared for the man, one of Stamper’s boys. Tim Stamper’s not the world’s most brilliant judge of character and he’s running out of luck. If any of this dirt sticks to Stamper, I’ll drop him like a hot brick. In some ways it might be a very good thing. The way the tide’s running against us, we could do with a scapegoat.

Seems simple enough to understand. Stamper had Staines working under him and even under his capacity of Chief Whip and Party Chairman was unable to tell he was a pedophile. He was a bad judge of character and should be reprimanded. Urquhart is in the right here.

But what if I told you this is not how it goes in the novels?

Novel version of the scene - In summary

Stamper goes to see Francis in his office who gladly lets him in. Stamper immediately goes to pour himself some whiskey, looking apparently down as he tells Francis that they’re ten points ahead in the polls (note: in the show they’re fourteen points behind), seem like the plan for the early election is working, and then finally reveals that Tony Marples has been found sexually abusing a fourteen year old boy and has been arrested. In an effort to get the attention away from him, Marples gave the police names of several others in connection, including David Mycroft. Marples gets away scot-free and Stamper relays the information that they had on Mycroft to Francis. Realising this information would destroy the King, Francis mutters that it was terrible news. Stamper agrees, the two go into silence, and then burst out laughing.

Analysis

Let’s focus first on the fact that the two versions of this scene are extremely different in tone and context.

In the context of the novels, Francis is undeniably achieving popularity in government. In the context of the show, there is heavy failure leading to Francis believing Stamper is responsible. And it is most likely the case that he is, although the question may be asked - why exactly does the same story carry different popularities for the government?

One reason is of course the King, who is much more vocal in the show. The show's version of the King is unrealistic - a King couldn’t deliver a propaganda film message like he does in the show. The novel is much more realistic to the status of a constitutional monarch’s role.

The second reason is in fact the leader of the Labour Party. John Stroud, the leader of the party in the show, is confident, supports the King and in a way is a true governmental threat. The leader of the party in the novel, Gordon McKillin, is completely destroyed in a way that is connected to both the Mycroft subplot and the Urquhart-Stamper relationship, much like the Staines scene.

Earlier in the novel, McKillin goes under pressure as a TV interviewer asks him to respond to a pamphlet by his church declaring that homosexuality is a "pernicious sin". McKillin panics and is cut off when he declares that he accepts the church's views before he can state his own view. The next chapter reveals that this leaflet was sent by Urquhart, who was given it by a relative of his wife.

Stamper: A stroke of luck yours, coming up with that church pamphlet. Francis: The Colquhouns are a rather exotic tribe, members of which descend upon [Elizabeth] from time to time bearing all sorts of strange gifts. One of them thought I would be interested in the morality of youth, strange man. It wasn’t luck, Tim. Simply good breeding.

That explains the context - the novel versions of the Conservative Party are much more fortunate coming up to this moment.

But wait, I hear you ask. Aren’t you missing the elephant in the room? What does the context have to do with what happens here? Yes, I was just about to get to that.

I’m sure you’ve noticed one big difference between both the novel and the show. In the show, Francis is the one who is aware of what Staines is doing even before the policemen arrive, before Stamper is aware. Yet in the novel, this is the other way around.

[…] Urquhart asked incredulously.

This line tells us one thing and one thing only. Francis wasn't aware. Stamper was. But then that begs the question. Why is it that in the original novel, this is the case?

Remember how earlier Francis says Stamper is a terrible judge of character? You may be asking yourself that he seems to be wrong. Stamper's novel counterpart seems a better judge of character and source of information than even Francis is.

This decision all has to do with context, and it’s why the change is as important as it is.

At this point it’s already established beyond any doubt that Stamper is being blamed by Francis for the party's misfortune, even though what is happening is out of his control. While he hasn't kept people in line, it has been established that the King's involvement has caused such a detrimental effect that simply doesn’t exist in the novels. The failure of Francis's government at this time is a fault that lies on the King's involvement, not Stamper's faults.

This causes a ripple effect from Stamper's eyes and it is ultimately this ripple that slices a line down the timeline of the House of Cards show and the novels. The Stamper in the shows is being punished for something that isn't even his fault. His earlier statement of “So did I!” when Francis says he thought BBJ was under control rings true. All the events so far are being blamed on him because he was in the wrong role at the wrong time - and he’s a good Chairman, we know that from the novels.

Ultimately, we know as well how loyal Stamper is, how he would do anything for Francis. He’s already offered his resignation which was declined. My personal theory is this sudden backlash from Francis for seemingly no reason at all affected him mentally and made him increasingly unable to perform his duties, fearing how badly he lost Francis's favour. This left him open to being unaware of Staines when proof was uncovered, leading Urquhart to find out instead. Stamper, recognising that his neglect has led to terrible consequences, immediately tries to rectify it, which becomes the scene between him, Francis and Bruce at the end of the episode. Of course, this is all for naught in the end, Francis will forever see him as just thuggy. And that’s where the timelines split and lead to the finale.

But of course. The entire existence of this scene proves Stamper's weakness, and how a man's descent to struggling is a catalyst for a declining friendship and loyalty.

[sethgrayson]

The Queerness of Stamper, A Continuation - The Sin of Envy

In the House of Cards trilogy, there is a requisite that Francis becomes attached to a woman. In the first two instalments, these are Mattie Storin and Sarah Harding. However one thing consistent with both characters apart from their relationship with Francis is the uneasy acquaintanceship they seem to have with his protege Stamper - or more accurately the opinions he has of them.

Unlike my main analysis of Stamper's queerness this analysis has no major spoilers. There are minor spoilers for both House of Cards and To Play The King but nothing that would ruin one's experience of the plot.

I would like to preface this with a bit of a mutual understanding for all those reading. The reason I'm primarily discussing Mattie and Sarah's relationship to Stamper is to demonstrate his feelings towards those that Francis has an affair with. He exhibits a frank disgust of both that at first appears as if he simply doesn't like them, but later carries across as envy especially in context of his queerness and how he appears in the books.

Mattie

Mattie: You’re one of the whips, aren’t you? Stamper: Tim Stamper.

Stamper only interacts with Mattie near the end of the final episode of House of Cards. Before this, he talks to her briefly on the phone, though at this point he's already seemingly suspicious of her.

Though he only talks with her the once, it is apparent that he doesn't think her worth his time. However, his specific intonation is where he’s questioning why she wants to meet with Francis alone for personal reasons. These specific instances are as follows:

Stamper: What do you want to see him about? Mattie: It's personal. Stamper: Is it? Yes, I'm sure it is. […] Mattie: I’m sure he’ll make time for me. Stamper: Oh, I shouldn’t be surprised at all.

His comment as well about Urquhart's apparent “eagerness to see her” seems to be loaded with intonation as well. We know that Urquhart has gone off to the rooftop to be on his own for a bit before the ballot. Stamper's intonation here implies that if Urquhart was willing to see his mistress and no one else, it proves him to only be thinking with what’s between his legs, not his brain - and as discussed in my main essay Stamper is infuriated by the idea of Urquhart possessing lust for a woman especially when his relationship with Elizabeth seems extremely normal for a married couple.

Something that also comes across as a bit surprising, and something I think gives leverage to the idea of Stamper being infatuated with Urquhart is when he looks Mattie up and down and quietly muses that he wondered what she looked like while seeming a bit distracted. Earlier on we learnt from Penny that she thought Mattie was a man, but she had never spoken to her beforehand. Stamper can’t have made the same mistake and was fully aware of Mattie’s gender, meaning he most likely came to a decision on his own as to her relationship with Urquhart. He knows that their relationship is sexual without even being told - and that upsets him.

Sarah

Sarah: We don't have to be enemies, Tim. I'm not going to be here for long. Stamper: Aren't you?

Unlike Mattie, Tim spends more time around Sarah. This is because the roles in play are different - while Mattie is a journalist working independent of the government, Sarah herself works in polling and becomes Urquhart's personal assistant meaning she spends a lot of her time at work with him.

When Stamper first has a conversation with Sarah in episode 2 he is much more amicable to her. It should be noted before he speaks with her that he talks to a fellow MP about her, where that MP starts making sexual remarks about her and insinuating that Stamper was going to try and make a move on her as she was working with him. Stamper refuses this claim, stating that she was working with Urquhart, and then says he’ll be telling him about his interest in her. I mention this because of the irony. While Stamper in this moment is suggested to be the one engaged in the affair, it will of course be Urquhart who engages in such a thing. Like with Mattie, Sarah's affair with Francis will be vital to his envy of her.

After this, Stamper goes and talks to her, and the two seem to be getting along well. He's even smiling quite genuinely as she talks. Even though Francis singles Sarah out briefly in his speech - “some of you at very short notice” - and Stamper notices, he doesn’t seem annoyed by it or insinuates something is going on. His relationship with Sarah here is still one of acquaintances, and he is judging her for the better for the time being. It’s possible at this stage he believes that she will only be around for a very short time and will pose no risk to his friendship with Urquhart.

However, within the same episode he’s already beginning to feel uncomfortable with Sarah's presence. When being sent out of Urquhart’s office at the same time Sarah arrives he glares specifically at her - you can tell specifically by how his eyes and head moves. He's projecting his own frustration as jealousy for Sarah, and it is from this moment on that he will start to be more openly disdainful of her. While he does share a drink with her and Francis later on, this is shown only for a second. It does tell us, however, that Sarah has been awarded the same insider privilege as the literal Chairman of the party and Urquhart's oldest friend. From this we can tell that this has been happening for a while at this point, so Stamper's jealousy is valid as paranoia.

And of course we have Stamper's phone call, where he projects Urquhart's disdain for him as being manipulated by Sarah.

“And you set your whore up over me.”

This tells us that Stamper himself does not want to implicate Urquhart in what he’s doing - he wants to instead project that into a third party. The phrasing of “whore” also tells us that at this point he is certain of an affair between the two - despite the fact it has not happened yet. This gives us two possible scenarios that could both explain his thought process here.

A) That this is a guess on Stamper's behalf based sorely on how close the two are. This scenario makes it also likely that his observation of Mattie's affair with Urquhart was guesswork achieved through similar observation. This line of thinking is closely linked to the idea of jealousy as he could see anyone close to Urquhart, especially women, as a threat.

B) Stamper does not actually think that they’re engaging in an affair, but he is making himself believe they are in order to rationalise why Urquhart would be treating him in such a way. This scenario suggests a line of thinking that leads into Stamper's infatuation for Urquhart.

At this point in the story we have an established dislike from Stamper towards Sarah - and she herself seems to be aware of this, suggesting that they shouldn’t be enemies. In one of their final scenes, the two talk. One of the most important quotes that he ever says appears in this scene.

Stamper: Francis Urquhart has had my total loyalty for thirty years. Sarah: He has my total loyalty, I’m in love with him. Stamper: Are you? I wonder if you know the meaning of the word.

First of all, Sarah is comparing her love to Francis having as much as an impact of Stamper's friendship with him. To Stamper, this is a complete inaccuracy as they can't compare.

And of course his focus on if she knows “the meaning of the word”. ‘But what if he meant loyalty, not love?’ He means love here. He says, “Are you?” not “Does he?” or something that would make sense with the first part of Sarah's statement here. He is undoubtedly talking about her love for him versus his own.

Stamper is finding it difficult to understand how exactly Sarah feels for Francis - take the whore comment above. Is she genuinely in love with him or is she just throwing herself at him for his power? He doesn’t know, and he is rationalising it as the latter to diminish her threat to him. Here, he is also seeing her love for him as weak. She doesn’t understand love like he does.

There are of course more scenes between the two… but for the sake of this being a mostly spoiler free analysis, I will avoid them. They don’t add much in view to their relationship anyway. There is one thing he says to her - the very last thing he ever says to her - that does suggest something.

Stamper: Just stay calm, smile… [redacted]

There is a degree of patronising throughout their last interaction and he comes across so during that scene. I cannot go into detail without being in heavy spoiler territory but I’m sure what you can read of the quote may suffice. How he talks to her comes across as someone who is swatting a fly away, even if he’s more openly polite to her. He hasn’t changed his attitude to her really, not even after everything.

Edit: In the novels, Tim's interactions with Sarah's counterpart Sally Quine are very limited, except in one of his final scenes. During this, he, Francis and Sally are discussing plot-relevant events. This then happens:

“Tim, make sure these get a good airing, will you? Just a couple for the moment. Leave the rest.” Stamper nodded and took the opportunity to bend over the desk and rifle once more through the photographs. “Now, Tim. There’s a good fellow.” Stamper’s head came up sharply, his eyes flickering as he looked first at Urquhart, then at Sally, then back to Urquhart. The ember of understanding began to glow in his eyes, and with it rivalry. She was muscling in on his relationship with the boss, and had an advantage not even Stamper with all his guile and gamescraft could match. “I’ll get right to it, Francis.” He gathered up two of the images and looked sharply at Sally. “Night, one and all.” Then he was gone.

And I think that perfectly summarises his feelings towards her TV counterpart as well. “Muscling in”, “had an advantage”, “rivalry”. Stamper is openly envious of Sally in this moment, and this jealousy can carry across to Sarah. The “ember of understanding” as well is him figuring out that the reason Francis wants him to leave is so he can have sex with Sally. And no, I’m not making a hyperbole, that is straight up what happens after Stamper leaves.

His eyes flash with “rivalry” as well. If he’s aware that they’re about to have sex, this rivalry simply cannot be platonic. Yet his rivalry appears misplaced, that it’s a blessing that he isn’t in her place. The sex scene that follows him leaving is stated to be a terrifying experience for Sally.

She felt like crying, not in ecstasy but in pain and degradation.

The point being made here is that if Stamper is in fact infatuated with Urquhart, it is all for the better that he is not in a relationship with him, no matter how attached he is. It will be painful and harsh, and he will be biting his lip much like Sally does in this scene.

In a way it can parallel his TV counterpart. While he is not being hurt sexually, he is being hurt emotionally, something he isn’t in the books. He is all the better for not being used by Francis, yet even a platonic use by him is painful.

Further additions

An observation: Stamper thinks that both Mattie and Sarah are lusting after Francis more than Francis is for them - in fact he seems to let him off the hook when considering the affairs he has and blames it entirely on the two women. I personally think that in Stamper's eyes, especially through the narrative of the sin of envy, he views Mattie and Sarah as temptresses. He wouldn't want to blame Francis for it because of his own love for him, and thinks - if all this is true - that both women are getting in the way of his relationship with his mentor. Stamper's assertions are that this is why he can never be with Francis, because they're both in the way. That in the end is the cause of his envy. He wants to be where they are and he can't understand why they are and he isn't.

[sethgrayson]

The Parliamentary Twins - A Backstory Analysis of Geoffrey Booza-Pitt and Claire Carlsen

“Aren’t you the Booza’s parliamentary twin?” he continued. “I seem to remember reading somewhere. You both came into the House together, what—seven years ago? Same age. Both wealthy, darlings of the party conference. Both tipped to go far.”

The Parliamentary Twins of Geoffrey and Claire, even though they spend little time in each other's company, are like peas in a pod and are implied to be decently close friends outside of canon interactions. Though they’re both vastly different, with one being an arrogant but compassionate playboy and the other being an independent minded and sharp-tongued aspirant, both are more alike than they think.

Virtually spoiler-free except for character backstories and a scene from the finale.

Why analyse them together? Why not in separate parts?

There is a reason why I want to analyse them in the same part, although it will become more obvious as this goes on. The two are very similar in many ways, even ways that they would hide from others.

Claire Carlsen

Claire, as one of the few female MPs especially in the Conservative Party, tends to be very independent-minded in order to shake off any men who would patronise or harass her, also having a sharp tongue to match. Despite all this, she has a soft side, mainly reserved for her husband, her two daughters, Geoffrey at times, and Tom Makepeace.

In reality, Claire's personality stems from a traumatic background - rather a background shaped in sexual violence, which is the first thing we learn about her childhood. Indeed, Claire herself is very sex-avoidant. The only person she seems comfortable with sexually is Tom, not even her own husband, and even then she feels no pleasure from the act. Tom is furthermore the only person who is ever told about her past.

Claire comes from an abusive household who lived in a shabby north London flat that wasn’t properly maintained, living with her abusive father, her quiet and meek mother, her sister and her younger brother. Her reason for being sex-avoidant is honestly hard to figure out. The first things she thinks about regarding her backstory is the creaking of the beds, so and can come across at times as an analogy for sexual violence.

There was no longer pleasure for her, nothing but dark childhood memories dragged from within by the rhythmic protest of a loose bedspring. […] That is much how she remembered them, the childhood nights in a small north London duplex with Victorian heating and walls of wafer, filled with the sounds of bodies and bedsprings in torment. When the eight-year-old had inquired about the noises, her mother had muttered sheepishly about childish dreams and music. Perhaps that’s what had inspired Harrison Birtwistle, although by preference she’d rather listen to the torturing of bedsprings. Did anybody still sleep in those classic cast-iron bedsteads full of angry steel wire and complaints, she wondered? It had been so many years since she had, and no regrets at that.

While Claire and her sister were survivors, her younger brother fell into the same cycle of abuse, now married himself as well as an alcoholic and domestic abuser “like his father”. Claire notes that he’d most likely die the same way unless he dies in an incident of drunken driving.

One of the things Claire associates with her childhood abuse was the living room carpet.

Nor did she miss the sitting room carpet, a porridge of cigarette burns and oil blots and other stains for which there had never been any explanation. “I’ll go down to Hardwick’s and get you another,” her father had always promised her mother. But he never did. […] They had burned the sitting room carpet on the same day they'd burned him.

It's possible that Claire and her siblings as a result of this extract was abused on this carpet and it became a symbol of what their father did.

Claire also has a dislike for silence due to her childhood, as she associates it with the ways her mother would try to hide the abuse from her children.

Her own mother had spoken so little to her, not wanting to share the pain, trying to protect her from the truth. But the pain had come, even when there had been no beatings, for when there was no abuse there was silence. […] Screaming matches, hysterical argument, voices and fists raised until she thought her heart would crack. Then long periods of silence. Complete silence. Meals that were spent in silence, long days in silence, even her mother weeping in silence. The silence of the hell cupboard beneath the stairs where on occasions she was locked and more frequently she hid. A childhood of abuse and silence, the noise of wounding and the yet more wounding sound of silence—perhaps it all evened out in the end.

Geoffrey Booza-Pitt

Geoffrey Booza-Pitt is shown to be a rather vain and arrogant man who has a lot of charm and is extremely promiscuous. Yet despite all these obvious flaws, he is shown to be genuinely friendly and compassionate towards people he cares about. Even though very few of his actual friendships are seen, he does maintain a good bond with Claire and a sort of father-son relationship with Urquhart - one which is later thrown out of the window.

Much like Claire, Geoffrey comes from an abusive background, although the difference between the information given between him and Claire is that Geoffrey's abuse is much more implicit and has to be read between the lines.

Unlike Claire, Geoffrey was born to a middle-class household, being the son of an accountant. Although it isn’t stated how senior of an accountant his father is, he is at least quite well-known by wherever Geoffrey grew up. However, his father was also an alcoholic. While he is not stated to have abused Geoffrey when drunk, Geoffrey is implicitly shown to be quite uncomfortable dwelling on this fact.

The schoolboy Geoff had invented an extended name and some mythical South African origin to explain away untidy gossip about his father that had been overheard by friends across a local coffee shop. And it had stuck, like so many other imaginative fictions about his origins and achievements.

This confirms to us that the Booza- part of his surname only exists due to his father's alcoholism. Since it is a name related to alcohol, it is most likely that Geoffrey was trying to hide his father's alcoholism by calling it by an actual name. The fact this surname sticks as well implies that at some point Geoffrey legally had his name changed to it. Why? It's possible by running from his childhood he only ran further towards it. It's a strange contradiction.

It should also be noted that Geoffrey himself does run from his childhood constantly. He keeps making up stories about himself, as shown by the extract above, to try and make himself appear more impressive than he actually is. Indeed, the Geoffrey we see in the events of the story comes across as very sure of himself.

What comes across as particularly interesting though is Geoffrey's mother.

He didn’t like spaces in a conversation. As a boy they had tormented him, fleeting pauses in which his mother drew breath before continuing with her ceaseless tirade of complaint about her lot in life. So, as a means of defence, he had learned to launch himself into any conversation, talking across people and above people and about anything.

Now this is where Geoffrey's own trauma kicks in. Similarly to Claire, he doesn’t like silence, although in his case it’s due to his mother complaining and it only affects his ability to have conversations, making his apparent arrogant nature more so surface level than an actual trait of his.

Yes I think this was traumatic for Geoffrey. He developed a defence mechanism in order to prevent himself dealing with those exact circumstances. We also don’t know what exactly she complained about. We just know it seems to be ceaseless and it’s about how bad her life is. This vagueness means that she could be complaining about anything, from her job, to her alcoholic husband, even to her son. Whatever she spoke about, however, seemingly had a very detrimental effect on Geoffrey.

One of Geoffrey's primary traits is his romantic charm in comparison to Claire's repulsion to sex. At one point he’s even suspected to have slept with half of the wives of the Cabinet, and is a hopeless romantic and charmer. Despite this, he isn’t the most sexually stable due to his promiscuity.

Move on before you grow roots and others grow bored was the Booza-Pitt rule, a creed he followed as much in love as in politics. He’d already scraped through two marriages; his ribald and envious colleagues referred to his Westminster house as the In & Out Club. Geoffrey’s response had been to make a dubious virtue of necessity and to eschew further matrimonial entanglement, instead choosing his companions on an à la carte basis from the lengthy menu provided by the women of Westminster.

In all such cases he preferred breakfast to bed, being cautious about sleeping with women of naive years where sex could be seen as a prelude either to emotional entanglement or to the insinuations of a gossip column, neither of which Geoffrey could countenance. Sharing breakfast offered much more robust reward, pillow talk without the cigarette ash and mascara smears, information sans ejaculation.

Across the table Booza-Pitt offered a smile that spoke of modesty, determination, achievement, I-know-you-want-to-touch-me-all-over-with-those-beautiful-lips-but-I’m-truly-very-important-and-business-comes-first.

Geoffrey's flirtatious nature in addition does lead him to try and seduce Claire.

Geoffrey: Seal a pact? Hm? In there, I mean. Would be wonderful. What do you say? Claire: No thank you, Geoffrey, I don’t think it would be appropriate. Anyway I have to go now. Geoffrey: Where? Claire: Home to my husband, of course.

(While both of them are increasingly scared about the Cyprus situation) Geoffrey: I've never had a quickie in Number 10, have you? Claire: (amused) Geoffrey! Geoffrey: Sorry. Terror's always been a bit of an aphrodisiac for me.

Despite this, the novels seem to imply that his nature with her is a sort of inside joke, especially given how casual they both act when Geoffrey makes such remarks and Claire's complete lack of anger at him. They get along well and don't seem to have too many issues with each other. In addition to this, Geoffrey knows that she isn't willing to sleep with him.

[…] talking of which, there was no point in trying to get her to bed, he’d already tried.

The closest thing I can find to understanding why exactly Geoffrey is so promiscuous yet unnaturally detached and at times uncomfortable comes from two places that suggest sexual violence. The first is his aforementioned aphrodisiac comment. He seems genuinely apologetic when mentioning it to Claire. This isn't a one-time case for him as well, but it's questionable whether or not he just feels horny in this moment. Arousal has been noted as a misattribution of fear, but that doesn't seem to be the case as it has happened before.

The second is his relationship with Francis. This is going to be controversial, but Francis and Geoffrey's relationship seems to be a stand-in for a past abuser.

Francis: But he’s crass and vulgar enough to know what the party faithful want and to give it to them. To touch them where it matters. Elizabeth: As he does half the Cabinet wives. Francis: But I in turn am able to touch him where it matters. I hold his loyalties in the palm of my hand and all I have to do is squeeze. There will be no trouble from Geoffrey.

I'm not sure why but this quote came off a bit strange to me when I first read it, especially as Geoffrey himself is stated to always be loyal. Any mention of potential betrayal comes from Francis's end, not Geoffrey's. And this quote comes across as sexual especially given Elizabeth's response.

The real reason that makes me think this analogy is possible is in the final episode of The Final Cut where Geoffrey hands in his resignation. Francis, understandably, is not happy. It’s hard to explain why exactly this scene comes across as odd to me without actually showing it.

Some specific details:

Francis sitting on the desk and unbuttoning his jacket especially when saying he’s “always had a weakness for Geoffrey”. This is a rather sudden move of Francis's and it's very unclear why he suddenly does this. If you notice Geoffrey's facial expression after this he suddenly looks a little on alert.

Francis asking Geoffrey to come closer. Geoffrey looks more nervous every time he is asked until he is right in front of Urquhart. They're extremely close now. Of course Geoffrey is standing in front of an Urquhart who is sitting down, so he’s most likely standing right in front of his feet.

Francis's very quiet “yes, good” comes across as slightly husky. And then there's him putting his hand under Geoffrey's jacket to touch his chest. Of course, Francis says what he's doing is to see where his heart is, but the same effect could have been achieved by just putting his hand on Geoffrey's jacket. Geoffrey himself looks a bit unnerved.

I am not saying that at some point Urquhart sexually abused Geoffrey. What I am saying is that Urquhart's manners here feel very akin to an abuser, especially given what we know about Geoffrey and his comparisons to Claire, who we know is most likely a sexual abuse survivor. Urquhart is a manipulative person, we all know that, and honestly if he was aware of Geoffrey's past if it was to contain such details I don't think it would be below him to emulate him. Add on Geoffrey's comparison to Urquhart's “sock puppet” and the Sooty nickname and… well.

Similarities

One of the similarities between both Claire and Geoffrey is in their backstories. Both came from abusive backgrounds that they went to lengths to hide (Claire by distancing herself and not telling anyone about it and Geoffrey by hiding the stories of his father's alcoholism behind imaginative stories), both had alcoholic fathers, both have a hatred of silence due to their backgrounds and both have a complicated relationship with sex being at the complete opposite ends (Claire's avoidance of sex and Geoffrey's promiscuity). These are similarities a reader will recognise but characters in universe would not.

The point of me focusing on these similarities for this analysis is to show how these two are more alike than the other characters realise, especially in terms of trauma and how they are perfect comparisons to each other.

Here’s also a paragraph on how they are coded as SA survivors if everything earlier didn’t convince you.

[sethgrayson]

Frank Underwood - Religion and the Sins of The Father

Well, I’ve got God’s ear now.

Say what you like about Frank Underwood - one dimensionality is what his character may come across without some context but at his heart is a man who is Darwinian due to his impoverished background, a successful Democrat congressman in a southern state and an unelected Vice President and eventually President. But one thing people don’t touch upon enough is his relationship with religion, and also with his father. Yes, Frank has an utter disdain for God and views Christianity as a weakness. In this analysis I hope to dig into the times Frank has talked about religion and analyse each occasion, as well as his relationship with his own father in connection.

Spoilers up to early Season 4.

A preface. A lot of sources claim that Frank is an atheist but this isn’t actually true. Frank does believe in God to the present day, as you will see in the following appearances. He is religious, he believes in God and Satan. The difference is that Frank believes that God hates him, and that is why he hates him in turn.

Frank in himself never has his general trauma actually addressed by the show, and this is a downside for his character as a whole. People claim he's one-dimensional but I feel like this is an analysis of him without keeping in mind who he is. He bottles emotions and rarely shows vulnerability. The one time he shows vulnerability and cries, he is raped (and yes. Claire did rape Frank in 3x02. I get the whole ‘giving him the power back’ analysis, but quite frankly that was rape). This is something you need to keep in mind while reading this analysis - Frank's character arcs, unlike Claire's, do not explore his trauma but only his general family background. The show never goes into specifics of Frank's relationship with religion outside the present day. We do not know the entire extent of his childhood relationship with religion or what caused him to truly hate God. We don't know why he is so disdainful.

We have the context that he is from South Carolina, raised a Southern Baptist and is “white trash” - as in he is from an impoverished background while being white. That is where his father comes in. I personally believe Frank's relationship with his father Calvin is a stand in for his relationship with God, and by understanding Frank and his father, we can understand his religious trauma.

Consider this an analysis both on Frank's views on religion and his own trauma connected to it, and his relationship with his father. Both can be separate and both can be linked. Either way consider this a clear look into Frank's trauma that the show didn’t touch on.

Religion

The Speech

In Chapter 3, Frank attends a memorial service for a teenage girl who died in his district, mainly for the intent of not being forced to resign. The day after, he attends a church service which also acts as a memorial service. He is asked to speak and goes to the podium, intending to read from the Bible before deciding against it and saying his own thing. He talks about hate before suddenly yelling, “I hate you, God!” much to the shock of the entire congregation. He explains further saying that he wouldn’t blame the parents of the child for feeling that way. After this, he moves on to talk about his father.

My father dropped dead of a heart attack at the age of 43, 43 years old. And when he died, I looked up to God and I said those words. Because my father was so young, so full of life, so full of dreams. Why would God take him from us?

He immediately turns to do an aside, and this is the first time in the series that Frank's father issues become apparent.

He was quiet, timid, almost invisible. My mother didn’t think much of him. My mother’s mother hated him. The man never scratched the surface of life. Maybe it’s best he died so young, he wasn’t doing much but taking up space. But that doesn’t make for a very powerful eulogy, now does it?

Frank's blatant lying about his father can be paralleled to the way he lies in public and in this scene that is what he is doing - lying about how he loves God, how he has faith in God. As we find out later in the show, Calvin Underwood was an abusive father, so it’s also Frank gritting his teeth when saying this. In a way God is as bad as his father.

The Memorial

After killing Peter and reflecting on what he did, Frank goes to the local church to pray. Before this, he looks up at the ceiling, addressing God.

Every time I’ve spoken to you, you’ve never spoken back. Although given our mutual disdain, I can’t blame you for the silent treatment.

This by itself speaks lengths about Frank's view on religion. Part of him still tries to cling on to the idea God loves him, but for the most part he knows there’s no point. Nothing has gone his way throughout his life, and he knows to fend for himself. There’s no point asking. Instead, Frank turns his attention down to talk to Satan.

Can you hear me? Are you even capable of language, or do you only understand depravity?

Frank does have a disdain for Satan as well. Although Frank in himself is clearly not someone who believes he is a good person, he at the same time deplores the other side. He dehumanises Satan in this, suggesting he is nothing more than a mindless animal. There’s no idea of romanticism. Both sides are equally cruel in Frank's thoughts. He says as much when he finally kneels down to pray, addressing, finally, the audience.

There is no solace above or below. Only us. Small, solitary, striving, battling one another. I pray to myself for myself.

There’s no point worrying over whether he will go to heaven or hell. In Frank's mind, it's better to just worry about the present rather than post-death. He doesn’t need to be godfearing, he just needs to trust he does what he believes is right.

Praying to himself doesn’t mean he is praying he will be a good person. He is praying to himself because he is a theoretical god. No that doesn’t mean Frank has a god complex, but it means that he is the one in charge of himself, not a deity.

On the way out he lights a candle among many others as a memorial, before blowing them all out. On an explicit level this is disrespectful to the dead. Although as the next scene I will discuss shows, this isn’t a one time thing for his character.

Faith

This scene is rather quick and consists just of a quick aside, but it speaks volumes about Frank's view of God. Even though this happens before the memorial scene, I wanted it to go afterwards to elaborate on the “respect to the dead” point.

During Frank visit to Raymond Tusk, Tusk asks him if he’s read the poem When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd, which was written about the death of Abraham Lincoln. Frank said he hadn't and Tusk runs off. Frank turns to do an aside.

Yes, I know the damn poem. We studied it at the Sentinel. I said to my professor, “Why mourn the death of presidents, or anyone for that matter? The dead can’t hear us.” And he asked if I believed in heaven. I said no. And then he asked if I had no faith in God. I said you have it wrong. It’s God that has no faith in us.

This does confirm an idea from the memorial scene that the reason Frank doesn’t feel duty-bound in following religion due to the idea of heaven. As per his religion, he doesn’t believe in purgatory, so in his eyes everyone will go to hell no matter what. That follows a lot of his more morality related stipulations. Frank believes strongly that God is a hypocrite, promising something that he cannot deliver in turn - or rather that God treats humans like children and that they could never truly be seen as earning his favour.

The Statue

In season 3, Frank attends a burial for some Navy SEALs who were killed in action. Ironically enough, the priest at the service uses the story of Abraham and Isaac from the Bible, the story of the father who was prepared to sacrifice his son to God for his faith - a bit ironic considering Frank and his relationship with religion and Calvin.

At the end of the episode, he approaches the same priest in his church to talk to him. Frank asks about why he used the story, to which the priest says it was the sermon he usually uses since he got tired of writing new ones. Frank then asks what justice means, to which the priest replies there are two - one being man's justice based on the Ten Commandments read a million different ways. But the two laws the priest says must be obeyed is that someone needs to love God and each other.

Frank: You can’t love the people you kill. Priest: You sure as hell can. And you have to love the people who are trying to kill you. Jesus loved the Romans. “Father, forgive them,” he said, “for they know not what they do.” Frank: Why didn’t he fight? Why did he allow himself to be sacrificed? Priest: I ask myself that question a lot. Frank: I understand the Old Testament God, whose power is absolute, who rules through fear, but… him. Priest: There’s no such thing as absolute power for us, except on the receiving end. Using fear will get you nowhere. It’s not your job to determine what’s just. It’s not your place to choose the version of God you like best. It’s not your duty to serve this country alone, and it better not be your goal to simply serve yourself. You serve the Lord. And through him, you serve others. Two rules: Love God. Love each other. Period. You weren’t chosen, Mr. President. Only he was.

Frank walks over to the church's Jesus cross and asks to have a moment to himself to pray. The priest agrees and leaves. Turning around, Frank stares at the statue in contempt.

Love? That's what you’re selling? Well, I don’t buy it.

He then proceeds to spit on the statue. Afterwards he tries to wipe it off with a handkerchief, only to accidentally cause the statue to fall over and break.

In full, Frank's attitude towards the idea of Jesus not actually showing the idea of love is again his idea that higher powers are hypocrites who don’t actually care for people. His conversation with the priest however also shows that he understands the Old Testament god more so than the New Testament god, he understands the cruelty in religion more than the benevolence. It’s possible that Frank at some point in his life had an experience that made him equate Christianity as something cruel and twisted, where no one was truly a good person and everyone who believes in the benevolence of God was a fool.

On his way out he steals a bit of the statue that depicts Jesus's ear, saying that that he’s “got God's ear now”. If he can’t get God to ever listen to him, he might as well force him to.

Calvin

The Letter

In the season 2 finale, Frank writes a letter to Garrett Walker using an old typewriter, and it ends up being quite personal, including admitting his own ambitions. He ends up telling a story about his childhood. One that is… rather strong to tell the president of the United States.

When I was 13, I walked in on my father in the barn. There was a shotgun in his mouth. He waved me over. “Come here, Francis,” he said. “Pull the trigger for me.” Because he didn’t have the courage to do it himself. I said, “No, Pop,” and walked out, knowing he would never find that courage. The next seven years were hell for my father, but even more hell for my mother and me. He made all of us miserable, drinking, despair, violence. My only regret in life is that I didn’t pull that trigger. He would’ve been better off in the grave, and we would have been better off without him.

Frank is openly admitting to his direct senior, the president, that he would much rather have murdered his father than live under him for the next seven years dealing with his abuse. It also emphasises Calvin's character as weak but a fiend, someone who is cruel but also powerless - the exact thing that Frank hates and wants to avoid for himself.

Visiting Calvin's Grave

The first scene of season 3 depicts Frank visiting his father's grave on his own, delivering some flowers. The scene's main purpose is to present how much Frank truly despises his father, and how even as president he is unscrupulous in this.

Religion does follow Calvin. His headstone reads, Husband, Father, Servant of God, something that Frank probably isn’t the most happy about. Frank tells the audience that he was only there in a role as president, and that he didn’t want to come, before addressing the funeral all those years earlier.

He couldn’t even afford to pay for his own gravestone. I paid for it out of my own scholarship money from the Sentinel. Nobody showed up for his funeral except me. Not even my mother.

There is something to say about all of this. Frank is frustrated that the only person who cared enough to come to the funeral was himself - Calvin was friendless and penniless.

The relationship between Frank's parents is also interesting even if it is never elaborated on further than small details. It’s very obvious that their relationship was not a good one. Frank's mother was not fond of his father, and they were not happy together, especially if she didn’t even turn up for his funeral. This is where I think the link between Calvin and God truly comes in. Frank is the only one who went to the funeral, either out of devotion or pity. Regardless, he went. He was faithful to his father, but then saw he shouldn’t. His father shouldn’t have faith. To Frank, his father was weak and cruel. It’s very similar to Frank's relationship with God. Frank had faith until he saw there was truly no point.

Frank then speaks to his father, affirming he’ll make sure he won’t end up like his father in death. At the end of it, he pisses on the grave and walks off. And I personally think that speaks volumes about what Frank truly thinks shout his father.

Walter Wryson

Walter Wryson was a childhood friend of Frank who would often run away from his house to stay at the Underwoods. The story of Wryson as a whole shows off Frank's ruthlessness, but it’s also tellingly personal. During the scene in which he tells the story of Wryson, Frank slips into a thicker accent and his dialect becomes much more non-standard, including double negatives. This, linguistically, is code switching, the process of changing your language depending on who you’re speaking to. In this case, Frank is talking to the audience as if they are an old childhood friend, someone who grew up in Gaffney alongside him. This is a story that truly means something to him.

The implications in this story, however, is that Frank was abused at home. During the events of this tale, Wryson hides in a tree and refuses to get down, staying in there overnight. The next morning, Frank visits him asking if he wanted breakfast, but Wryson refused. This then causes Frank to snap.

That boy had a good house, a good family, the sort I would’ve killed for, and he didn’t even realise it. So I went into the tool shed and I took out an axe. And I said to Walter, “You want to know what it’s really like to live at my house?” And I gave that tree a good whack. And Walter cried out, but I kept on.

The implication throughout this is that Frank's season 2 estimate of his father as an abusive man rings extremely true. But it goes further - this is a story that, due to Frank's language, comes across as truly personal. We know that Frank sees the audience as a confidant and friend and is comfortable sharing things he wouldn’t even tell Claire. He is telling us this story not just because of the situation with Claire, but to make a statement. He’s being vulnerable in this moment but only to the audience and only through this anecdote. Needless to say, it’s possible there is a sort of generational trauma that Frank is showing through this, carrying on his father's violence. Even in the first season he seems worried about this happening, as he tells Peter.

I didn’t have a particularly happy childhood. You see, no person avoids pain. And I just didn’t think it was right to bring a child in knowing that.

[sethgrayson]

Some notes on Frank Underwood I don’t think people notice.

He grew up in a background littered with domestic abuse. He was born when his parents were presumably quite young (his father was 24 when he was born), he lived in an unstable background where food wasn't even a guarantee, his mother hated his father, hell his father even asked Frank to pull the trigger on his gun and kill him. And Frank regrets not doing it because the next seven years were full of abuse.

His faith in God was already shattered by the time he was at the Sentinel. He is not an atheist. He just believes God is cruel and hypocritical. He doesn’t even believe in heaven because of it. It comes from the place of someone who has most likely been shown the hypocrisy of something he has grown up with since childhood in his teenage years, and of course Frank never changes this view.

He didn't escape poverty even at the Sentinel. He spent his scholarship money on his father's gravestone because the Underwoods were that poor. And even then he had to work with a weed farmer to have enough money simply to buy school books.

He views himself as seemingly largely unlovable by default, especially given the breakdowns of his friendships such as with Freddy in the late seasons. He says as much to Claire when he says no one will ever love him like she does.

He is raped, but this is never acknowledged by the show as potentially having consequences for his mental health because he is a male victim (I will rant about how the 3x02 sex scene was rape for ages).

His anger causes him to throw things, and he easily gets violent. Yet at the end of it all he has a very machine-like atmosphere, he has to be stoic, at least in public, or he will just see everything crash down. Showing vulnerability is a weakness.

"But do you wanna know what takes real courage? Keeping your mouth shut, no matter what you might be feeling."

The voice he speaks with is just as much a persona as the rest of him. The persona is that he is affable, a Southern gentleman, he speaks eloquently if he can. He only speaks with his natural accent and dialect in one aside when talking about his childhood and an event that is parallel to his abuse. He is proud of coming from impoverished roots and making something of himself - but his natural voice reflects the trauma. He suppresses it.

Everything he does is based on one root cause - survival, not just legacy. He has fought to kept himself alive throughout his life. He has fought through being born into poverty. He has fought through both military college and Harvard. He has fought to be a congressman - in particular a Democrat in the Deep South - and later VP and president. His need for power comes completely from his will to survive.

"You don't deserve it. You have no idea what it means to have nothing. You don't value what we have achieved. I have had to fight for everything my entire life."

"We're murderers, Francis." "No we're not. We're survivors."

In conclusion your honour this man has C-PTSD but would never admit it

[sethgrayson]

A little thing: HoC (US) fans? You do not understand Frank Underwood.

If you do not understand that Frank once said that he never uses anyone unless he can dispose of them afterwards and think that his friendship with Doug and Meechum isn't genuine, you do not understand Frank Underwood.

If you do not understand that his violence and yelling is most likely a trauma response from his father's abuse, you do not understand Frank Underwood.

If you do not understand that Frank is a rape victim but the show never took it as rape for the reason that “it was to revitalise him” while the fandom in the day poked fun of him, ignoring the fact he literally says “no” post-penetration, you do not understand Frank Underwood.

If you do not understand that his entire motivation in life was recognition so he didn't feel as useless as his father or connected to his past, only to have that snubbed from him when he was denied Secretary of State, leading to the entire events of the plot, you do not understand Frank Underwood.

If you do not understand that Frank felt guilt over marrying Claire because of the fact he wouldn’t be able to provide and was reliant on her father's money in the beginning, including for their first home as husband and wife, and probably had lifelong concerns about money, you do not understand Frank Underwood.

If you do not understand that the reason he didn't want to have children was because he was afraid to carry on a cycle of abuse from his father, you do not understand Frank Underwood.

If you do not understand that Frank does believe in God, but views him as corrupt and monstrous possibly due to his abusive impoverished upbringing connected with a devout religious community (meaning Frank is not an atheist but rather a dystheist Southern Baptist), you do not understand Frank Underwood.

He is an extremely complex character who was completely wrecked over by his writing becoming more and more authoritarian and like an asshole in general. I’m so happy that this fandom loves and analyses the female cast, they deserve so much and it has pulled its weight over the decade. Now let me talk about my poor traumatised guy.