User reviews

Lifestyles of the rich and famous, part three. This was the latest BBC dramatisation of notorious court cases of the just-about-in-living-memory recent past involving prominent high-society individuals, after their previous treatments of the Jeremy Thorpe/Norman Scott affair and the Profumo scandal. This latest three-parter concerned the sensationalised divorce proceedings brought by the then Duke of Argyll in 1963 against his wife, the Duchess Margaret for her alleged marital infidelities. All three series are concerned with privilege, class and sex, particularly the latter in this case, as the claimed bedroom indiscretions of the Duchess were ruthlessly, not to say illegally used by her estranged husband to discredit, disgrace and indeed destroy her public persona to grant him his desired divorce.

It's important to point out that the Duchess was in her early 50's when the case came to court so her licentious behaviour couldn't be said to be merely down to the fecklessness of youth. No, this was a mature woman, who we see early in the piece, put down one of her chiding friends by confidently asserting and indeed boasting about her sexual prowess with men. The daughter of a self-made commoner millionaire and divorcee of another self-made millionaire, this time American, who was the debutante of her year when "coming out" in society, by the time she hitched up with the Duke of Argyll in the early 50's she's still a prize acquisition for any hard-up Scottish Duke needing to bankroll the expensive upkeep of his castle and estate, never mind indulge a pipe-dream to excavate a sunken ship in the local bay said to contain a fortune in buried treasure.

Margaret was obviously attracted by the prestige of becoming a Duchess and being the lady of the manor, but things palled quickly as she learned just why her new husband's two previous wives had divorced him. A controlling, often drunken, sometimes violent, frequently unfaithful man, her fairytale marriage begins to collapse and when her rich daddy himself remarried a younger woman and decided to turn off the flow of funds he'd been pouring into his son-in-law's bottomless pockets, it's she that the Duke blamed when his bills piled up. So she took refuge in the London party scene, picking up often younger men, sometimes for sex, but sometimes only for conversation and sympathy, especially given that a lot of them were gay.

Finally the marriage fell apart with the scorned Duke stopping at nothing to get the dirty on the "Dirty Duchess" as those scandalised protectors of decent behaviour, the British press, later termed her, to the extent of breaking into her London flat to steal her personal diary and other incriminating titbits, most infamously a snap-shot selfie, if you will, of her and one of her lovers indulging in an act of fellatio. It all ends up in a sensational divorce court trial where Margaret is excoriated for her lifestyle while her smug husband looks on.

Much has been said in today's press about the treatment meted out to Margaret by her brutish husband, although she wasn't above perpetrating a few dirty tricks of her own, like forging an incriminating letter by one of her husband's ex-wives and even accusing him of an affair with her new step-mother. Nevertheless, it's clear that she was more sinned-against than sinner but in the early 60's when class consciousness was very much in the air in what was still very much a male-dominated world, there was no way she could ever win.

As for this particular dramatisation, as usual the BBC nailed the setting of time and place, in terms of fashion, interiors, cars etc, although there were some odd choices of background songs which didn't seem to fit. Paul Bettany was excellent as the dastardly duke but I felt that Claire Foy was miscast as the Duchess, besides not sufficiently resembling her real-life counterpart, she seemed too young and not tall enough in the part. Elsewhere, while I think the narrative was comprehensive enough in incorporating most of the main facts, some scenes did have a manufactured look about them and others similarly appeared over-cooked.

Long dead now, at least this revisionist take on the Duchess's often tempestuous life might go some way towards posthumously restoring her reputation, hopefully at the expense of her monstrous, manipulative husband, even as I appreciate she was no angel herself.

Frankly though, if this is how the other half lives, they can keep it.

This is an interesting, if not quite worthy successor to the infinitely superior A Very English Scandal. The problem here is that the writers clearly decided to make Margaret, the Duchess, the more sympathetic character - one supposes so the audience would have someone to root for, but also clearly in order to create a narrative around the way women were demonised for their sexuality in more repressive times. While this is certainly a valid perspective, it has the effect of short-changing us on the scandal front. In truth, the Duchess was a nasty piece of work, and every bit as bad, if not worse, than the loathsome Duke. But this TV version of events only touches lightly on some of the more appalling things she did, like trying to have her step-sons disinherited, and faking a pregnancy (while attempting to buy a baby) to establish a rival claim to the estate and title. The real Margaret was thoroughly spoilt, vacuous and self-absorbed, and Claire Foy's generous portrayal of her really doesn't do justice to the woman's monstrosity. And if the object here is to dissect a celebrated scandal, why not go all the way? The series is worth watching for the performances, and as a potted history to the Argyll affair, but if you want the full story you'll need to do some further reading.

Foy and Bettany kick acting arse in their depictions of two dislikeable people in a marriage from hell. Excellent supporting performances from the rest of the cast make this drama a 'must watch'. Acting awards for the 'Duke and Duchess' to follow please!

Margaret, sometime Duchess of Argyll, was a rich, beautiful, and utterly entitled woman; her marriage to the Duke, a spendthrift drunk, was a disaster. We know about it because their divorce became a matter of media scandal and was even brought into the enquiry that followed the Profumo affair. The way our society shamed (and continues to shame) women for their sexuality is appalling; nonetheless, it is hard to avoid concluding that someone who beleives in their absolute right to do as they please is ultimately going to face consequences (even if, in a decent world, these would have been entirely private). As Duke and Duchess, Paul Bettany and Clare Foy are both really good in this reconstuction of events; although the theme of the story is essentially that it's a matter of public interest that something of no legitimate public interest was treated as if this was not the case. Amazingly, wholly no-fault divorce is only going to become a reality in British law in 2022.

Wanted to like this as I've enjoyed the writer's Agatha Christie adaptations in recent years and I'm a big fan of both Claire Foy and Paul Bettany. The acting and cast were very good but for me the story would have worked better if an older actress had played the Duchess (She was in her 50's at time of the trial.)

It was stylish all round, well written and fashionably directed and photographed, soundtrack was a bit patchy with some anachronistic tunes.

My main problem was that both characters were entitled dislikeable aristocrats, he was obviously a rotter, but she wasn't much better. In the end I wasn't that bothered what happened to either of them, so for me a slightly disappointed 6/10.

Perhaps its time to put the British Aristocracy back in the cupboard and tell some new and untold original stories about ordinary Britain's past and present. Brideshead still gets revisited a little too often.

Nicely done, well acted but it could have been done as a 90 minute tv movie instead of being drawn out over 3 episodes. The filler made it boring so I ended up wishing for it to conclude.

Clare Foy is a joy to watch. It's very hard to take one's eyes of the screen when she is present. I thoroughly enjoyed the drama I just wished it had more of their back story. Why was the Dutchess the way she was etc.

... Foy & Bettany were-are their usual outstanding selves ... the production was very good, the only criticism might be the length ... 1st & 3rd parts were reasonably paced ... the middle dragged a bit as if to fill time ... overall a worthwhile effort even if a bit too lengthy.

This is exactly the kind of TV that the Brits do well.

Exposing the foibles, nastiness, and moral and social vacancy of their upper class - it's a national past-time.

'A Very British Scandal' is a superb exposé of everything that's wrong with a system that promotes it's own interests at the expense of anything at all which challenges its incumbent privilege and selfishness (and is not the least bit sentimental about who or what it destroys in the process). The irony of course is that the system persists largely unchecked.

Excellent television!

Well acted and filmed but direction was not so good and there was not much linkage between some parts of the story. Ultimately its a one watch job with a pretty obvious outcome. Characters were all unappealing and some came over as non too bright. Best I can say it well illustrates what was wrong with post WW2 British society and explains why the monarchy and associated nobility is on the steep decline that it is.

A lot of money has been spent on this - with great locations, lavish sets and fine acting. But ultimately it's pretty boring. Unpleasant posh lady marries unpleasant posh man and they spend three episodes being unpleasant to each other. Neither character has any redeeming qualities, there is little insight into those characters, and when it comes to the big court scene at the end it's really neither here nor there who wins.

A visual feast. A snooze of a story that didn't really merit a three part series.

I'd like to know two things:

1) why didn't her father (or she) sue the Duke for all the money?

2) how many affairs did the Judge have before and after the trial?

In contrast to "A Very English Scandal" -- which was delightful, clever, fast-moving, and often very funny, and in which Hugh Grant and Ben Wishaw played colorful, essentially likable characters -- the warring aristocrats in this follow-up series are monsters of selfishness: scheming, lying, overprivileged snobs whom it's virtually impossible to care about.

The "English" miniseries seemed to end too soon; three episodes just weren't enough. Although it's the same length, this "British" sequel feels at least one episode too long. Though Claire Foy flashes an occasional insincere grin, she mainly holds the same sour expression throughout the series. I've enjoyed her in everything from "Little Dorrit" to "First Man" to "The Crown," but here, though it's not her fault, she soon bored me.

Henry Kissinger supposedly said, of the Iran-Iraq war, "It's a pity they both can't lose." I suspect that most viewers will feel the same about the legal war between the Duke and Duchess of Argyll.

I am not sure that some of these reviewers have seen all 3 episodes before writing here (only one has bee on BBC 1 at the time of writing; the others are on the iPlayer).

This was a brilliant 3 hours of top quality TV from beginning to end.

Yes, it has been taken predominantly from the defender's point of viewer (the writer and director are both female) but the show clearly depicts the idiosyncrasies of both sides.

Margaret is a strong character with her husband's balls in her handbag but he does use his balls to try to attain the outcome he wants.

True to life stories are hard to do but this was most credible.

The best thing on TV this Christmas.

Towards the end of episode two, Ian is seen rifling through his wife's desk, finding a key that unlocks a drawer containing the incriminating evidence that will lead to the divorce.

In fact, suspecting her infidelity and while Margaret was on a trip to New York, Ian engaged the services of a locksmith to access a cupboard containing all the evidence he needed to divorce Margaret.

This drama does however paint a picture of two despicable people, Margaret & Ian. I'm looking forward to episode 3 where their toxic marriage comes under legal scrutiny.

Never mind the reviews from the ney- sayers who want a better story, this is a marvelous period piece. Great attention was paid to the costumes and sets. Claire Foye is a joy to watch. You may want a better story than this ugly divorce fight, but watch it for the very good acting and glorious scenes.

"A Very British Scandal" features good performances from its two well-matched leads, Claire Foy and Paul Bettany, as Margaret, Duchess of Argyll, and Ian, Duke of Argyll. The couple had a volatile union in the '50s and '60s, plagued by heavy drinking, drugs (on his part), violence, debts, lies, forgery and copious incidents of infidelity. This three-part series delves into their tragic marriage and highly publicized divorce trial, including the devastating impact on them and their families (they had five children between them). This high-budget production delivers an accurate portrayal of their glamorous lifestyle of Scottish castles, London townhouses and private clubs, elegant restaurants and bars, private parties and speedboat jaunts, but also how bleak, painful and dismal a bad marriage truly is -- and how destructive to everyone involved. The miniseries also shows how Margaret was absolutely vilified by the chauvinistic society of the time for having affairs both before and after her marriage, while her aristocratic husband was mostly given a pass.

"A Very British Scandal" follows "A Very English Scandal," about MP Jeremy Thorpe's trial for attempted murder, and I thought the previous series was superior, but this one is interesting for delving into the social mores of the time period and how much things have changed. Foy and Bettany are both terrific in their not particularly sympathetic parts, but it's an interesting slice of 20th century history.

This is another great BBC period drama based in real events. Claire Foy and Paul Bettany portray a very realistic upper class couple where he has a title, she has the money and both have incredibly selfish, arrogant personalities. He is, by far, much worse than she is but even as a woman, I feel no sympathy for her. All I could think of whilst watching the mini-series was how these people are still the ones who make the decisions about how we live our lives in this country (he was in the House of Lords). They have no idea of what goes on outside the door of their wealthy properties... but, as entertainment, I really liked it!

How is it all his fault? She had her reputation years before they met, destroyed his ex with humiliation, and in the end she got the shame that was long overdue. She knew who he was before they married. Also, she's a terrible mother. Might not be the case irl, but the rich so often were in those days.

The first two episodes are a slog. Like watching paint dry. Don't know why I stayed with it except that I like both leads. Things do pick up in the final episode but it really isn't worth the wait. Both main characters are despicable in their own way so there's really no one to root for. As some others have said, this story could have been told more effectively as a two-hour movie. I really don't have anything more to say except skip it but this site requires a review have 600 characters for some God-forsaken reason. It seems everyone nowadays wants an extended version of everything even though, short and succint might improve the product.

... in the script occurs when in the third episode,at 40 minutes or so, the Duke of Argyle says to the Duchess: "This battle between you and I ...". It is most unlikely for a man of his background at this time in history to say this. Even today it would be unlikely. I wonder what made the script writers put it in.