'A Royal Flush' - An Only Fools and Horses Episode Review

The end of the fifth series of Only Fools and Horses was 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire?' (1986). One of the more dramatic episodes, it almost ended the series with Del leaving Peckham for a chance of a lifetime partnership in Australia. If the next episode 'A Royal Flush' (1986) was indicative of the show's quality after that episode, the proposed spin-off staring Rodney and Mickey Pearce, Hot Rod, sounds almost desirable. Thankfully, just as much as David Jason's opting to remain in Only Fools and Horses was a welcome relief, 'A Royal Flush' was just a misstep in the show's then flawless history and the show would regain its wings a year later with 'The Frog's Legacy' (1987); however this does not wash away the fact that 'A Royal Flush' was written, filmed, produced and aired. 'A Royal Flush' is the unloved child of Only Fools and Horses hated by its writer, John Sullivan and its two leads, David Jason and Nicholas Lyndhurst. It's also the least repeated episode of the sitcom, shown only on GOLD around Christmas time. But why is it hated? The premise, while atypical for the series at the time, owes many opportunities for laughs. Rodney befriends Victoria, the daughter of the Duke of Maylebury, due to their mutual love of art and naturally enough Del smells money and encourages Rodney to propose to her before interfering.

First of all, the positives. Like every other episode, 'A Royal Flush' has some funny one-liners. My favourite has to be Rodney reading a book of peers and Del notices the title as 'Burkes' and asks him if it's a teach yourself book. It also has some humorous scenes; the scene where Rodney fires a rifle at clay pigeons is sometimes classed as one of the funnier moments of the series as is his reaction when he sees the three-wheeled van appear suddenly at Maylebury's estate. The appearance of June from 'Happy Returns' (1985) was also a welcome piece of continuity for the series, making the universe of Only Fools and Horses seem more complete. I also must digress that the moment when Rodney breaks his hand at the end of the episode is actually a moment I still laugh out loud at, but this may be due to me hating the episode so much I never watch it so I forget the little moments that are done right.

The character of Vicky is also well-written. It was an inspired choice by Sullivan to make the upper-class character bored of her status; it contrasts well with the Trotters and their apathy with being at the bottom of the social ladder, and this decision forces her to have good chemistry with Rodney. They're both tired of their backgrounds and they share a symbiotic relationship: Rodney can learn about opera, game hunting and expand his knowledge of fine art, while Vicky can learn about women spitting, greasy spoons and market spiels. She is wonderfully portrayed by Sarah Duncan, and despite my opinions about the whole episode, I think Vicky is the woman most compatible with Rodney in the entire series, even beating Cassandra, and it is refreshing to see Rodney engaged in a romantic friendship as opposed to an intimate relationship as usual. Another thing that this episode excels at is adding another dimension to Rodney's character. Previous to this episode, Rodney claimed that he was sensitive, yet this was seldom seen outside of him mourning the latest ex-girlfriend that wasn't right for him. Here, however, we finally see a distraught Rodney, stripped of his pride in front of the highest company he would ever share. I like to think that the events of this episode are a by-product to the more mature Rodney that is seen from 'The Frog's Legacy' onwards; he wouldn't be able to trust Del as much as he had in the past in danger of him ending up in a similar situation. The final scene between Rodney and Vicky where Rodney suggests that he goes home and Vicky can't finish her sentence that their time together was nice is one of the most heart-rendering scenes in the entire sitcom. The two had a perfectly good friendship that was razed to the ground by the tyrant that is Del in this episode.

The character of Del is the main problem with 'A Royal Flush'. Simply put, he isn't Del, he's a cruel pastiche of the character that makes one doubt that the character seen in this episode was written by Sullivan, but by some over-zealous fan-fiction writer who had exaggerated every negative trait about Del: his greed and zest for money while suppressing his main attribute that he genuinely loves his family. The Del of 'A Royal Flush' will be termed hereafter as 'Evil Del' because evil is what he is throughout for reasons that will be explained throughout this essay. While the Del of every other episode isn't totally intelligent, he has common sense and tact; here he is a total buffoon that embarrasses not only his family, but his social class. To Sullivan's credit, the episode needs a villain, someone to snatch Rodney's dream away, but one would not expect it to be one of the show's principal characters. Granted, this episode isn't 'To Hull and Back' (1985) in which Slater is the villain of an international smuggling ring; it's a personal episode, more to do with emotion, so may be Evil Del's villainy in this episode is necessary. However, this tough love approach had been seen before in the show and had been portrayed better. In series 2's 'No Greater Love' (1982), Rodney falls in love with the wife of a convict. Concerned for Rodney, Del tries to sabotage his relationship and succeeds. Del isn't the antagonist of that episode because the audience is aware that nothing good would have come of the relationship and that Del was interfering in the best possible motives of protecting his brother from a criminal. In 'A Royal Flush', however, his defence of his actions that Special Branch would be checking on Rodney's background is a rather presumptuous and tenuous one. A more dignified approach would have been may be having the Duke be dismissive of Rodney so Del protects him, and, in doing so, burning bridges with the upper class and maintains Rodney's dignity. Instead, this version of Del is at odds with the established one. While he protected his brother in 'No Greater Love', he stoops as low as causing him emotional harm when he totally destroys his brother's pride at the dinner party and physical harm to him when he twists his broken hand; while he was fighting off Rodney's rival in 'No Greater Love', he was selling Rodney's exile from Vicky to Maylebury to make money which leaves one to ponder whether this was Evil Del's intention all along. In doing this, he has destroyed what could have been a fruitful friendship between two like-minded people just so he could earn a few thousand pounds. If this is indeed the case, Evil Del is actually more intelligent than the usual one and definitely more ruthless; he has lied, feigned stupidity and offended his way through several innocent people in order to achieve his own ends. While it is was written to be indicative of Del's occasional mindless nature, his shaking Rodney's broken hand could be seen as a victorious pose of Evil Del that well and truly supplants his defeat of Rodney. Del has had a fun evening in a country estate that has rendered him drunk; while Rodney may have been reeling from emotional scars caused by embarrassment. All of Del's actions leave a bad taste in the mouth because they are so out of character. Derek Trotter is not Edmund Blackadder or Albert Steptoe, he has good qualities that are all but absent in this episode.

Speaking of Albert Steptoe, 'A Royal Flush' bears similarities to at least two episodes of Steptoe and Son. The opera scene is reminiscent of 'Sunday for Seven Days' (1964) where the Steptoes go to the cinema but Albert ruins the experience by making a nuisance of himself. The whole dinner party scene is similar to a scene in 'Loathe Story' (1972) where Harold relays to a psychiatrist how Albert ruined his engagement to an upper-middle class woman. The point is, while Only Fools and Horses can be seen as an '80s equivalent to the '60s Steptoe and Son, Rodney is not as pretentious as Harold nor is Derek as loathsome as Albert; yet, in this episode, they are just like they were written by Galton and Simpson. In the past, Del would call Rodney a 'plonker' and no one would think anything of it because it was obviously affectionate, but his actions in this episode, like Albert's, seem to also stem from entrapping Rodney and appear vindictive and hateful. Perhaps he is reacting to Rodney's attempt to tie him down to England in the previous episode, 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire?'? It is also disconcerting to see Evil Del threatening violence to pretty much everyone who dissents against him; whether it be a potential customer in the market that doesn't buy into his spiel or a furious opera goer who, quite rightly, castigates Evil Del for his obnoxious behaviour during the performance; Evil Del seems angrier than normal Del who seems to revel in the trouble that he is causing.

Unfortunately, loose characterisation and awkward scenes aren't the only flaws this episode possesses: it also suffers from being rushed. The tight schedule ended up with the crew finishing the editing on the day of its broadcast on Christmas 1986 so the episode lacks a studio audience. Unlike 'To Hull and Back' which didn't have an audience because it is more like a caper film than an episode of a sitcom so it's forgivable and perhaps preferred; 'A Royal Flush' however needs the reaction to dilute the discomfort of the opera and dinner party scenes. It is not to 'tell us when to laugh' as the practice is commonly misconstrued, but to maintain the comedic atmosphere and in a show like Only Fools and Horses, this is essential in setting and preserving the mood. On top of that, sound effects are missing. This is mostly prominent in the final scene (ironically my favourite scene in the episode) where the corridor outside the flat lacks the ambient noises one would hear from London. While a minor flaw, it is a perfect metaphor for the episode: it is a cold and nasty episode to watch, just like the unnatural silence that had hit the council estate the night where the Trotter brothers are arguing about their character derailment.

One of the strengths of Only Fools and Horses is that it showcases identifiable characters and, for the most part, uncanny situations. It isn't a 'gentle' sitcom like As Time Goes By or Butterflies neither is it a dark comedy like One Foot in the Grave and Bottom; it fits firmly in the middle. While Only Fools and Horses sometimes explored the darker side of comedy, such as Del's reaction to Cassandra's miscarriage and the misplacement of Grandad's hat at his funeral; it is generally an optimistic comedy; indeed, most of its catchphrases are optimistic: 'This time next year, we'll be millionaires!' and 'He who dares wins!', so this episode, which would have been more at home in the dark universes of One Foot in the Grave and Bottom sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the episodes. Even the more reviled trilogy of the early 2000s was somewhat easier to watch and kept the characters consistent.

More interesting is the story behind the episode. While he did write the episode, John Sullivan was away in Paris shooting the third series of Just Good Friends when 'A Royal Flush' was filmed, so he was not on the set and could not write re-drafts for the episode. As stated, he hated the episode and it languished in obscurity for many years, no more prolific than the 'unofficial' episodes such as 'Licensed to Drill' and 'Christmas Trees' until finally released on VHS in 2000. In spite of the release and the fans lapping up the chance of seeing an Only Fools and Horses episode they possibly haven't seen before, Sullivan still remained dissatisfied with the episode and when the story was finally released on DVD in 2004, it was heavily edited under Sullivan's guidance. A whopping 18 minutes were cut from the original, such as cutting out the majority of the opera and dinner party scenes in order to minimise Evil Del's faults. The biggest change however was the added laughter track, which, for reasons already specified, was a welcome addition. That being said, the original version was released on DVD along with 'The Frog's Legacy' in 2005 as part 13 (the irony) of The Only Fools and Horses DVD Collection. To this day the DVD has appeared on eBay for higher prices than the official DVD and is sought after by hardcore Only Fools and Horses enthusiasts to see what the big fuss is.

In conclusion, 'A Royal Flush', while not as bad as 'If They Could See Us Now' (2001), which was the first part of the show's misguided revival, is the absolute nadir of the show's original run; hated by its creators and the fans alike, it is a wonder that fan outcry is large for the BBC to release the unedited version of the show on retail DVD. 'A Royal Flush' is such a pessimistic episode that goes so far from the grain that it is uncomfortable, unpleasant and cringe-worthy to watch and it is not at all recommended for the casual Only Fools and Horses fan. If one does want to see 'A Royal Flush', I recommend the 2004 edit over the original because it is more like an episode of Only Fools and Horses; tracking down a copy of the original is time consuming, rare and, ultimately, disappointing. I like to pretend it doesn't exist. To me, 'The Frog's Legacy' follows 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire?' and 'A Royal Flush' was just a nightmare of Sullivan's that showed him what would happen if the show was written by someone else.