The Crown- Netflix (**Spoilers**)

skooterblue2

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

When libraries re-open, I think I'll be looking for a good Thatcher biography and maybe a history of the Falklands war, for instance.

Can you find the Marshall Cavendish forthnightly publication that fits into a binder? The FAlklands war? Pay particular attention to the end, the legal surrender, Col Michael Rose, the spanish speaking Royal marine and try and find out about the Blonde Angel of death, some dodgy SF argentinian Captain. Dont forget Thule station on Antarctica.

Recliner

expectationlost wrote: »

Diana is gong to grow a ~foot taller as well as aging.

Think that's a bit odd, I would have thought Emma Corrin could have continued on quite easily as Diana. Wouldn't have seen it necessary to have a cast change at all.

Recliner

Recliner wrote: »

Think that's a bit odd, I would have thought Emma Corrin could have continued on quite easily as Diana. Wouldn't have seen it necessary to have a cast change at all.

The new actress is the image of the older Diana. Diana changed dramatically from the girl that married Charles to the woman that blossomed in later years.

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

What evidence is there of Saville doing this for the Royal family. Plenty of people hate the Royal family, and this is the kind of thing that they would spread, that and they are actually lizard people.


My reading of Saville was that he was a loaner and everyone looked the other way, from staff and medical staff, or rather they allowed him freedoms because they thought he was a good person. Allowing alone time with fragile patients. Were these nurses in on it too?


There was also supposed to be a Westminster paedo ring. That also was the fantasies of an actual pedophile. Debunked relatively recently.

Yeah, who didn't love Jim'll fix it as a kid (and a lot of adults). That your dad suspected him is an instance of foresight. But, he could easily have been wrong as it was only a gut instinct and no evidence.


Savillle was no Machieavelli, a member of some illuminati. He was a Nonce, that few believed was a nonce. Simpler times by far.

The evidence was destroyed and suppressed by the police on orders from the home office. The same tactics that were used by Epstein get on a plane, a bit of drink some drugs and some girls of a questionable age, shure what the hell? We are all in good company here lads (QCs, MPs, Lords)? Next thing they have photos of you and they can spin any story and your are on the hook same as Epstein. Same as Epstein, this is much more than a few under age children. It is manipulating the Government and Justice system.

You dont think it was strange that the day after Saville popped his clogs all these stories came to light? You dont think MI-6 had a quiet word with Prince Andrew and warned him and the Queen who he was dealing with? They knew full well what was going on. What I am surprised is how the investigation got so far with Andrew and the Queen didnt protect him, a member of the Royal Household?

Supposing Saville was the milk of human kindness? Who do you think stopped those investigations?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/29/jimmy-savile-behaviour-prince-charles

Anyone who attempted to investigate Saville was shut down, retired or sent to the back office.

When the State looks at you it is called an investigation.
When you look at the State you are called a conspiracy theorist.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

The evidence was destroyed and suppressed by the police on orders from the home office.

So this can be summed up as saying, there is no evidence.

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

So this can be summed up as saying, there is no evidence.

You never heard of Police man looking the other way? Never heard of a Police Vendetta or cover up? Never heard of Police collusion? never heard of MI-5 or MI-6? Do you know who COBRA are and what a D-Notice is? Do you think Max Clifford was just a pervert or someone who outlived his usefulness?

You know Princess Margaret was dating some London Gangster? He said he only learned the meaning of crime family when he met the Royal family. Make no mistake about you dont remain in power for the last 400 years or so without cracking a few eggs quietly on the side every now and again.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You never heard of Police man looking the other way? Never heard of a Police Vendetta or cover up? Never heard of Police collusion? never heard of MI-5 or MI-6? Do you know who COBRA are and what a D-Notice is? Do you think Max Clifford was just a pervert or someone who outlived his usefulness?

You know Princess Margaret was dating some London Gangster? He said he only learned the meaning of crime family when he met the Royal family. Make no mistake about you dont remain in power for the last 400 years or so without cracking a few eggs quietly on the side every now and again.

Thanks for your view point.

Lady Spangles

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You do know what the word "compared" means. Charles, Louis, Philip and other have been upto far worse stuff than ANYTHING Andrew may have done. They protected Saville, Saville was a small town local hero. He couldnt have survived for very long on his own. Who do you think he was procuring all those children for? Saville was running the network but who do you think was running Saville? They had loads of MPs, Senior Civil servants, Police all under the thumb. Who do you think protected Saville until the day after he died?

Ann is another bampot. She cant hold a marriage together, she is known to be a bit eccentric. Her kids do have Royal titles eg Lady Zara. She hasnt been subjected to the same media scrutiny as Charles or Philip, trust me she is no better than Fergie for using privilege.

I'm fully aware of what "compared" means, thank you. But paedophilia is worse than anything Charles has done (and your guilt by association with Saville is not evidence of any wrongdoing). Mountbatten was not an heir to the throne, so I don't see how he fits into this. We're speaking about potential monarchs here - Mountbatten was never an heir.

As for "holding a marriage together", last I checked Andrew was also divorced. While he and Fergie appear to still be quite close, that's probably for their kids' sake. Hell, even Edward would be a better prospect than Andrew.

As for royal titles, "Lady" is not a formal royal title, as such. It's a courteous form of address for most aristocratic women who don't hold titles of their own and who are not married to titled noblemen.

skooterblue2

Lady Spangles wrote: »

I'm fully aware of what "compared" means, thank you. But paedophilia is worse than anything Charles has done (and your guilt by association with Saville is not evidence of any wrongdoing). Mountbatten was not an heir to the throne, so I don't see how he fits into this. We're speaking about potential monarchs here - Mountbatten was never an heir.

As for "holding a marriage together", last I checked Andrew was also divorced. While he and Fergie appear to still be quite close, that's probably for their kids' sake. Hell, even Edward would be a better prospect than Andrew.

As for royal titles, "Lady" is not a formal royal title, as such. It's a courteous form of address for most aristocratic women who don't hold titles of their own and who are not married to titled noblemen.

You dont understand Mountbatten as member of the Royal family and the Defense of the Realm. He was the last Viceroy of India, a hero in the Royal Navy a counsel to Prince Charles, A sea lord, Chief of defense staff. He might have been only the Queens cousin but he was at the heart of the royal family. Charles wrote to the Police and told them to stop investigating Saville. Why would he do that? Dont you think MI-5 would have warned him to "cease and desist" when it came to Saville. People were terrified of the power Saville had. He had people dismissed from the BBC. They tried to limit him in later years at the Children charity concerts and fundraisers. This was a guy not to be messed with, should you come to his attention.

You dont have to be king to control the throne you only have to advise the king. A King cannot be everything, he needs a privy counsel (PR, Legal counsel, Accountant, secretary, security etc) as well.

Lady Zara Philips is an OBE but she earned that herself as an Olympian.

cml387

skooterblue2 wrote: »

The Falklands didnt just happen like that either. The Argentinians were looking to annex Chile but they wanted to test the international water first. The Royal navy were at an all time low with Thatcher selling off many assets. Plus there were many shoddy cost savings in the army. My favourite was the DMS boot, particularly hated in peat bog land terrain. A lot of technology didnt work properly. The British knew the Falklands and Chile were coming up but didnt want to appear as the aggressor. The real reason for defending the Falklands was not British Sovereign Territory (most of the deeds of the falkland farms are owned by Argentine citizens and leased back) or British citizens. The real reason is it is a foothold to a place called Thule in Antarctica (See the last pages of the Marshal Cavendish Binder series). When the Pole shifts and the ice cap melts, the British want to get into virgin territory to mine it. A whole continent never mined, think of those rare earth minerals? Forget Afghanistan, This would be land that man has never set foot on.

Look what happened afterwards, orders for Harrier Jump jets for US Marine Corps, both of the air craft carriers were scrapped and replaced, totally rebooted the UK economy. Margaret Thatcher had a landslide election.

The US marines ordered Harriers (or as the Americans call them, the AV8_A) in 1971, so nothing to do with the Falkands.

HMS Hermes was obsolete but HMS Invicible was brand new, and far from being scrapped after the war it served until 2005.
It's untrue to say it rebooted th economy, recovery was already well under way by 1982 (although it certainly rebooted Thatcher, if things had gone badly in the Falkland she would be gone).

Argentina and Chile were not on good terms but Argentina was not going to "annexe" Chile and the Thule theory is bonkers. Where are you getting this stuff?

skooterblue2

cml387 wrote: »

The US marines ordered Harriers (or as the Americans call them, the AV8_A) in 1971, so nothing to do with the Falkands.


Argentina and Chile were not on good terms but Argentina was not going to "annexe" Chile and the Thule theory is bonkers. Where are you getting this stuff?

But India and Spain did order harriers in 1983 and the Italian Navy did in 1989 and maybe Thailand did. On reflection I am not so sure the Harriers were a suitable platform. They are high maintenance difficult to maintain and I am not sure of the performance compared to similar competitors at the same time for cost. When you buy harriers you also buy the maintenance and parts contracts as well.

We had a neighbour at home in co. Waterford who used to visit. He was in RN and was Lt Commander. He used to be talking nonsense about the place in the south atlantic no one had ever heard of back then in the late 70's. Chile were co-operating with the British as for chandlery for submarines and rescuing downed helicopter crews with SAS/SBS teams. The SAS/SBS "escaped" and the RN crew were taken as POWs. Remember how Margaret Thatcher was urging the British government to be kind to their "old" friend when Pinochet was arrested in the UK while seeking cancer treatment? THe Argentine Junta was a fairly crazy place at the time as was Chile under Pinochet. Once you cross over the Andes it would be fairly easy to disrupt and take over Chile. I think my source for it was Mark Felton on a Youtube video (For those who dont know him he is a history professor and former RN diver). There was a book about it and the assistance the Chilean unofficially gave was unparalleled.

Chile used to move their Mountain and Artic troops over the mountains to draw attention from the Argentinian army. Chile did loads to help the British. You seriously think the British MI-6 had no idea the Argentine Junta had plans to invade the Falklands? First world country misses intelligence that Junta goes to invade Island? There is supposedly a book on it.

Check the last page of the Marshall Cavendish binder, it also doesn't discuss the terms of settlement of surrender of the Falklands. It briefly touches on Thule.

Mr E

Mod: guys can we get back to talking about the tv show please? This history chat is off topic in this thread.

There is a Heritage and History forum if you want to have a discussion there -
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=330

bnt

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Also, I had a look at the episode titles and I see one is named fagan which is a famous name due to an incident that happened at the palace so I’ll be interested to see how they deal with that.

I just watched the Fagan episode, and my reaction is "well, I suppose they had to do it like that". This season really seems to be the Thatcher & Diana show: even when they aren't the focus of an episode, they still shape the events in it. The "right-on" preachiness, throwing a bone to the anti-Thatcher crowd, makes it my least favourite of the season so far, I suppose.

eviltimeban

bnt wrote: »

I just watched the Fagan episode, and my reaction is "well, I suppose they had to do it like that". This season really seems to be the Thatcher & Diana show: even when they aren't the focus of an episode, they still shape the events in it. The "right-on" preachiness, throwing a bone to the anti-Thatcher crowd, makes it my least favourite of the season so far, I suppose.

But you have to remember, and I can remember this, Thatcher was massively unpopular. She was also polarising. And the UK under her rule was a grim place. The anti Thatcher "crowd" were huge numbers of people.

I though the use of The Beat's "Stand Down Margaret" at the end said it all. I mean, no one is releasing "Stand Down Boris" today, are they?

alchemist33

Just watched The Crown as shown on Gogglebox, and my wife spotted that when Camilla took Diana to lunch, it was in a restaurant called Menage a Trois! It was a real restaurant but I can't find any reference they went there. Cracking bit of wit if the writers made it up.

Agent Coulson

alchemist33 wrote: »

Just watched The Crown as shown on Gogglebox, and my wife spotted that when Camilla took Diana to lunch, it was in a restaurant called Menage a Trois! It was a real restaurant but I can't find any reference they went there. Cracking bit of wit if the writers made it up.

Antony Worrall Thompson's first restaurant.

Royal historian Penny Junor has revealed Diana and Camilla did meet at the Menage a Trois, in 1981, but only after Diana was married.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/crown-how-accurate-season-4-23020221

JP Liz V1

Happy4all wrote: »

She is so good, I forget she is Gillian Anderson.

From Scully to Gibson to Milburn to Thatch, she is getting better with age

bnt

It occurred to me, after the final episode of the season, that we have not heard from John Major at all. I see he was there, played by an actor named Marc Ozall, whose IMDB profile doesn't even have a picture. As far as I can tell, John Major, John Smith and Tony Blair have been cast for S5 yet. Blair was played by Michael Sheen in The Queen (2006), but I don't see him doing that again, fifteen years later.

eviltimeban

Yes it's going to be interesting to see how they handle the Blair years, and Diana's death, without going over ground that was covered perfectly well in the movie.

Unless it skips this era completely and goes to the William / Kate era and we get all that.

skooterblue2

bnt wrote: »

Blair was played by Michael Sheen in The Queen (2006), but I don't see him doing that again, fifteen years later.

Michael Sheen is a very capable actor, not a problem a good makeup artist wont solve.

It will be very interesting to see how they whitewash the deaths of Diana and Dodi al Fayd after you have seen Keith Allens' documentary. The whole thing is full of gaping wholes but I am sure they will plaster over all the cracks.

AndrewJRenko

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Kindly re-read and focus on the word "compared". Andrew is a saint and bastion of higher moral fibre "compared" to other members of the Royal household. The comparison is not to my peers but to his peers.

You also have to remember Andrew went to the Falklands, been promoted several times, learned a real skill and I think he was involved in the SAR off South Georgia (I do stand to be corrected), his men had positive things to say about him. Up until recently has had a very positive public opinion. He was never close to or associated the same way other people were with the Diana death.

But apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

flazio

Anyone know the filming locations for Mountbattons assassination? I don't think they were the real Classiebawn castle and Mullaghmore port. Did they find real Irish locations or was it a case of Wales and or Scotland standing in?

flazio

flazio wrote: »

Anyone know the filming locations for Mountbattons assassination? I don't think they were the real Classiebawn castle and Mullaghmore port. Did they find real Irish locations or was it a case of Wales and or Scotland standing in?

Would bet good money not Ireland.

valoren

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I thought to myself that I saw a mouse cross the floor. Am I wrong in saying that the next shot morphed the mouse into a fly on a mantle piece?

"We" (my house) have four Episodes left ,so I have skipped through any post here that might give a spoiler/hint of a spoiler(in my mind/fear). Maybe no poster here did any such thing!

But ,the mouse on the floor / fly on the mantle ......Well, that is not a spoiler ,or a plot line.

I just found it funny.

It also seems that there is a kink between both shots.

I wonder did some of the production staff run for the hills,at the sight of a mouse!?

It is likely deliberate. How can a writer convey to the audience the impression that Buckingham Palace is becoming dilapidated? Have a character say "Buckingham Palace needs redecorating"? Or, use some nuance and show a mouse randomly running across the floor to convey it.

NutmegGirl

flazio wrote: »

Anyone know the filming locations for Mountbattons assassination? I don't think they were the real Classiebawn castle and Mullaghmore port. Did they find real Irish locations or was it a case of Wales and or Scotland standing in?

Read that it was Scotland . But not the exact location
Presume when they were filming the Balmoral parts they’d do those scenes too
The castle they used for Balmoral was the same one used in Monarch of the Glen, the BBC programme from the late 99’s/early 2000’s

valoren

eviltimeban wrote: »

Yes it's going to be interesting to see how they handle the Blair years, and Diana's death, without going over ground that was covered perfectly well in the movie.

Unless it skips this era completely and goes to the William / Kate era and we get all that.

They had the same problem with From the Earth to the Moon. Apollo 13 had been released 3 years earlier and the "Apollo 13" episode focused on the contrast between a young journalist more interested in reporting how the crew's families were feeling and a veteran reporter more focused on what was happpening with the mission itself.

I guess an option would be an episode contrasting the british media during those events. A contrast between a "gotcha" type tabloid journalist and a more reverent, conservative journalist. They would have a quid pro quo relationship with specific papparazzi to get photos during the summer of 97 and the fee's paid out become more lucrative thus leading to a frenzy. The conclusion would be that the two competing publishers had driven the price of photo's up so much that their photographers took graphic photo's of the crash scene. The drama then stems from deciding between publishing them or doing the moral thing and refusing to publish thus losing out on a lucrative scoop. That there is a line that even the gutter press would not cross.

den87

We’re playing catch up (having just started season 3). What was the reaction to Michael C Hall’s portrayal of JFK at the time? I couldn’t stop laughing at how bad it was

eviltimeban

valoren wrote: »

I guess an option would be an episode contrasting the british media during those events..

True, it could concentrate on the events around it rather than the event itself. And no focus on Blair and the Queen, as that's been done (obviously they'd be in it, not just as main characters). Perhaps more focus on Charles.

mloc123

valoren wrote: »

It is likely deliberate. How can a writer convey to the audience the impression that Buckingham Palace is becoming dilapidated? Have a character say "Buckingham Palace needs redecorating"? Or, use some nuance and show a mouse randomly running across the floor to convey it.

The actually do that also, in the Fagan episode

valoren

mloc123 wrote: »

The actually do that also, in the Fagan episode

I loved the contrast in that episode. You have Thatcher spending £3 billion to send an Armada to defend islands which are inconsequential but done so to "protect" the Commonwealth while simultaneously the home of the head of that Commonwealth is easily broken into by the same person twice and, if he was so motivated, could feasibly have killed the Monarch.