S04.E08: 48:1

[foxfreakinmulder]

On 11/18/2020 at 7:32 AM, benteen said:

Gillian Anderson does a lot better when she works off of Olivia Colman and when her character raises her voice because she isn't...talking...soooo....sloooowly.  But her performance has not been a highlight of this season.

I agree and I don't know why but it bothers me the way she tilts her head when she talks.

Favorite part for me was the opening speech with Claire Foy. Olivia is good but I really liked the 2 seasons with Claire.

It's too bad the queen couldn't go on the radio or tv and clear up the mess she made instead of throwing the press secretary under the bus after 30 years of service.

[ahpny]

16 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

You have misunderstood.  The Queen must not say her opinion in public, but her constitutional duty is "advice,  warn and encourage" in private.  That's way she meets the Prime Minister every week. 

There is no problem with the Queen telling Thatcher, in private, whatever the Queen likes. The problem was that the Queen purposely made her opinions known in public. The episode was quite clear on this, and that she was strongly advised against doing so. She knowingly disregarded that advice and wanted her opinions known in public.

[PeterPirate]

10 hours ago, foxfreakinmulder said:

It's too bad the queen couldn't go on the radio or tv and clear up the mess she made instead of throwing the press secretary under the bus after 30 years of service.

Another possible explanation is Shea volunteered to be the scapegoat, and in return he was allowed to write novels that were loosely based on his work experiences.  

Frankly, considering the severity of the issue, I would take that deal in a heartbeat.

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by PeterPirate
Had to fix the name.

[Black Knight]

Knowing Thatcher, I don't really believe that if only her son's business interests had been in South America or Germany instead, she would have agreed to sanctions. It was a contributing but not necessary factor. Her opposition to sanctions was entirely in keeping with her political principles.

Elizabeth's final argument to Thatcher was pretty weak. It boiled down to, "This is an issue important to personal friends of mine and so I'd like to make it happen for them." There was really very little throughout the episode of Elizabeth approaching the issue from a moral standpoint. She spoke a bit about compassion, but certainly nothing about racism, colonialism, or the brutality used against the protesters. Perhaps the writers knew they couldn't go that far with it given what was happening in Ireland, Thatcher's own point that some of these personal friends of Elizabeth's were responsible for human rights abuses themselves, and the history of the Royal Family in general. Thatcher's position is appalling, but Elizabeth's was closer to supporting the right thing for the wrong reasons than being truly the hero to Thatcher's villain.

[Neurochick]

4 hours ago, ahpny said:

Whatever awfulness Thatcher embodied, as shown here or in real life, I side with her in that this discussion with the Queen. Thatcher was right. The Queen was wrong. Policy - even wrong or racist policy - was Thatcher's exclusive domain.

I'm sorry but racist policies should NEVER be defended and should ALWAYS be called out.  There's good and there's evil, period.  End of story.

That said, I thought it was interesting to see Thatcher actually cooking in the beginning of the episode, she was cooking for her cabinet members?  She came from an era where women cooked, where women unpacked their husband's suitcases and she didn't seem to be resentful of it at all.  I know so many people today who are very proud to say they don't know how to cook.  So there is that.

 

[txhorns79]

4 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

I'm sorry but racist policies should NEVER be defended and should ALWAYS be called out.  There's good and there's evil, period.  End of story.

I'd normally agree, but the Queen's role is such that it would be a very bad idea if she injected herself into public political debates, even if the cause seems particularly worthy.   

[Neurochick]

11 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I'd normally agree, but the Queen's role is such that it would be a very bad idea if she injected herself into public political debates, even if the cause seems particularly worthy.   

I don't even get why it would be a bad idea.  It's not like it would start WW3 or something.

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, foxfreakinmulder said:

It's too bad the queen couldn't go on the radio or tv and clear up the mess she made instead of throwing the press secretary under the bus after 30 years of service.

Presidents and prime ministers do just the same. 

[txhorns79]

Just now, Neurochick said:

I don't even get why it would be a bad idea.  It's not like it would start WW3 or something.

The Queen holds a special place in British society.  She is the Head of State, but she is an un-elected, non-political actor.  The Queen cycles through PMs, and needs to be able to maintain trust with all of them, regardless of party or political position so they will advise her honestly and she can offer her counsel.  If the Queen starts taking shots at her PMs in public, the trust ends and the system breaks down.  It's not a matter of her starting WW3, but it's well outside her ceremonial role and it hurts everyone if she starts publicly undermining her PMs.   

[Neurochick]

8 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

The Queen holds a special place in British society.  She is the Head of State, but she is an un-elected, non-political actor.  The Queen cycles through PMs, and needs to be able to maintain trust with all of them, regardless of party or political position so they will advise her honestly and she can offer her counsel.  If the Queen starts taking shots at her PMs in public, the trust ends and the system breaks down.  It's not a matter of her starting WW3, but it's well outside her ceremonial role and it hurts everyone if she starts publicly undermining her PMs.   

Don't get that, makes zero sense to me. 

People take shots at each other all the time, that's what happens with human beings.

[ahpny]

7 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

2 hours ago, foxfreakinmulder said:

It's too bad the queen couldn't go on the radio or tv and clear up the mess she made instead of throwing the press secretary under the bus after 30 years of service.

Presidents and prime ministers do just the same.

True, but presidents and prime ministers can be voted out of office if their under-the-bus-throwing pisses people off. The Queen can't. That's at least part of the reason why different standards do, and should, apply.

[Neurochick]

Just now, ahpny said:

True, but presidents and prime ministers can be voted out of office if their under-the-bus-throwing pisses people off. The Queen can't. That's at least part of the reason why different standards do, and should, apply.

However racism is wrong and should be called out.  Period.

[Roseanna]

1 minute ago, ahpny said:

True, but presidents and prime ministers can be voted out of office if their under-the-bus-throwing pisses people off. The Queen can't. That's at least part of the reason why different standards do, and should, apply.

Actually "different standards" mean that "the King/Quen can do no wrong", so if that seems to happen, it's the advisors' fault.

[ahpny]

5 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Actually "different standards" mean that "the King/Quen can do no wrong", so if that seems to happen, it's the advisors' fault.

What I meant by "different standards" was that elected politicians can and must voice their opinions publicly all the time on the important issues of the day. The Queen has no need to do so, and, in exchange for, well, being Queen, she does not voice her political opinions publicly. I never meant to suggest that royalty can "do no wrong." If there's anything this series has shown, it's that royalty can do plenty wrong. Sorry for any confusion. 

[BitterApple]

1 hour ago, Neurochick said:

I don't even get why it would be a bad idea.  It's not like it would start WW3 or something.

Probably because it opens the Pandora's Box. Comment publicly on one thing, and everyone looks for the same the next time around. Not every political dilemma is as cut-and-dry as the moral obligation to end apartheid. 

[Neurochick]

1 hour ago, ahpny said:

What I meant by "different standards" was that elected politicians can and must voice their opinions publicly all the time on the important issues of the day. The Queen has no need to do so, and, in exchange for, well, being Queen, she does not voice her political opinions publicly. I never meant to suggest that royalty can "do no wrong." If there's anything this series has shown, it's that royalty can do plenty wrong. Sorry for any confusion. 

Interesting point.

[Black Knight]

1 hour ago, Neurochick said:

Don't get that, makes zero sense to me. 

People take shots at each other all the time, that's what happens with human beings.

"People take shots at each other all the time" is a general statement. The monarch and the Prime Minister, on the other hand, are two very specific individuals, and rules can be different when it comes to specific individuals. As one example, if I take shots at my boss, how long could I reasonably expect to stay employed? If I take shots at my spouse, how long I could I reasonably expect to stay happily married?

And so we come to another set of specific individuals, the Prime Minister and the Queen. It was noted multiple times in the episode that in the instance of Elizabeth and Thatcher, it had the potential to create a constitutional crisis. That's why generally this kind of thing Is Not Done by the monarchy, because they don't want to create a constitutional crisis, partly out of a sense of responsibility to the country and partly out of the knowledge that they would end up the losers at the resolution of the constitutional crisis. They are unelected, members of a monarchy through pure accident of birth, while the Prime Minister is elected, and consequently they are expected to be show ponies only. Elected people can be voted out, so the populace has final say there. Unelected people cannot, and so if they are to continue in their positions, they are expected to stay out of politics. It's easy to cheer if Queen Elizabeth should have an opinion one agrees with (though I'll point out again that at no point did we see her actually taking a stand against racism - sanctions wasn't even, by her own words, an issue of importance to her, it was an issue of importance to other people whom she counted as friends), but just imagine if she gave an opinion one didn't agree with.

[Clanstarling]

On 11/15/2020 at 6:26 PM, peridot said:

I feel so terribly about the press secretary who's been serving for over 30 years.  He protested several times about the course of action, but he gets thrown under the bus so easily?

I would have definitely wrote a tell-all if I were him.

It seemed that Thatcher was both isolationist and racist.  I hated that she had no empathy for the people suffering under apartheid and was all about the money.

 

8 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Another possible explanation is Kean volunteered to be the scapegoat, and in return he was allowed to write novels that were loosely based on his work experiences.  

Frankly, considering the severity of the issue, I would take that deal in a heartbeat.

 

When he was with his agent, he refused to do political thrillers using his background, because he didn't want to use his position and knowledge for commercial pursuit. My take was that he started writing them because they shafted him and he no longer felt loyal.

[Umbelina]

Now I want to find some of Kean's books!  Anyone know a good one?

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, Clanstarling said:

When he was with his agent, he refused to do political thrillers using his background, because he didn't want to use his position and knowledge for commercial pursuit. My take was that he started writing them because they shafted him and he no longer felt loyal.

Yes, that's how they portrayed it in the show.  I was just offering an alternate version of how things may have really happened. After all, there were leaks out of Buckingham Palace about the Queen's opinions about Thatcher.  Since Her Majesty didn't talk to the press herself, somebody else had to do it.  It probably was Shea, and he paid the appropriate price, whether or not if he was acting at her behest.  Besides, the notoriety associated with the uproar probably helped his book sales tremendously.  

[swanpride]

While I "get" the notion that the queen is only supposed to advice, isn't it part of the trusted relationship that the PM actually LISTEN to what she has to say? The other PMs sometimes argued with her and certainly did a lot of things she didn't agree with, but at least they listened. Thatcher didn't.

And one also has to consider that the Queen experienced WWII. There is a certain mind-set she has to despise.

[ProudMary]

If people in positions of authority aren't going to speak out against dehumanization (slavery, the Indian caste system, the Holocaust, Jim Crow, apartheid, brown kids in cages at the border) then they shouldn't BE in a position of authority. I understand what everyone has written about how the Monarch can't express his/her opinion in public, but IMO it was because of that prohibition that the Queen's leaked opinion held true power.

Additionally, she was acting not in her position as Queen, but as the leader of the Commonwealth. I think there's an important distinction there. The problem was that the ONE who was fighting against the 48 other members happened to be the PM of the UK. 

I realize this is only my opinion and I can't change the world, but apartheid was a crime against humanity and the Queen's push for sanctions even if outside the "rules" was an important piece of the puzzle that helped to change an abhorrent policy.

[Clanstarling]

9 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Yes, that's how they portrayed it in the show.  I was just offering an alternate version of how things may have really happened. After all, there were leaks out of Buckingham Palace about the Queen's opinions about Thatcher.  Since Her Majesty didn't talk to the press herself, somebody else had to do it.  It probably was Shea, and he paid the appropriate price, whether or not if he was acting at her behest.  Besides, the notoriety associated with the uproar probably helped his book sales tremendously.  

Oh, yes. Your version is absolutely  valid. I was just noting how it was played in the show.

[Roseanna]

On 11/23/2020 at 12:41 AM, ProudMary said:

If people in positions of authority aren't going to speak out against dehumanization (slavery, the Indian caste system, the Holocaust, Jim Crow, apartheid, brown kids in cages at the border) then they shouldn't BE in a position of authority. I understand what everyone has written about how the Monarch can't express his/her opinion in public, but IMO it was because of that prohibition that the Queen's leaked opinion held true power.

Additionally, she was acting not in her position as Queen, but as the leader of the Commonwealth. I think there's an important distinction there. The problem was that the ONE who was fighting against the 48 other members happened to be the PM of the UK.

I watched the episode anew and understood that Thatcher had a point: by championing *only* against apartheid system in South Africa the Queen was fraternizing with African dictators who oppressed cruelly their peoples, so there was hypocrisy of double standard (not unusual in itself).

Thatcher also saw that Elizabeth had a sentimental view about Commonwealth that she had inherited from her beloved father. Her famous speech didn't include only her vow to serve her whole lifetime but also elements of delusion - that was IMO made clear by presenting the whole speech in the episode. But times were changed and Britain's position had changed with it (although even Thatcher couldn't admit how big the change was).  

Thatcher said that the Good Samaritan was only remembered because he had money to help (and he indeed left money to the inn for taking care of the wounded man). Actually, many times poor people are often more willing to help than the rich. 

Besides being a parable told by Jesus and not an actual happening, the crux of matter a priest and a Levite didn't help the wounded man because they would be contamined according the purity rules and afterwards they couldn't have performed the religious rites. They believed to serve God, but by not helping a person who needed help, they didn't.   

[swanpride]

Also the point is the a Samaritan is not a "believer" in god, and yet he acted more following the ideals of god than those who felt oh so religious. It is actually a story about hypocorism, and about acting is more worse than lip service. Hence it is really ironic that Thatcher quoted the story in a moment in which she refused to act.

[Minivanessa]

3 hours ago, swanpride said:

Also the point is the a Samaritan is not a "believer" in god, and yet he acted more following the ideals of god than those who felt oh so religious. It is actually a story about hypocorism, and about acting is more worse than lip service. Hence it is really ironic that Thatcher quoted the story in a moment in which she refused to act.

And it richly if sneakily disses Thatcher, who seemed to hold it as an article of faith that People Making Money and Getting Rich is the Best Thing Ever. And that it's abhorrent for the government to take any of that money away from them, especially to give it to poor people. Or sick people. Or people pushed out of jobs because their companies/industries fell on hard times. 

So of course, for her the whole point of the Good Samaritan was that he was the Rich Samaritan. In Maggie's view, poor people were useless twats who might as well die and quit cluttering up the landscape. 

Yeah, I hated her. And I'm not even a Brit,  lol.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Jeeves

[TV Diva Queen]

On 11/17/2020 at 11:29 AM, WatchrTina said:

I think I may be becoming an honorary British Monarchist because the scene of Thatcher repeatedly interrupting the QUEEN was just INFURIATING.  Then again, I was equally mortified by that one courtier being sacrificed in order for the Queen to save face.  I'm going to have to watch the episode again because, unless I'm mistaken, the courier who was dismissed is the one who advised AGAINST the leak to the press.  If so . . . damn. "Palace Intrigue" is COLD.

YES! and when the Queen stood up - Margaret stayed seated......in front of the footman no less.  I was livid.  

ETA:  When Elizabeth was at her desk going through the Red Box and she took out the folders...I said (out loud to no one)  Don't forget to flip it over like your daddy taught you.  And she did.  and they panned over to daddy's photo on her desk.  Loved that.  

Edited November 25, 2020 by TV Diva Queen

[NYCFree]

On 11/22/2020 at 3:10 PM, Neurochick said:

However racism is wrong and should be called out.  Period.

 

On 11/23/2020 at 1:41 AM, ProudMary said:

If people in positions of authority aren't going to speak out against dehumanization (slavery, the Indian caste system, the Holocaust, Jim Crow, apartheid, brown kids in cages at the border) then they shouldn't BE in a position of authority. I understand what everyone has written about how the Monarch can't express his/her opinion in public, but IMO it was because of that prohibition that the Queen's leaked opinion held true power.

Additionally, she was acting not in her position as Queen, but as the leader of the Commonwealth. I think there's an important distinction there. The problem was that the ONE who was fighting against the 48 other members happened to be the PM of the UK. 

I realize this is only my opinion and I can't change the world, but apartheid was a crime against humanity and the Queen's push for sanctions even if outside the "rules" was an important piece of the puzzle that helped to change an abhorrent policy.

The Queen is also leader of the Church of England and should be able to speak on moral wrongs.

[Blakeston]

When the season first dropped, I'd heard that the eighth episode really explored Thatcher's legacy on Apartheid, so I was really looking forward to watching Peter Morgan stick it to her for her disgusting policies on South Africa.

And that's certainly what happened! But I can't say I found it at all enjoyable to watch this episode, because Morgan really felt the need to shit on everyone, not just Thatcher. The whole lot came across terribly (which really appears to be a theme this season).

- The Queen didn't seem to care about the lives of oppressed South Africans. Based on this episode, she mostly just wanted the Commonwealth leaders to think she was doing a good job.

I don't think there's any actual evidence that she instructed anyone to plant a story in the press about her political views. And without evidence, it seems almost slanderous to depict her doing that. It goes against everything the woman has always stood for.

- Andrew and Charles both seemed like total asshats. I certainly have no objection to Andrew being depicted badly, but I really have to wonder if Charles would inform his brother that he's "fringe" on his wedding day. (Right in front of their siblings, who are even further down the line!)

- Then there's Martin Charteris, who had come across as a decent guy fairly consistently since season one. The way he lambasted Michael before firing him was just reprehensible, because he knew fully well that it wasn't Michael's fault. And we know that didn't happen in real life. Martin had retired long before this point in history. So why on earth did they drag his name through the mud like this?

- Michael Shea seemed like the one good person in the whole mix, but they still felt the need to highlight how bad his writing was. Were those actual passages he wrote? If so, someone should have confiscated his thesaurus.

[swanpride]

..I didn't get the impression that the Queen didn't care about the oppressed at all. And weather the leak was deliberate or not, it had to come from somewhere, hence she must have been vocal about her anger towards Thatcher in private at the very least. She is only human after all.

[RemoteControlFreak]

On 11/16/2020 at 10:04 AM, dubstepford wife said:

This show is certainly not being kind to Thatcher.  I wasn't around for that era so I don't know what's true and what's fiction, but if even half of this is factually accurate she is not coming across well.  Opposition to ending apartheid is never a good look, regardless of consequences for the economy.  And if that thing about her son being a businessman in South Africa, which the show implies colored her decisions towards the country, is true, then that should be grounds for removal from office.  It's outright corruption.

Obviously you don’t have to “be around” for a period of history to know if a depiction is true. In any case, it’s not even close to corruption if Mark Thatcher merely doing business with South Africa influenced his mother’s policies. Margaret Thatcher’s reluctance to impose sanctions on South Africa was mainstream Conservative Party ideology at the time. 

[meep.meep]

On 11/17/2020 at 6:58 PM, txhorns79 said:

I think the people we saw were supposed to represent the entire empire (at the time), rather than it being a world wide event.  I did love seeing Claire Foy! 

Well since the empire stretched around the world, it amounted to the same thing.  I got a chuckle from the production taking "the sun never sets on the British empire" literally!  Somebody should have been listening to the speech in the dark.

[chocolatine]

I was taken aback that the negotiation about an acceptable substitute word for "sanctions" seemed to be played for laughs, considering what was at stake and the later fallout. That montage felt like it belonged on a different show.

On 11/22/2020 at 6:21 PM, Clanstarling said:

When he was with his agent, he refused to do political thrillers using his background, because he didn't want to use his position and knowledge for commercial pursuit. My take was that he started writing them because they shafted him and he no longer felt loyal.

And I'm sure there was also the practical concern of needing to earn money. The manuscript he dropped off at the beginning of the episode didn't sell and his agent encouraged him to write something more "commercial" even before he was fired.

I have to admit I was shocked to hear Edward use the c-word. I thought the Royals (and the British upper classes in general) had perfected the art form of delivering the most cutting insults very eloquently, without using foul language.

[dubbel zout]

9 hours ago, chocolatine said:

I was taken aback that the negotiation about an acceptable substitute word for "sanctions" seemed to be played for laughs, considering what was at stake and the later fallout. That montage felt like it belonged on a different show.

I thought it did become a joke, though not in the uproarious-laughter sense.

9 hours ago, chocolatine said:

I have to admit I was shocked to hear Edward use the c-word. I thought the Royals (and the British upper classes in general) had perfected the art form of delivering the most cutting insults very eloquently, without using foul language.

The kids were together in private. Plus, "cunt" is used differently in Britain—it's similar to "prick." See here for more.

[chocolatine]

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

The kids were together in private. Plus, "cunt" is used differently in Britain—it's similar to "prick." See here for more.

I used to live in Scotland, so I'm well aware how the word is used in Britain. I was still shocked to hear it used by a royal prince. YMMV.

[NYCFree]

On 11/27/2020 at 11:09 AM, RemoteControlFreak said:

Obviously you don’t have to “be around” for a period of history to know if a depiction is true. In any case, it’s not even close to corruption if Mark Thatcher merely doing business with South Africa influenced his mother’s policies. Margaret Thatcher’s reluctance to impose sanctions on South Africa was mainstream Conservative Party ideology at the time. 

Corruption involves the use of power for private gain. If Thatcher was dead set against economic sanctions because her favorite son’s business interests would suffer, that absolutely is corruption. Government leaders are supposed to make decisions based on the needs of their country as a whole, not the financial impact on their offspring. Imagine a governor saying “we can’t give up the coal industry” because their child owned a coal mine.

[merylinkid]

On 11/17/2020 at 10:52 AM, Helena Dax said:

Otoh, the Queen made a mistake when she went against her Prime Minister.

I kept saying "bitch, Elizabeth was Queen before you got into politics and she will STILL be Queen long after you are pushed out."   Thatcher was too caught up in her agenda-- she was chosen to form a government in the QUEEN's name, not her own.   She is a representative of the Queen, not her superior.   If the Queen hints at something you do it because you serve HER, not the other way around.   

For a PM of one of the major world powers, Thatcher had a very narrow world view.   Trade, trade, trade.   Money money money.    Except Britain was still a world power not because of its money but because of its history and relationships with so many other countries.   In other words, things other than $$$$.   But her favorite needed to not fail as a businessman so Mommy was going to make sure that happened because he was so strong.   

Andrew was a whiny brat.   "Oh the papers are covering a major political event instead of my wedding."   Well yes.   You weren't even the spare at that point Andrew.   Nobody gave a damn.   Which is not actually accurate.   It was a big event.   Not as big as Charles and Diana but still worldwide coverage and the streets filled.   

[swanpride]

Mmmm….my sister watched that one too. But I think it was a little bit shorter. I might misremember but I think for that wedding they only showed the actual wedding over here and not wall-to-wall coverage more or less the whole day long.

[Helena Dax]

14 hours ago, merylinkid said:

I kept saying "bitch, Elizabeth was Queen before you got into politics and she will STILL be Queen long after you are pushed out."   Thatcher was too caught up in her agenda-- she was chosen to form a government in the QUEEN's name, not her own.   She is a representative of the Queen, not her superior.   If the Queen hints at something you do it because you serve HER, not the other way around.   

For a PM of one of the major world powers, Thatcher had a very narrow world view.   Trade, trade, trade.   Money money money.    Except Britain was still a world power not because of its money but because of its history and relationships with so many other countries.   In other words, things other than $$$$.   But her favorite needed to not fail as a businessman so Mommy was going to make sure that happened because he was so strong.   

Maybe it's different in the UK, but in Spain the King obeys the government and the Constitution. If he criticised any politician openly, the backlash would be huge and it would put the monarchy in danger.

[WatchrTina]

On 11/29/2020 at 10:02 AM, merylinkid said:

I kept saying "bitch, Elizabeth was Queen before you got into politics and she will STILL be Queen long after you are pushed out." 

I agree with you in spirit (I am NOT a Thatcher fan) but we see in the preamble to this episode that young Maggie was already engaged in politics while at Oxford (and apparently breaking barriers for her gender in the process) while Elizabeth was still a young princess (she was not Queen when she gave her 21st birthday radio address.)  So I would say that Margaret Thatcher got "into politics" first.  But yes, Queen Elizabeth has outlasted many a prime minister.

And for a different topic, one of the things I've been noticing today is costume choices.  Has anyone else noticed how often Thatcher has worn "royal" blue in this series?  She does it a LOT.  It may simply be accuracy (if that's what she wore for that photo with the Cabinet then that's what they'll have her wear when they recreate it in the show) but I can't help but think there is a deeper meaning behind repeatedly showing her wearing "royal" blue.

Edited November 30, 2020 by WatchrTina

[swanpride]

I think that is simply the kind of dresses people remember her most with...though I guess she might have picked it deliberately back in the day.

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

And for a different topic, one of the things I've been noticing today is costume choices.  Has anyone else noticed how often Thatcher has worn "royal" blue in this series?  She does it a LOT.  It may simply be accuracy (if that's what she wore for that photo with the Cabinet then that's what they'll have her wear when they recreate it in the show) but I can't help but think there is a deeper meaning behind repeatedly showing her wearing "royal" blue.

It's a color that works with red hair, and is a traditional business-like but feminine version of the suits men wear.  A power color for a woman in business in the eighties.  Navy blue would be another likely color for Margaret to wear.  Just checked, yes, she usually wore both, and greys, lighter blues, the occasional tan or black.  One black and white houndstooth suit, but generally solid businesslike colors.

It's almost as if she read the "Dress for Success" for women book that was popular back then for women entering corporate worlds.

[Anothermi]

Just listened to the most recent "The Crown: The Official Podcast".  It was on The Hereditary Principle but at the end it promo-ed the next one and called it "The African Queen".  I found it interesting that the name was changed to "48:1" between the taping of that podcast and the airing of the show. 

[secnarf]

6 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

And for a different topic, one of the things I've been noticing today is costume choices.  Has anyone else noticed how often Thatcher has worn "royal" blue in this series?  She does it a LOT.  It may simply be accuracy (if that's what she wore for that photo with the Cabinet then that's what they'll have her wear when they recreate it in the show) but I can't help but think there is a deeper meaning behind repeatedly showing her wearing "royal" blue.

In Canada, blue is the colour for the Conservative party and often their politicians will wear blue. This holds true across party lines, where the party members (and especially leaders) very often wear clothing with their party's colours.

I believe the UK has the same colour scheme - the Conservative party is blue and the Labour party is red. I had thought she wore blue often because it is also common in the UK for clothing to reflect the party colours, but that was just an assumption on my part.

[swanpride]

The UK originated that Colour scheme - it's not universal, though, in some countries the colour of the conservatives is Black.

To list it:

Social Democrats and other left leaning parties : Red

Environmental Parties : Green

Conservatives: Black or Blue

Liberals: Yellow

 

Those are the main ones...the US is the only country I know where red is standing for the conservative party, but then this might be related to the switch which happened between Republicans and Democrats.

 

[secnarf]

16 hours ago, swanpride said:

The UK originated that Colour scheme - it's not universal, though, in some countries the colour of the conservatives is Black.

To list it:

Social Democrats and other left leaning parties : Red

Environmental Parties : Green

Conservatives: Black or Blue

Liberals: Yellow

 

Those are the main ones...the US is the only country I know where red is standing for the conservative party, but then this might be related to the switch which happened between Republicans and Democrats.

 

Ah ok, Canada's colour scheme is a bit different then.

Our Conservatives are blue and our "Green Party" is obviously green, but our Liberal party is red and social democrat party (NDP) is orange. But the two largest parties are Conservatives and Liberals - blue and red.

[swanpride]

In Germany we have:

Conservatives: Black

Social democrats AND the Left: Red

Liberals: Yellow

Greens: Green (obviously)

AfD (far right): A very specific light blue (Though "brown" is the colour we associate with Nazis the most).

The violets: Violet (that's some Esoteric party and no, they never won a single seat).

The Grey Panther: Grey (that's another minor party, in this case for elderly people)

The Pirate Party: Orange and Black (that's a minor party which actually managed to earn some seats on local level)

Volt: Lilac (That's a centrist pan-European party which has a seat in the EU parliament)

Die Partei (The Party): Black, White AND Red (That's a joke party which also has a seat in the EU parliament and actually does politics once a while).

 

 

[merylinkid]

Really quick -- the only reason the US is Conservatives = Red and Liberals = Blue is because waaaaaay back in the 2000 election, one guy on one of the 24 hour news networks chose those colors to show which state had gone for which candidate.   Nothing more.   before that both parties used Red/White/Blue in their logos.   Dress was navy/dark color suit for men and power suit red for women -- regardless of party.

 

TOPIC:   The look on the advisers face when Thatcher said "the good thing about signals is you can turn them off" was so dismayed.   Here they thought they had gotten what they needed.   Instead Thatcher went her  own narrow minded  way -- again.   

Philip's face on the  other hand when he was reading the papers to the Queen about the spat with Thatcher was great.   He was trying to so hard not to laugh.   The Queen was all APPALLED.   He just found it amusing.   He was trying to show her it was funny too.   Because no matter what, she is still the Queen and Thatcher is just another Prime Minister she's had to deal with in her long reign.   I like they are showing more of Philip's humorous side.   

[OdinO.]

On 11/16/2020 at 10:04 AM, dubstepford wife said:

I kind of love the scene where Charles calls Andrew "fringe."  This show has not been subtle when it comes to Andy, from foreshadowing his problems with underage girls to him wanting a larger royal role for himself and his children, and Charles throwing it back in his face.  I don't think Peter Morgan is any fan of old Andrew.

This show is certainly not being kind to Thatcher.  I wasn't around for that era so I don't know what's true and what's fiction, but if even half of this is factually accurate she is not coming across well.  Opposition to ending apartheid is never a good look, regardless of consequences for the economy.  And if that thing about her son being a businessman in South Africa, which the show implies colored her decisions towards the country, is true, then that should be grounds for removal from office.  It's outright corruption.

 

On 11/17/2020 at 12:42 PM, Atlanta said:

I'm waiting for her to be twirling her mustache from her underground lair. GA's portrayal comes across as cartoonish. 

In general, they've used a lot of creative license this season. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8952991/The-Crown-true-false-Netflix-shows-twisted-version-royal-history.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8957695/Queens-former-press-secretary-Dickie-Arbiter-blasts-scenes-Crown.html

What a one dimensional portrayal of MT. It's totally ridiculous.

[RemoteControlFreak]

On 11/29/2020 at 9:06 AM, NYCFree said:

Corruption involves the use of power for private gain. If Thatcher was dead set against economic sanctions because her favorite son’s business interests would suffer, that absolutely is corruption. Government leaders are supposed to make decisions based on the needs of their country as a whole, not the financial impact on their offspring. Imagine a governor saying “we can’t give up the coal industry” because their child owned a coal mine.

I agree on the definition of corruption. My point was that there was no indication that Thatcher’s reluctance to sanctions was connected to her son’s work. The mere fact that he did business in South Africa is not sufficient grounds to charge Thatcher with corruption.