Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Crown- Netflix (**Spoilers**)

1246789

Comments

  • #152
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,315 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    While I admired last season's attempt to make Charles sympathetic, they seem to have rather undone that this season and seem to be a little quick to give him the vast majority of the blame for his failed marriage to Diana. Seeing a lot of posts on Twitter attempting to liken Diana's experience of marrying into the family to Meghan Markle's :rolleyes:

    It really felt like the season was a little rushed on timelines: Fergie was reduced to an extra in the background and a lot of the huge moments of the 80s (the troubles in Northern Ireland and the hunger strikes, Live Aid, The fall of the Berlin Wall, The Miners Strikes etc. were totally ignored.

    The thing I'm taking most from the series is that, as is so often the case with positions of power, it seems that of Queen Elizabeth's progeny the only one suitable to succeed her on the throne was the one who would have been least interested in doing so: Princess Anne.


  • #153
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    Lady Spangles wrote: »
    Sex trafficking and paedophilia not that bad round your neck of the woods, then?

    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.

    Then compared to Prince Philip and Lord Louis Mountbatten and their shady dealing. Now do you see the comparison with the peers?


  • #154
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    cml387 wrote: »
    Charles is an honorary CIC of the Paras.Ceremonial really.

    He is also Royal Navy as well. Its like that quote out of Father Ted with Brendan Grace, so to paraphrase:
    "They never found the correct role for poor Charles". Failed husband, failed officer , failed academic, failed royal.


  • #155
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    Relikk wrote: »
    It would have mattered 400 years ago, but certainly not now. The British monarch is a figurehead and no valorous deeds are a requirement to become King or Queen, just blood and lines of succession.

    They might not be flavours of the month at the moment but they have an enormous power. They own massive amounts of land and money. If they were ran out of Buckingham palace, they would still have enough to put a choke on the UK.


  • #156
    Lady Spangles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭Lady Spangles


    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.

    Then compared to Prince Philip and Lord Louis Mountbatten and their shady dealing. Now do you see the comparison with the peers?



    I can't deny that Andrew saw active service in the Falklands etc. But, on the whole, he's not a great human being. There's no glossing over his involvement with Epstein and that dreadful TV interview he recently gave in which he only incriminated himself even deeper. You can't just cancel that out by saying some people kinda like him and he went on a navy boat once. And, honestly, the British people would never accept him.

    Honestly, the best successor to the Queen would probably be Princess Anne (as someone else mentioned above). She's had no scandal attached to her that I can recall offhand, she actually works hard in her royal capacity, her kids are just normal civilians with no titles etc. She seems quite down to earth and no-nonsense. However, the fact that she declined all titles and royal privileges for her own kids suggests she probably has zero interest in ever being monarch herself.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    Lady Spangles wrote: »
    I can't deny that Andrew saw active service in the Falklands etc. But, on the whole, he's not a great human being. There's no glossing over his involvement with Epstein and that dreadful TV interview he recently gave in which he only incriminated himself even deeper. You can't just cancel that out by saying some people kinda like him and he went on a navy boat once. And, honestly, the British people would never accept him.

    Honestly, the best successor to the Queen would probably be Princess Anne (as someone else mentioned above). She's had no scandal attached to her that I can recall offhand, she actually works hard in her royal capacity, her kids are just normal civilians with no titles etc. She seems quite down to earth and no-nonsense. However, the fact that she declined all titles and royal privileges for her own kids suggests she probably has zero interest in ever being monarch herself.

    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.


  • #158
    tromtipp
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭tromtipp


    Zara Phillips doesn't have a title, nor does her brother. imo Anne is by far the best of the bunch (she was always well regarded by people who worked with her), but the bar is fairly low


  • #159
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    tromtipp wrote: »
    Zara Phillips doesn't have a title, nor does her brother. imo Anne is by far the best of the bunch (she was always well regarded by people who worked with her), but the bar is fairly low

    Lets not go near Edward with rumours and washing out of the Royal Marines.


  • #160
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    tromtipp wrote: »
    imo Anne is by far the best of the bunch (she was always well regarded by people who worked with her), but the bar is fairly low

    That is because you dont know much about her. I bet she has been selling introductions the same as Fergie, Edward and Sophie and the Spanish royal family.


  • #161
    tromtipp
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭tromtipp


    No, all I know is from people she worked with in the charity sector over the decades, and from her public utterances. Also that detail of not letting her children have titles. And her achievements in sport, admittedly easier when she could afford the best horses and trainers, but she still had to put in a lot of work. Each of those puts her slightly ahead of Charles and Andrew.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    tromtipp wrote: »
    No, all I know is from people she worked with in the charity sector over the decades, and from her public utterances. Also that detail of not letting her children have titles. And her achievements in sport, admittedly easier when she could afford the best horses and trainers, but she still had to put in a lot of work. Each of those puts her slightly ahead of Charles and Andrew.

    If she has had a few failed marriages that suggest things may not all be stable.

    Think it might be best if we just skip to William, start with a fresh slate.


  • #163
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    Lady Spangles wrote: »
    The choice to abdicate is the Queen's and the Queen's alone. And, from what I understand, she would never even consider it. Duty has been drilled into her from the moment she first drew breath and only intensified 100 fold after that other abdication that happened (a whole other reason why the word abdication probably makes her blood run cold).

    Have you ever seen a family business or farm where the head refused to give it up in a timely fashion? There is a time for everything. There is a time to grow, to learn, to work, to manage, to advise and then retire. This is what ruins family institutions. The middle get frustrated and the youth desert for other projects. What good is getting a farm at 50 or trying to lead the family business at 60. Charles will be nearly 80 when and if he ascends. Way too old and also not the correct material.


  • #164
    tromtipp
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭tromtipp


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    best if we just skip to William, start with a fresh slate.




    who (allegedly) cheated on a wife who is prevented by protocol from speaking out, triggering a huge row with his brother, who understands how that pattern of behavior affected their mother (and them)?


    republic. only way


  • #165
    extra gravy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,762 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    If she has had a few failed marriages that suggest things may not all be stable..

    She's been married twice. Are you this judgemental towards everyone or just the Royal family?


  • #166
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    tromtipp wrote: »
    who (allegedly) cheated on a wife who is prevented by protocol from speaking out, triggering a huge row with his brother, who understands how that pattern of behavior affected their mother (and them)?

    All true but when you are in the system as deep as he is with his family. Its not in his interest to take it apart. If anything he is heir to the oldest dynasty in the world and unbroken line (of course I dont swallow this BS and the real king is in Australia) since William the Conqueror came from Normandy. Still he doesn't have the taints of Saville and Epstein. He has his military service and SAR service done. He scrubs up quiet well. Harry less so but still more palatable than any that have gone before him for the last 80 years.

    I am not absolving anyone's sins here, that is not within my power. Great men often do crappy things. I am great fan of Churchill but I do recognise he suppressed an Indian uprising with a famine. The same way I recognise that Ghandi had his "peccadilloes" as well. I would talk up Prince Charles if I could find a redeeming character asset.


  • #167
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,556 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I think the series does seem to presume you have a lot of famliarity with Britain in the 1980s.

    It doesn't do a lot of exposition \ setting of the scene \ context.

    Maybe it doesn't want to be drip-feeding, but for example my OH often has to ask me who is X, what has happened or check wiki for it.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #168
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    extra gravy wrote: »
    She's been married twice. Are you this judgemental towards everyone or just the Royal family?

    I currently am married and its difficult enough at the best of times. Would I get married again? Once was enough, thank you.


  • #169
    Happy4all
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭Happy4all


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Watched the first two yesterday. Gillian Anderson is spookily accurate as MT. I sometimes find myself forgetting it’s not the real thing.

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


  • #170
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    All true but when you are in the system as deep as he is with his family. Its not in his interest to take it apart. If anything he is heir to the oldest dynasty in the world and unbroken line (of course I dont swallow this BS and the real king is in Australia) since William the Conqueror came from Normandy. Still he doesn't have the taints of Saville and Epstein. He has his military service and SAR service done. He scrubs up quiet well. Harry less so but still more palatable than any that have gone before him for the last 80 years.

    I am not absolving anyone's sins here, that is not within my power. Great men often do crappy things. I am great fan of Churchill but I do recognise he suppressed an Indian uprising with a famine. The same way I recognise that Ghandi had his "peccadilloes" as well. I would talk up Prince Charles if I could find a redeeming character asset.


    Minor point, but the Japanese Imperial household is by far the oldest dynasty and royal line.


  • #171
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    Happy4all wrote: »
    She is so good, I forget she is Gillian Anderson.

    Will you stop? I am getting all nostalgic for the 1990's and Agent Scully!!!! Wish I had kept that FHM copy!!


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,556 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I wonder if the release of the Crown is influencing BBC4's schedules with documentaries about the 80s, Margaret Thatcher and an airing of The Falklands Play.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #173
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Maybe it doesn't want to be drip-feeding, but for example my OH often has to ask me who is X, what has happened or check wiki for it.

    That is not a bad thing if you are asking questions and reading up on it. I didnt know that the Thatcher government fell from favour with the Queen. I always thought Thatcher was the most prefered Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and it was a perfect hand in glove relationship and neither did I know about much about Mark Thatcher's disappearance. I dont know much about Mark Thatcher except he is always on the periphery of some dodgy deal with MI-6 in the background. He always flashes his diplomatic passport and walks away.

    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.


  • #174
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    I wonder if the release of the Crown is influencing BBC4's schedules with documentaries about the 80s, Margaret Thatcher and an airing of The Falklands Play.

    The Falklands was an amazing conflict if you look into all the goings on. The RN were within two weeks of going home if it wasnt for Sir Michael Rose and the Spanish speaking Royal Marine Captain who spooked the Argentines with messages that the argentines were taking heavy casualties, there was no resupply of food and ammo/Casevac on the way and to hold the positions regardless. The argentines promptly gave up on hearing that.


  • #175
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    Then compared to Prince Philip and Lord Louis Mountbatten and their shady dealing. Now do you see the comparison with the peers?


    Just stop! Andrew can't even show his face in public and has been 'retired'. His acts are far worse than the rule breakings of the others, and god help us, his achievements (promotions :rolleyes:), really :pac:


    Andrew should have been king in the 1800's would have loved what the power and privilege would have allowed him get away with.


  • #176
    miamee
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators Posts: 12,441 Mod ✭✭✭✭miamee


    We finished watching this series last night, it was really good. I thought there was one weak episode (maybe I was tired ) the one focused on Margaret and the cousins but enjoyed the rest e=immensely. It was very much all abou Diana, wasn't it? I have to disagree about Gillian Anderson, she did a great job but at times was almost a caricature of Margaret Thatcher. It was only by the last episode or two that I stopped seeing Anderson in a Thatcher suit and could actually believe her as Thatcher.


  • #177
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I seem to be in the minority. I would have thought Charles came out looking quite well, yes it dragged this all up again, But, back in the midst of the maelstrom Charles was hated compared to Saint Diana.

    This drama highlighted how even the water carrier in the polo team probably had a chance with Diana. Whereas, it was emphasised how much Charles loved Camilla - Princess Philip (we all think he's mad!) :D - and reminded us Charles was a victim too. A pampered, privileged bore, but a victim.

    I also disagree with the level of Irish affairs. It was a 10 55ish minute episode series. If anything I was surprised with the amount of Irish affairs it covered. It was never going to be a 'and now the Irish bit' of the episode series.


  • #178
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    I think the series does seem to presume you have a lot of famliarity with Britain in the 1980s.

    It doesn't do a lot of exposition \ setting of the scene \ context.

    Maybe it doesn't want to be drip-feeding, but for example my OH often has to ask me who is X, what has happened or check wiki for it.
    Just finished the series last night. I find it sparks memories - like Mark Thatcher getting lost in the desert. Other stuff, like the Commonwealth issue, I don't remember being an issue - but maybe it was for countries in the Commonwealth.

    The series gets a big thumbs up for me, and I'm left with a picture of the gradual irrelevance of the monarchy over the period. Now, I know we don't want to confuse fact and fiction - always a risk with this sort of thing - but I found it certainly did make me reflect on the period. 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.

    Again at the risk of mixing fact and fiction, I notice an issue seems to be coming up around Diana's interview on the BBC - which I'd take it the next series would have to deal with.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54793572

    The BBC added that a "key piece of information" in investigations following the interview was a handwritten statement from the princess.

    Her note "said she hadn't seen the mocked-up documents and they had played no part in her decision to take part in the interview".
    Strikes me as odd such a statement exists. "I haven't seen the fake documents you used to influence my brother, but in any event they didn't influence me."


  • #179
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    miamee wrote: »
    We finished watching this series last night, it was really good. I thought there was one weak episode (maybe I was tired ) the one focused on Margaret and the cousins but enjoyed the rest e=immensely. It was very much all abou Diana, wasn't it? I have to disagree about Gillian Anderson, she did a great job but at times was almost a caricature of Margaret Thatcher. It was only by the last episode or two that I stopped seeing Anderson in a Thatcher suit and could actually believe her as Thatcher.


    I liked that episode, but also like HBC. No harm reminding us of the dangers of inbreeding :pac:


  • #180
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Just stop! Andrew can't even show his face in public and has been 'retired'. His acts are far worse than the rule breakings of the others, and god help us, his achievements (promotions :rolleyes:), really :pac:

    You are in the dark of the relationship between Lord Louis Mountbatten, Prince Philip and others in high office with Jimmy Saville and his roles as a philanthropist and Charity organiser.

    What Epstein was doing in the States, Saville was doing in the UK. Same job different franchise. Saville was procuring children for nefarious purposes for people in high office, he was protected by members of the Royal Family. IF this was going on the Queen had to know and was turning a blind eye to it or was pushing buttons but no contact. There is only one thing worse than those activities, those that protect them and allow them to reoffend.

    I used to worship Saville as a kid. "Jim'll fix it" every Saturday I think. My father never said but he knew there was something dodgy about him. "He gives me the creeps". How could a man who made kids dreams come true every do anything wrong? He must have been a character of the highest quality to be on the BBC. "You tell me and I will tell the people who matter!".

    I never excused Andrew from any wrong doings. I just said there were far more sinister things going on in the background by other member of the Royal family.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    You are in the dark of the relationship between Lord Louis Mountbatten, Prince Philip and others in high office with Jimmy Saville and his roles as a philanthropist and Charity organiser...


    Saville was procuring children for nefarious purposes for people in high office, he was protected by members of the Royal Family.



    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.


    skooterblue2 wrote: »

    I used to worship Saville as a kid. "Jim'll fix it" every Saturday I think. My father never said but he knew there was something dodgy about him. "He gives me the creeps". How could a man who made kids dreams come true every do anything wrong? He must have been a character of the highest quality to be on the BBC. "You tell me and I will tell the people who matter!"


    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.


  • #182
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭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.


  • #183
    Recliner
    Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭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.


  • #184
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #185
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭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.


  • #186
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭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.


  • #188
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #189
    Lady Spangles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭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.


  • #190
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭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.


  • #191
    cml387
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,572 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭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.


  • #193
    Mr E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55,558 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #194
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,052 ✭✭✭✭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.

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • #195
    eviltimeban
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,115 ✭✭✭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?


  • #196
    alchemist33
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #197
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,157 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #198
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 88,438 ✭✭✭✭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
    https://forumofgames.com/




  • #199
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,052 ✭✭✭✭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.

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • #200
    eviltimeban
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,115 ✭✭✭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.


  • #201
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement