The Queen VS Thatcher: The Battle Over South Africa | The Crown (Olivia Colman, Gillian Anderson)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.ค. 2024
- In this captivating encounter, my dears, we watch two powerhouses of acting portraying two powerhouses of history. Witness Queen Elizabeth II (Olivia Colman) and Margaret Thatcher (Gillian Anderson) spar in a dialogue of historical weight. They delve into significant matters but fail to see eye to eye, which results in The Queen giving Thatcher what could be perceived as a direct order.
🔎The Crown Season 4, Episode 8 '48:1'
🎞️WATCH The Crown HERE:
www.netflix.com/ca/title/8002...
🎬The Crown (2016-2023): Follows the political rivalries and romance of Queen Elizabeth II's reign and the events that shaped the second half of the 20th century.
🎞️Don't forget to watch the full movie here:
www.netflix.com/ca/title/8002...
📩 / @movingpicsofficial
#theCrown #theQueen #QueenElizabeth #OliviaColman #GillianAnderson #MargaretThatcher #MovingPictures - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
Whose side are you on, The Queen or Thatcher?
The Queen was out of her depth on this one by a far way.
The Queen's, obviously. An apartheid regime cannot be treated as a valued partner.
Thatcher.
@@Fauntleroy. Do you know that the Queen was instrumental in the apartheid laws? I guess not! She was head of state of SA when many of the apartheid laws were enacted.
Also, I guess you also do not know that one of the reasons why apartheid continued until about 1990 was so that SA could serve as a bulwark against communism, especially being that the ANC at the time was a devout communist movement. The Berlin Wall was brought down in 1989 and Nelson Mandela was released from jail in 1990.
Do you also not know that the UK played a significant role in separate development in SA. South Africa was a colony of Britain from 1806 and ceased being one in 1961 when SA became a republic. During this time, black people were not allowed to vote. With apartheid laws being introduced black people became entitled to vote but only in designated black areas. Britain introduced the Hut Tax in 1849 which effectively forced black men to work in the mines. Also, the British sovereign had no qualms taking the Cullinan diamond in 1907, rather than insisting it be used to help impoverished South Africans. The Queen never offered to return the diamond.
Do you also not know that as mentioned by Dennis Worrall at the time, that many Commonwealth countries had worse human rights records than SA. The Queen had no problem with these countries.
I guess you also do not know that many Commonwealth countries were (and still are) economically dependent on SA? In this regard, both Swaziland and Lesotho get a large portion of their revenue from custom monies from SA. Also, landlocked Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia have a great dependency on SA.
@johnjames6620 applause to you.👏
Queen was so out of her depth living in an ivory tower. I do wonder who her silly advisors were? Brit royalty should now stay out of politics. Concern themselves with plight of their own country people. Ruling party here still communistic.. n still refer to each other as comrades still. Tears for countries.. wasted lands.
Ex Rhodie.
*Give or take, the British Monarchy IS a tribe in eccentric costumes and much material for tabloids and tourists.*
I love the witty banter between the two!😂
1:03 but that is exactly what you are doing, right NOW! She just happens to be more benevolent than the ones you are referring to!
I looked it up. She never did sign the resolution and firmly sided with the white led South African government
they didnt call her the iron lady for nothing!!!
They didn’t (and don’t) call her a world-class B for nothing!
@@Yowzoe Do you have any idea of South Africa and apartheid:
1. Did you know that it was the British that introduced the Hut Tax, thereby forcing black people to leave their families to work in the mines?
2. That the Queen was Head of State of SA when many apartheid laws were enacted?
3. That many Commonwealth countries had worse human rights records than SA?
4. That many Commonwealth countries were heavily dependent on the SA economy, including Swaziland, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Zambia? What were the Queen's plans for these economies?
@@johnjames6620 In other words: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Wait, oh! Look at that shiny thing, over there!"
@@johnjames6620 Yes, I was very vaguely aware of the first, and I knew of the last three. I had to look up the 1884 Hut Tax, I knew they were precursors to what eventually became the official policy of apartheid… no surprise there for anyone aware of history, I think. Your #3 is quite relative, obviously, and is really here nor there.
Are you really an apologist for the South African racist apartheid regime which had ample opportunity between say, 1950 and 1990 to wise up instead of tightening up in 10,000 different ways? So many bad choices by White South Africans! Have you spent your energy constructing an intellectual framework to justify what was extremely twisted institutional evil?
The British and the West owed it to South Africans to enable the anti-apartheid movement, even if their unimaginative leaders, including Reagan and Thatcher, clung to the status quo for fear of communism. As a college student in California in the 80s, this was my tiny involvement.
What has come since in SA has no relation to what has was achieved in the 90s. Though it is now clearly a massive shitshow, it is *still* better than your apparent alternative because Black South Africans own their mess, as the fictional queen here says. You must put yourself in *their* shoes. The British and the West could have poured attention and resources and effort after the transition from de Klerk, and since. They did not.
That SA was a successful capitalist economy post-WWII, and that the ANC now is a an absolutely corrupt and inept nightmare has no relationship to the end of apartheid - *this was never inevitable* . It's true that much of South Africa political life now is as ridiculous and OTT as the woke left in my own country. Again, this is regrettable but cannot be attributed to the end of the unsustainable, racist, deeply-ugly apartheid policy South Africa in the 1900s. Don't begin to defend it.
It’s sad to me you apparently put mental effort into defensive, revisionist, counterfactual thinking. You could put that same energy into realistic solutions, which is what is needed. But I can't expect you to change your spots 🐆
People need to understand, thatcher was against apartheid in South Africa she just disagreed on how to end it.
Because she didn’t want it to affect her husband’s investments? Forgive me… I meant her son’s? 😏
@@MickeyFlipper oh don't get me wrong it was related to economics but she still wanted it gone on moral reasons too
@@branflakes12341 I’m sure she did. Just as long as it didn’t affect the money. And the sanctions would’ve affected their investments. So of course that became a sticking point for her
In the same way Trump was against war in Syria. Until it affected his real estate interests in Turkey
Israel has apartheid!
Let’s discuss the ending. What are your thoughts?
A few things:
1. As expressed by Dennis Worrall at the time, many Commonwealth countries had far worse human rights records than South Africa.
2. Why didn't the Queen offer to pay reparations. It was the British that introduced things like the Hut Tax to force black people to work in the mines.
3. The Queen and her father were head of SA during the time when many apartheid laws were enacted.
4. Many Commonwealth countries had a huge dependency on South Africa, including Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Lesotho and Zambia. What arrangements did the Queen have for the economies of these countries?
Obviously you know that the Queen has neither the power nor the expertise to create or execute such plans. What she was doing in this scene was speaking on behalf of the Commonwealth leaders, who she represented, and who Thatcher was not inclined to hear.
It was Dutch born Prime Minister and Afrikaner based National Party that gave birth to Apartheid Law, The Queen and Monarch were nothing but a state symbol. The Act was signed by Afrikaans Governor General eventually
@@ThSa5312 And what voting rights did the blacks have in South Africa before the Nationalist Party came to power in 1948? Very little to none!
What voting rights did the blacks have when South Africa was a British colony? Very little to none!
what was schooling and living conditions like for black people prior to 1948? They were separate from those of white people.
The Apartheid laws largely enacted what was anyway happening in reality and which had been a feature of British and Dutch colonization going back hundreds of years.
Very rich for the British monarch to call for sanctions against a people for a system that her own country had largely created and put into place.
All the Queen was attempting to do by calling for sanctions against South Africa was to shield and distance the UK from scrutiny over its role in the South African matter.
@@johnjames6620 Before Afrikaans rule, Coloured people had voting right and looked at what Malan and Nazi Afrikaans thugs did, they took it as well.
@@johnjames6620 Btw it was Union of South Africa that enacted segregation law. Union of South Africa had never had an English Prime Minister, it was Afrikaans from Louis Botha
the wig and dress for Olivia Colman are just awful. I don't recall the Queen ever wearing "brown."
Some people's priorities...
@@garyspence2128😂
Però la Thatcher aveva ragione. Guardate oggi com'è il Sudafrica
“There is no person who would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of a foreign power” - Mahatma Gandhi. You see, South Africa is indeed massively corrupt, thanks to Jacob Zuma, and poor, but at least 90% of the population is now free to exercise basic human rights.
@@anishraja9655 points of view
@@anishraja9655 🙄Sì, ma quando non sai guidare nemmeno uno scooter, non ti puoi mettere a guidare la Ferrari
The queen did live long enough to see the terrible results of Zimbabwe and South Africa's demise post independence. There is no happy freedom for people under corrupt governments. Perhaps the queen chose not to notice the bad choices end. But she did eventually withdraw Mugabes knighthood.
Frankly she should have occupied herself with other matters. Her own peoples well being.. or taken up knitting for charity. 😅
Have to say this interview really tells u she had not a clue.. that if you boycott a country only the people suffer more so. South africa infrastructure collapsing downwards for 30 years. Zimbabwe is ruins of once highly productive country. Royalty should have kept out of politics.. instead of welcoming dining with thugs n theives.
@@giorgioroyaume8815 I don't exactly understand your argument.
They should have used the word "dictate" instead of "directive" for that is what this fictional queen was really attempting: dictatorship. Beyond reprehensible to think the queen would ever attempt to express her opinion on a policy matter. It is arguable that subjugation of an entire nation is worse than subjugation of an entire class within a nation. They certainly are comparable. My only wish is that south africa had turned out better IRL.
You're really comparing the Queen pressing the Prime Minister to sign a statement to dictatorship, and saying it's worse than the slow motion genocide of black South Africans. Wow, you can't make this stuff up. It has to be seen in the wild to be believed.
Nothing prohibits the monarch from expressing an opinion on policy matters to the prime minister. The monarch shouldn’t express his or her views on policy to the public. The monarch has three rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. It’s highly likely this scene was played up for dramatic purposes, but there is nothing reprehensible about the queen asking the prime minister to take action on an issue. Your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the monarch in a constitutional monarchy.
Hate to say it now look at South Africa it's a Wasteland
It's not a wasteland but governance is poor. But then look at how things are in NZ, Australia, Canada, the USA, UK and Europe!
@johnjames6620 infrastructure collapsing thanks to corruption and mismanaged and often referred to as a failing state. Ziimbabwe completely ruined. Countries u mentioned are 1st world countries. Chalk n cheese comparison.. we are 3rd world.. going down.
@@LydiaWhitting I do not defend the way the country is governed, which has been abysmal to say the least. But things in many / most first-world countries are not much better in many respects. The USA cannot run fair elections, there was the Covid disaster, the USA has a porous Southern border, billions are being sent to Ukraine, the most popular party in France got the 3rd most seats in parliament, in the UK the Reform party got much more votes than the Liberal Dems (?) but only a fraction of the seats, first world countries like Australia can easily surveil their people which is not the case in SA, And we can go on!
@johnjames6620 overall the American dream is lost. Have relations/friends in Britain, who live a much better life than SAfrica. They can walk on the local canals safely. For years my son in australia with his family. Daughter in laws family all to new zealand. My daughter n partner have remained in isle of Mann. For the reasons they left.. none of them will ever want to come back ever.. takes too long to fix a damaged country. I have to live out my life without them.
Yes, management of covid was dismal here as well. People still burnt from the draconian lock down. Some only found work now post it all. But hey Cyril did apologize. Lol
@@LydiaWhitting Many of the countries you mentioned are becoming more and more draconian. The USA and UK locked up Assange. They using lawfare in the USA to target Trump and others. In many cases the media is complicit in the wrong-doing. Covid was handled badly here, including by the DA and MSM. This just goes to show that relying on the sincerity of places like the USA is ill-placed. I and my son never got "vaccinated" against Covid.
As time went on Thatcher was proven right
Explain please?
Until Michael Haseltine sent her to the unemployment line. History proved Nelson Mandela correct. Thatcher was the last vestige of British arrogance, and her policies are still hurting Britain to this very day. She had a role in the Tories defeat last week, even though she's been dead for years...
@garyspence2128 I'm confused. Are you saying Thatcher was right or wrong? Because your explanation was more of an indictment of her actions than an endorsement. I mean, the woman is both reviled and revered by the british people so I guess there's room for both.
Bad governance under a pluralistic democracy does not vindicate decades of brutal repression under its previous racist authoritarian regime, especially when a lot of those modern problems have their roots in the exploitation of social/racial stratification that was cultivated by the apartheid state years ago.
And from a British diplomatic perspective the Queen is absolutely correct here, even when you just view the situation pragmatically and don't care about the moral implications. Apartheid South Africa was on borrowed time by the 1980s and was not going to survive with or without British support. Whatever marginal economic benefit they'd get from doing business with SA would be far outweighed by the damage it would have done to British political and economic interests across the rest of Africa and the world.
If this was true time to get the guiletine out 🎉
For Thatcher or for Elizabeth? Perhaps both would have been the best solution, along with the House of Lords...
If the Queen was so concerned, she could just have returned the Cullinan Diamond, but she didn't! I wonder why? Oh, it would have affected her pocket!
And the prize for most BS comment of the year goes to...
@@eliazarcone Why? Because it hits the nerve? The UK and the UK monarch are hardly in a position to preach to others about human rights!
Oh yeah because human rights are SOOO depending on a big diamond from a hundred lifetimes ago lol
@@johnjames6620 the same goes for India. Stop harassing non Hindus, then you can start giving lessons of human rights to other people
@@eliazarcone I agree completely. And also, how about the UK's (and USA's) illegal invasion of Iraq!
virtue signaling for praise of peers, pre-twitter. amazing.
History is quite enlightening, if one pays attention to it...
Thatcher was racist. Not much more to say.
How so?
Bull💩💩💩.
If it must be explained to you, remedial education from us may not penetrate the fog you're living in.
@@garyspence2128 If you can't see it, you have a brain under a steel strap.
@@brianjameson3298 Tell us where? Give us a few examples?