Margaret Is Hesitant to Sign the Statement | The Crown (Olivia Colman, Gillian Anderson)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- Margaret (Gillian Anderson) keeps rejecting statements based on specific words, making the statements go back and forth. The Queen (Olivia Colman) wants to use a writer to pass the statement and asks Michael Shea to write it.
From Season 4, Episode 8: 48:1
Stream The Crown on Netflix! www.netflix.com/us/title/8002...
The Crown is based on Queen Elizabeth II as a young newlywed faced with leading the world's most famous monarchy while forging a relationship with legendary Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill. The British Empire is in decline, and the political world is in disarray, but a new era is dawning. Peter Morgan's masterfully researched scripts reveal the Queen's private journey behind the public façade with daring frankness. Prepare to see into the coveted world of power and privilege behind the locked doors of Westminster and Buckingham Palace.
#TheCrown #TheCrownSeason3 #QueenElizabeth #OliviaColman #SceneCity 
Кино
a whole scene about how nobody thought to grab a damn thesaurus
They probably did, but they could only draft / send one document each time.
Strictly speaking, you probably won't get signal as a synonym for proposal because it isn't. Although it finally got Thatcher to sign the document, it also unfortunately allowed her to not push through with these policies because they were just "signals" rather than things she had to do.
‘Not quite that easy.
I assure you.
That’s what makes it fun!!
The man who saved the day here is none other than William Barmeetrius Thesauruson - the man credited with inventing what we now know as a "thesaurus."
Come on, buddy. Broaden your mind... Pick up a book once in a while.
My supervisor reviewing my thesis
Being a civil servant is doing this day after day thousands of times xD
Tell me more 👀
Only if you are bad at it
@@jackdoyle7453 … or if you have a difficult to please boss/minister ;)
Not so much thousands of times a day, sometimes it's just a few dozen. A lot of times it's making sure the people who are writing things up/filing out the forms are plugging in the right information in the other boxes (they might have the one or two bits of information that are important to them 100% correct, we're just making sure all their supporting info is also correct).
Paperwork has never been so dramatic
Her face expressions while reading at the beginning looks hilarious😂
It's mildly entertaining, but Anderson's geriatric and anal-retentive interpretation of Thatcher has no bearing on reality. I really don't get why she went with such a raspy voice, constipated facial expressions, and even moved like her joints needed a good spray of WD-40. I disagree with lots of Thatcher's politics, but this is just a grotesque self-indulgent caricature of the woman.
I hope she had lots of fun filming all of these scenes saying just one word over and over and over 🥳
imagine rewriting the whole page just to change one word
NO COMPUTERS BACK THEN!
I remember it well --Carbon paper,
multiple duplicates, the ability
to be a very accurate typist
as well as being speedy -- 60
words per minute (with no
errors) was considered
the best. Then there was the
"Shorthand" writing/alphabet
language!
@@here_we_go_again2571there very much was computers in the 80s. Especially in high level government organisations. But yes this would have had to been re typed each time.
Someone did imagine it. Her name was Bette Nesmith Graham. She invented Liquid Paper and it made her a multimillionaire.
@@teddykgb3865her son. A member of the Monkees
That's how it was back then. We survived. People could touch type lighting fast in those days too.
When put in the ring with her Queen, the Iron Lady melted....love that.
if only they have Google Docs
I would've been like,"Just sign the damn thing!"
This is the statement against apartheid in South Africa?
Yes
Well, it's really more of a signal of displeasure with the overall system of apartheid, rather than a statement against apartheid.
Yeah, and Thatcher's son was a business man... In south Africa. During apartheid.
@@Bajirkus What?
It was one of the reasons why Thatcher is both Revered and Reviled. In some cases, she stood firm on principle and for what was right, and in other cases, she was stubborn and would not act on things that anyone with common sense could see needed action. She revitalized the British economy but gutted social services for those struggling to find a place in it. She stood up to dictators but wouldn't challenge racists. She also took the nation to war over something legitimate but also incredibly trivial.
OMG! That signature was on point. Amazing.
Not just hers. Other signatures matched up well too!
I'll never understand why world leaders can't just pick up a phone and hash things out in a conversation. Everything has to be so formalized and scheduled with multiple staff members unnecessarily involved, dragging what could have taken half an hour into days or even weeks.
Legal protection in the event if things mess up and ended up in court of law. When everything is duly recorded properly, it easier to defend your case
A number of times, it's diplomatic protocol
I think it is a matter of not doing things differently. There were no telephones for quite a few centuries. By now, though, I think one of the only reasons is to make it more difficult to eavesdrop on communications. For communications that are more phatic (congratulations and condolences) or less diplomatically important or impossible to be kept hidden (free travel agreements and lifting of trade tariffs), they do use their phones now.
It's important that politicians and their actions & discourse are recorded accurately for history and the public's protection. We all saw what happened with the Tories trying to delete WhatsApp messages over COVID.
As for Thatcher... Power went to her head by the end, she thought she could dictate to and dominate the EEC and it caused her downfall.
Poor typewriters...
At that point word processors did exist.
I always thought this as she wouldn't make a finale decision until she found out about her lost son, so she wouldn't be accused of making decisions under duress?
Her son went missing, and then was found, in 1982. This happened in 1986.
That marker sound ! Tingling my spine
Search ASMR marker sounds on RUclips. You might enjoy it
A literal war of words
Agent Scully has transformed.
I know can you believe that was 30 years ago?
And back then they had to retype the whole thing each time!
Gillian did a fabulous
Job in the crown!!!
One of my favorite scenes of the season!
Oh the red check mark pen
Margaret Is Just Like A Teacher Grades Math School Works!
Being a content writer, this scene is special to me.
So....all they needed was a thesaurus?
The one word was obviously a metaphor for different polices. It would bore the audience to show them in full statements with the wordings changed all the time.
@@falconeshield but it focused on one word being changed. Then the writer they selected came up with a list of synonyms. Ergo, all they needed was a thesaurus.
They were looking for a word that was vaguely threatening without it being a threat of an actual action.
Signals fit that word perfectly.
Consuela.
No... No. No..
@@superblyrandom9630 Mr John no here.
Hey, good morning! 🌤️🏖️
Morning
Reminds me of my 7th grade English teacher
Couldnt they just have talked it out over the phone?
Is that a Tempo felt-tip?! Sacrilege!
Gillian I love you.
Love this scene, LOL
A real ping pong!
May I have a word?
Oh, the poor "protocols" nearly did it! But were struck down by the almighty red marker.
The real Margaret Thatcher doesn't have a stiff neck
Agree
0:24 B'gawd I miss you
I didn’t know The Crown was a comedy 😂
It has moments of comedy. And politics is often self-satirical.
It's cliché but...the pen is mightier than the sword and words matter. Tatcher knows it and from an internationale relation point of view, some of those words were ridiculous to put !
this was her refusing to agree to sanctions against APARTHEID. this is not a good moment for her
@bowchickabowwowthatswhatmy3219 I agree, but her decision is based on party line first, then state...classic mistakes when you have an historic event such as this.
Thatcher was very little ""internationally oriented"" and she understood very little of the world around the UK. The daughter of a corner shop owner she was born, and the daughter of a corner shop owner she remained throughout her disgraceful political career.
@@idraote i think she actually understood fairly well, she just didn’t care
Par de aferradas
About which statement was it?
imposing sanctions on South Africa due to Apartheid
sanctions against South Africa
SA apartheid
ChatGPT could have ended this nonsense in seconds 😅
but there wouldn’t be the drama nor the thrill 🤪
😂😂😂future kings and queens will likely use it
43 years too early hahah
Chat GPT is literally the type of thing that can’t solve this issue. Sure it can give a million suggestions. But so can the advisors. It can’t read mood, or opinion, or measure political implications. Stfu and gtfo with the ChatGPT gobbling. It’s a tool - but it’s useless compared to a human.
A thesaurus would have ended this instantly!
Nnnou, nnnou , NNNOOU!!
I hate how they portrayed Margaret Thatcher. They made it seem like the Queen and her had a fued, but in reality they were good friends.
can someone explain what was the problem? what word she was looking for?
Historically - Prime Minister Thatcher was concerned that being too harsh with South Africa would diplomatically isolate them. While she was against the Apartheid segregation she didn’t want to go after them too harshly with the sanctions as other British commonwealth members did because she was also trying to get the United Kingdom’s economy back on track.
The end result of the word “signals” which she liked was because the word was more neutral than “sanctions or deterrents” it basically meant while we were negatively signalling South Africa’s current actions, if they did away with apartheid Britain would be open to switching back to positive signals again
Hopefully that helps
@@taliyahc2452 oh thank you, that was nice, usually people doesnt answer me in the comments.
She was being "picky" when enforcing sanctions against South Africa to end Apartheid.
Everyone wanted to enforce sanctions, she "didn't want to be too harsh" on a freaking Apartheid state. 🤦♀️
@@taliyahc2452 Great explanation.
Basically it was a matter of "how to be gentle so as not to loose money" over literal apartheid.
Absolutely pointless
I have a legitimate question, although England is and was under a constitutional monarchy doesn’t the Queen have the power to overrule? It is said that she didn’t involve herself in politics but to my understanding isn’t her word the final decision?
Let’s go back for a moment when Queen Elizabeth the first reigned, did she have more say for lack of a better word? Or was there ever a time in England’s history where the King or Queen could make sure decisions that shaped the UK’s future? I hear on one side “Oh, she’s just a figurehead” but on another I hear that she had powers that she dear not used when it came to politics.
From the research I did long ago I hear that she can dissolve a government on a whim. If she wasn’t too fond of MT why not be an Iron Crown?
Maybe it wouldn’t look good for publicity? Or she had grown to respect MT that she didn’t want to be a thorn in her side?
I can’t imagine MT going toe to toe with Queen Elizabeth the first or Even King Henry the 8th for that matter. But under Henry maybe she would have been found guilty of Treason against the crown and likely executed. I would love for someone to chime in and give their opinion because I know there are a lot of history buffs in the comment sections.
One could, but the element of restrain was necessary for the way people will view their head of state. Henry VIII is forever Tyrant/ Bloody King Henry because of those actions of bending the government and the people to his whim, and his mass casualty adds to the dangers of a pushy head of State. No one in 20th c. Britain would've allowed that out of anyone, much less from QE. The last thing the people in any country want is a vindictive, power pushing monarch.
That said, Thatcher was pushing the policies she herself saw as purely beneficial from a tinted car window, and at the same time pushing the limits of what QE wanted to the background if it meant that the Britain Thatcher was making was the one that was succeeding. It would not have taken much, but she never wanted too, and it would've continued up until the government simply ejected Thatcher by force.
Well after what happened to charles the first britain became a republic.
Parliament took all the powet they then got tierd and gave the throne to charles the second as a figurehead.
The parliment restored the monarchy after stripping it of all power so every monarch hence exists as long as parliment allows thought they will never admit it 😂
So basically parliament gave powers to the monarchy after unaliving the previous king under the strict condition that they never exercise said power .
@@drrohanjacob That's so interesting!!! I was doing some research and learned that in the year Henry the I the fourth son of William the Conqueror, strengthened his father's conquest and royal administration. He issued the Charter of Liberties, which promised to limit the king's power and protect the rights of the nobility and church. (1100-1135)
I always thought Kings always had absolute power way back when. But that wasn't the case. France seemed to have an absoulute monarchy with "Louis the fat," he worked to strengthen royal authority and reduce the power of rebellious nobles. He laid the groundwork for greater centralization of power. (1108-1137)
Even before the 1100's the concept of an absoulute monarchy where a king wields unchallanged and complete authority was not fully recognized in Europe.
That's eye-opening for me. There were instances of powerful monarchs where a king or queen had complete and unchallanged authority but that was more developed in the 16th and 17th centuries. It seems like early rulers had to navigate complex relationships with nobles, religious leaders, and other power structures which balanced and sometimes limited their authority.
Even King Alfred the Great (871-899 AD) had substantial control over his kingdom instituting legal reforms and military defenses yet his power was still balanced by local lords and the "Witenagemot" (council of nobles)
I did some digging in Ancient Egypt with the Pharaohs and in the Old and Middle kingdoms they were seen as god-kings with nearly absoulute power. Their authority was central and exstensive, although they still needed the support of a complex bureaucracy and priesthood.
So it is not what it was growing up and learning that a King could do whatever he wanted or Queen. It was much more complex than I thought!!
Also, thank you for replying I love engaging conversations like this! :)
@@Iblameyouu 👍🏼Sure
Who is this Sunny guy?
Sir Sonny Ramphal, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations at that time.
Now they’re arguing in heaven
What makes you think either of them went to heaven?
I don't really understand this scene, as it makes it appear the queen was directly involved in it? As far as I'm aware she would never be involved in international matters like this
Thatcher in this scene was right. The 48 countries moved to her goalpost.
Did they move to her goalpost? Or was she so focused on her goalpost that she didn’t notice she by the goalpost of the other 48. As was stated in the clip, she agreed to several signals that she would’ve never contemplated if they were called sanctions
History is not kind to Thatcher. Rightly so.
Sure, she had her down sides. Though in this video she was always against any term like Sanction as they never worked. "Sanctions never work" is her, general, quote. She always dragged the UK kicking, and screaming, into the modern world against great opposition. We are better for it. I like to label her as a necessary evil. Gets the needed job done and doesn't care what people think as they know it will be a boon. Blair carried on her work - Just under a more approachable, and charismatic, umbrella. To which the Tories have tried to hinder ever since. Politics, a fickle game.
She's not the only one to blame for what happened in South Africa
@@kendallbedford2523but she clearly didn't do anything to stop it.
she got Order of Merit from The Queen, won a war, I think she is good.
The need chat gpt
Maggie was right, Queenie was wrong on this.
Why?
This makes the crown and Thatcher to be weak... Did they want to make two strong woman look weak? Strange.
OK, I get it. This was two powerful women, one the elected head of a nuclear power, the other the symbol, icon, and sovereign of that power and what image that power wanted to project in a male dominated world.
But Jesus Christ this was petty nonsense.
Don't get me wrong here... I'm well aware that men can be just juvenile, petty, and silly and that often the voters put people into office that have all those character traits in spades.
But it is so hard to break out a thesaurus and then ask each party in the argument what word is acceptable?
Well one had no right to be in involved at all, and in reality probably wasn't, the PM is elected
@@jackdoyle7453 As I understand it [and I'm an American and didn't live through this, so it's all second-hand to me], HM Elizabeth was deeply embarrassed about Rhodesia and wanted South Africa to right its policies before a similar bloodbath happened. She didn't often take a stand on policy decisions from her Governments, but when she did she meant it. Thatcher [I'm aware of her very mixed memory in the UK] was right the UK could not afford to lose 3 billion Pounds in trade, but HM had a solid point in that she was sovereign for ALL the peoples of the Commonwealth, not just the monied interests.
@Funtimeomg Oh, I understand that both women were serious about the issues and both were right from their point of view. However, holding up a major policy decision over a word that could have been found with a thesaurus isn't the most mature thing in the world, is it?
Fuck me I hate being on Thatcher's side.
is cool being on Thatcher's side. one against 48 and won.
Is this when the Queen sell Rhodesia down the river?
Ding dong the witch is dead
Awful woman.
Margret Thatcher is the best example of leadership I can possibly think of.
She's the best unisex urinal in the UK, currently. ❤
🤣
such a limited imagination we have, haven't we.
No way really?
If you loved Mrs. Thatcher then you must have admired Reagan as well. What he did to the unions in the US was bad enough. But carrying out a plan devised in 1973 to destroy the coal miners union in the UK was dastardly. There are still places in your former coal miners towns that are the poorest in Europe. Policies of these two "leaders" had a lasting negative effect on their both countries. "The rich got richer and poor got poorer".
Marget Thatcher was by far the better leader. To bad she had to deal with a monarchy since all the effort to coddle the queen in regards to the common wealth probably wasted large amounts of time which could have been better spent to the benefit of Great britain
Thatcher was a disgrace. She managed to destroy Britains welfare and economic power with a few fell swoops.
Across the spider verse