Comments by "Keit Hammleter" (@keithammleter3824) on "Scene City" channel.

At first I thought that a big mistake had been made - royal ladies never cross their legs. But I checked the real TV broadcast. The real Elizabeth did indeed cross her legs. Claire Foy got this scene exactly right - right down to the forced smile at the end.
131
I have no idea what all this ibble dibble stuff was about.
56
Possibly King George was able to treat his daughter with respect and not contempt because she was intelligent and able to take on the role. Charles however is like his father - none too bright, and given to put his foot in his mouth.
18
He did hear them or at least some of them. He went to sleep comforted by her words.
9
You speak for yourself. Out here in the "colonies" as Brits like to think of us as, we've always known Charlie was not very bright, and we never thought he should be king. We still don't. As for Camilla, nobody wants her around. Last time she was here in Australia, she showed contempt for us "peasants" by reading a magazine during an official engagement. Both of them are the sort ruled by their loins and not their brains, unfit to be head of the Church, let alone be principal royalty, signing laws into effect and having the power to sack prime ministers.
8
I met Anne in about 1970. She seemed quite nice and was an intelligent person. Unlike dopey Charlie. In her younger days she was reasonably pretty.
8
Eden was a hopeless drug addict, who presented his doctor with a classic problem faced by many GP's - prescribe what he wants or he'll get it from a pusher. The doctor in telling him to go to Jamaica and get some tropical sun was probably not about getting tropical sun, it was about getting him separated from his drugs. Eden was a classic case of drug addiction. Having experienced pain from operations, he was prescribed narcotics, and became addicted to them. He was using amphetamines as well, for no good reason. His medical issues at the time depicted in this video were of his own making. Take amphetamines - you initially feel good, then you feel down and depressed, and any minor pain seems like major pain.
6
In the 1970's there was a computer game you could play if you had access to a mainframe computer via a video terminal. It was stated that the game accurately modelled lunar gravitation, lander inertia, engine thrust and fuel consumption, etc. It was not easy to successfully land. Most people (mostly university students) needed about 6 to 10 tries to get it right. The reward came when you finally did a successful land - the terminal screen showed wreckage from the crashes you had made.
5
This TV show was speculative fiction - on this segment anyway - the weekly sessions of the PM with the Queen were secret. However, Thatcher as portrayed was dead right. The empire was basically lost. Britain was stuffed, stuffed by World War driving it bankrupt, and stuffed by poor post-war leadership. It was up to Britain to fix its own troubles - the countries of the former empire would not. Further, her opinion that sanctions just don't work is correct. They didn't bring down South Africa, they caused it to strengthen - e.g., making their own gasoline. Current sanctions against Russia are only making it stronger - fixing its technology production issues, fixing its internal supply chain, and looking to China and North Korea to trade with. Pre-war sanctions against Japan not only made it stronger, they induced it to start a war against the USA.
5
@bornontherimofchaos They haven't actually said what it is he has, but from what has been reported, he almost certainly has the same cancer I had, which is very common in old men, such as Charlie or me. It's no big deal for most, and easily fixed (as mine was) unless the silly man waited until symptoms were marked before consulting a doctor. All my bits still work, more or less. So should Charlie's bits, though it might be a while yet before they do.
4
@azjmsxhn : But for all we know, they might have turned out better.
3
Since it is reported that she retained fondness and respect for Churchill (and funny enough, dramatised later in this series) it seems that this scene is a complete fabrication and nothing like it ever took place.
3
@judithoconnor6442 : Oon what basis do you state that? He, much to the distress of the Americans, viewed war in terms of punishing the enemy people, and firebombed German residential areas and retail districts, causing great suffering to German civilians who had no say in the War, and having very little effect on German ability to fight - hardly the action of a great man. He never cared a fig about what happened in Asia, abandoning troops in Singapore to the Japanese. He appointed Mountbatten, a known idiot, as Supreme Commander SE Asia, who proceeded to split countries up thereby causing ongoing wars and distress - hardly the work of a great man. Churchill was an effective leader who could get things done. He was the only viable wartime leader available. But that is a reflection of the weakness of the others, not a mark of a great man.
3
Well scripted, beautifully crafted and well acted, but probably has no relation to reality. While the Queen and Graham were reported to be friends, would she be likely to seek spiritual guidance from him, instead of her own bishops? I did like the character's guidance though - I couldn't imagine a better answer.
3
@callmeswivelhips You mean she got set in her ways as she got old, as most people do when they get old?
3
@Afroman29 You have confused intent with effect. It was perhaps morally right to impose sanctions, as the SA regime was indeed racist and discriminative, but as pointed out, sanctions were counter productive. Russia was indeed wrong to invade Ukraine - an illegal act. But, again, that doesn't mean sanctions will work, and they haven't. Putin has carried on regardless. There is absolutely no sign that Putin will cease his illegal action due to sanctions and every sign that he will continue with the war. The sanctions have made Russia stronger: At the start of the Ukraine war, Russian tanks were fitted with French-made sensor and fire control systems. Now the French systems have been replaced by Russian-made systems built with Chinese parts. Before the sanctions, Russian trade with North Korea was negligible. Now it is significant. Russia is buying lots of arms from North Korea. Russia's trade with China has increased. The Russian car & truck industry was heavily dependent on the West for know-how, machine tools and parts. Since that has been cut-off, Russia has turned to China for expertise and car/truck parts, and their car manufacturing is stronger than ever. Did you not see news reports about Fat Kim visiting Putin, and Putin visiting Fat Kim? Did you not see news reports about Putin and Jinping signing treaties recently? Treaty of Friendship (renewed), Treaties for economic cooperation (several signed last year)? Sure, China SHOULDN'T support Russia. But that certainly does NOT mean they WOULDN'T. They are. It might be morally wrong, but it suits them. There's money in it, and its a case of "up yours" to the USA. Looking at the Ukraine War from the Russian viewpoint, it looks far from disastrous. Sure, vast numbers have been killed and injured on both sides. But looking at how much Ukraine territory is Russian controlled today with how much 2 years ago, not much has changed. Putin is in for the long haul. He can afford to be -Russia has 150 million people, Ukraine only 32 million (counted before many left due to the war). Putin is banking on the West becoming tired of supporting the Ukraine - as soon as that happens, Ukraine is finished. The West is banking on Putin becoming tired first. You should understand the big picture: It probably doesn't matter whether Russia wins or looses in the Ukraine. Either way, Putin will likely wait a bit for military lessons to be learnt, then attack another former Iron Curtin country.
3
The key to understanding Churchill is to recognize he was absolutely ruthless. Didn't care a fig how many men died in war - his side or the enemy. Churchill met with Stalin several times to coordinate their forces in World War 2. They got on really well with each other, respected each other, and exchanged many letters. This was because each recognised himself in the other. The only difference was that Churchill was more constrained working within a democracy. Churchill thought of the former British colonies as obligated suppliers of cannon fodder to be used exclusively for the defence of Britain and not to be wasted defending their own lands. Churchill thought of war in terms of punishing the enemy's people, whereas the American saw war in terms of strategically wrecking the enemy's ability to fight.
3
If I was The Boss, faced with a disgusting drug addict whose "medical issues" were of his own making, as Eden at that time was, I would stand judgment and not show sympathy too. As I in fact did when a guy on my team at work got himself addicted and his performance went downhill. I gave him an ultimatum - get off the drugs, you fool, or I'll sack you. It worked - he did give the drugs up and returned to being a valued worker. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. At the time he reckoned I was the biggest prick, but later thanked me for making things clear. Eden at the time depicted was 59 - not particularly old. Certainly not elderly.
2
It could be because they are stuck with it. In British law, all bills that affect the King/Queen, before they are presented to Parliament, must be submitted to the King/Queen, who can request changes. Any bill that abolishes the monarchy is likely to be blocked by the reigning king or queen. Any bill that passes Parliament is not law until the King/Queen signs his/her assent.
2
@judithoconnor6442 He did not lead the whole empire. Rather, he viewed the empire, at best, as resources to be used up or sacrificed solely to defend Britain. Much of the empire wasn't too pleased about that and there was much friction. Post war they all asserted their independence.
2
@therealvlad505 During the War she was an ambulance driver. In the context of a war that's a pretty minor role - school children should not waste time on it. It would not have mattered one iota if she hadn't been a driver. You should have been taught about how the King saved Britain and the world from a German win by sacking the elected prime minister who had no idea and appointing instead Churchill, who did. That's one of THE most important things that happened, and is the sort of thing why you have a king or queen.
2
@callmeswivelhips Queen or janitor - they are both human. Almost all humans get set in their ways as they get old.
2
The value of the scene is that the Queen is shown getting up and getting Thatcher a whiskey as requested. And although it is speculative fiction, it is believable that Elizabeth would do that. Would Charles do that? I think not. Even if he had any sympathy, which is doubtful, he would get a servant to poor the whiskey.
2
In real life Charles didn't want to marry - he famously said so. He only wanted to get his end in. Lust, not love.
2
Wright's book was half what was already reported in newspapers and half just nonsense he made up in his vivid imagination. However, there is somewhat oblique evidence that Hollis was a Russian agent. Hollis spent some time convincing the Australian Government to set up their own civilian agency ASIO. When the then PM agreed, he asked Britain to send out an expert to help set it up. They sent Hollis, who interviewed Australian candidates for ASIO jobs and selected the weakest, least competent ones. As described in ASIO's official history published about 10 years ago, ASIO in its early years was like a bunch of goofing keystone cops.
2
@suekelley2109 ; Re your reply to Zadir: It is not a simple as that. Japan attacked the US because they felt backed into a corner by economic sanctions imposed by the US (not a blockade). The decision to impose sanctions was essentially Roosevelt's, and Churchill spent significant time and effort persuading him to impose sanctions. Both may have assumed Japan would not attack because as Japan was a much weaker country it would have had enough sense not to. They, or at least Roosevelt, didn't realize a cornered rat effect. The warning signs were there. However, the Japanese attack together with the Tripartite Treaty between Germany, Italy, and Japan automatically brought the US into war against all three. This was in the nick of time for Britain, as Churchill had completely expended all funds buying war material commercially from US manufacturers. Without the fighting involvement of the USA, Britain would have lost the War. Churchill was a ruthless cunning bastard and he knew the UK could not win on its own. Hence Roosevelt does have blame for getting the US into the War, even if by mere naivety.
1
Eden was a hopeless drug addict, addicted to narcotics and using amphetamines. His medical issues were mostly of his own making. The Queen was probably aware of this. While the Crown is speculative fiction, her behavior as depicted is what one might expect.
1
@DavisJ-ln6fw His sickness was largely of his own making. He was a drug addict.
1
Those bouts of poor health as the public were told, were the fruits of serious addiction to narcotics and amphetamines - Eden was a disgraceful drug addict. People get prescribed narcotics for pain from operations. When the pain subsides, they don't need the narcotics anymore. But a few get addicted and just continue to want more and more. Eden was one of those loosers, who go doctor shopping if necessary, to get prescriptions for more and more.
1
The real Mountbatten was a complete ning nong given to kinky sex. Very much one to trifle with. He was in important jobs only because of his family connections - he was pretty incompetent. When he met Stalin at a war planning conference, he told Stalin he was related to the Russian royal family and would like to visit them sometime. Stalin couldn't believe his translator.
1
@krdiaz8026 You have raised a good question re consequences. That's something that has never been really tested. The closest thing was the Elizabeth's representative in Australia, governor general John Kerr, who sacked the prime minister for incompetence. But only half the Australian population were against it. Kerr resigned not long after, but that was most likely because public drunkenness ruined his stature. Don't forget the British monarch, now King Charles, gets a look at any bill that might affect him, BEFORE it is presented to Parliament. Thus the press may not hear about it, and the public kept in ignorance. For all we know, Elizabeth II may have rejected bills that we don't know about. I think you are correct as far as general bills are concerned. They are all in the public domain, so if the monarch rejects popular bills, or even any bills, there will as you say at least be a big stink. But any bill that abolishes the royal family is most likely to be killed, and killed without our knowing, unless the monarch him/her self desires to bring it to an end, and I don't see that happening. Self interest triumphs over public perception anyway, when your position makes you filthy rich, waited on by flunkies, and gives you tenure. We ordinary joes have to keep the boss and/or customer happy with our job performance or we'll get the sack - King Charlie does not.
1
@judithoconnor6442 So, you think the ordinary German civilian could simply vote Hitler out at elections? Hitler was a dictator, ruling by decree, having used devices such as the Enabling Law to eliminate checks and balances. Hitler and his military top brass had no mechanism to monitor what the people thought as they never intended to listen. Yes, Hitler had to be stopped -there is no doubt about that. But read up declassified end of war reports - the decision to carpet and firebomb German civilian areas of big cities had little or no effect on German ability to fight, and only spurred Hitler on. The war was not won by the RAF, it was won by the USA and the USSR. RAF aircrew lives were simply wasted. Your comment about the empire not to last is not relevant, except in so far as Churchill's distain helped cause it to disintegrate. Australia had been monitoring Japanese military communications and warned Churchill that Singapore would fall. Churchill ignored the warning, leaving an incompetent in charge. When the Japanese captured Singapore their officers were amazed. They were amazed to find that the British and Commonwealth troops there greatly outnumbered the Japanese troops, and there was no good reason why they should have surrendered as they did. But the known fool Churchill left in charge did surrender, as soon as the bullets began to fly. Yes, people die in war. But Churchill needlessly threw away lives for no good reason.
1
@joewu294 No, he wanted more drugs - he was a hopeless addict. He was of the sort that present doctors with a problem - either give him what he wants or he'll go to the black market and get contaminated stuff that's worse. A typical addict who consumes narcotics and amphetamines - his pains were largely imaginary, and his stress and depression were the expected come downs from what he was addicted to.
1
@peepachu That abdication occurred in 1936, when Elizabeth was aged 10. She became queen at age 26. Plenty of time to get used to the idea, plenty of time for those around her to prepare her. In any case, it seems she did a good job.
1
@Mickekzon You cannot be serious. Charles has from time to time made awful gaffs in speaking, just like his father. All of us of us who were adults in the 1990's remember the tampon recording. That indicated his low IQ in three ways: a) he had not realised that a man subject to the intense interest of the gutter press would mean the press would eavesdrop and report on a conversation conducted over an unencrypted radio link; b) it showed he was unable to express his love for Camilla in a decent literate way; c) it proved that his marriage to Diana was a sham and he was unable to control his urges. Chales said in public in 2014 that Putin was just like Hitler. One might agree with him, but a man who is a prince should realise he is a diplomat and not say such things. It will be reported in the media, and it will affect relations between Russia and Britain for no good reason. When Charles participated in a televised document signing ceremony he showed annoyance over an ink pot in his way on the signing table. A flunky had to move it. That revealed he is a spoiled brat. But a spoiled brat of normal intelligence would have realised that being on TV he should behave himself and move the damn ink pot himself. You can be confident that Elizabeth in the same situation would have moved it herself. There are more examples that show Charles is not very bright. As for the IQ requirements of a monarch, the British Monarch has incredibly powerful reserve powers. They should be exercised sparingly and carefully, but when circumstances require it, the monarch should not shy from acting. This requires much wisdom and integrity - not things that go with a low or unexceptional intelligence.
1
This scene is almost certainly a complete fabrication and probably nothing like it ever took place. It is curious though, because in real life Philip, while skilled in aircraft handling, turned out to be a bit of a menace as a pilot, e.g., ignoring air traffic control instructions, landing helicopters in inappropriate places.
1
@DCFunBud My mother was English - she was raised in Surrey. I was born and raised in Australia. Presumably due to my mother, I find all British accents of England pleasant to the ear and easy to understand. I don't find American accents pleasant or so easy to understand. Received English is not an invented or artificial accent. It is what arose in certain prestiguous public schools about 100 years ago, and is what naturally resulted from mixing boys of well-to-do parents with university classically educated teachers. Somewhat similar to a university accent I acquired on attending university in Australia (which over the years I have lost) Received English pronunciation was adopted by the BBC as they thought pre-war it was their role to educate and improve the British population, and make their radio stations recognisable from other broadcasters. A somewhat similar view was held by the equivalent ABC in Australia, who broadcast classical music all day that nobody listened to, and taught their presenters to speak a sort of "correct" educated Australian accent. I do agree that Recieved English is a marvelous beautiful accent, and the actress in this video clip speaks it very well. However, in real life the younger Queen spoke a different accent, which comedians made fun of, as did my mother - sometimes saying "Mai husband and eye ....." and "ears" for yes if she thought you were putting on airs.
1
@mariahoulihan9483 Philip was noted for screwing anything that wore a skirt.
1
@JeffTaylor-tr7my that is how Elizabeth II would think, but Charlie is a very different person. We saw that very clearly when he became king - there is that infamous video of him signing a document. An inkwell or pen stand was in his way. He could have simply moved it, but no, he commanded a servant to move it, with an annoyed look on his face because the servant hadn't immediately jumped to it. People remarked on that video, because Elizabeth would have simply moved it herself. Protocol for regular meetings with a PM require that they be utmost confidential - that means no servants or anyone else in the room as you said. With Elizabeth that most likely meant a tea service already in the room, and all Elizabeth had to do was pour - or pour whiskey if appropriate. With Charlie, I just don't see that he would pour, even though there would be nobody else to do it, unless he invites the PM to serve him/her self.
1
This scene sounds unlikely. Back in those days, one phone call would get a D-notice imposed. D-notices were a voluntary news suppression system in the national interest, which is not used now, because too many prime-ministers abused it to hide their failings. This scene has the Queen begging and barganing - I don't think so. Back in those days nobody associated smoking with cancer -they only thought it caused coughing. Even doctors smoked.
1
They did in fact buy the contents that they were interested in when Al-Fayed auctioned if off.
1
@priscillajimenez27 Precisely.
1
@NadleyIsaacs Charlie taking a turn with Anne? I know upper class British are supposed to be into kinky things behind closed doors, but with his sister? Doesn't seem likely.
1
@glen7318 In his younger years, Charles expressed hesitation about marriage, believing a man should marry when he could no longer "chase girls" (a sentiment often attributed to him). In 1969, when he was 21, in a BBC interview he said as much. Later he said that for him marriage meant marriage to a suitable woman which meant something to be endured, not for love, and needed careful thought and not until necessary.
1
Churchill was the only one available who could conceivably win the war against Germany - which is why the King sacked thee elected prime minister and put Churchill in charge. And in cajoling, persuading and tricking the USA into the War, he did win it. But Britain's greatest man? No. Absolutely not. He was a ruthless bastard who dudded the Commonwealth, particularly Australia. He developed a personal relationship with the US president, convincing the president to impose sanctions against Japan for invading China. Sanctions never seem to work but in this case the Japanese felt backed into a corner, and like a cornered rat fights hard, they started the War in the Pacific. Churchill couldn't care less, refused to arrange a proper defence of Singapore, and would not release Australian forces to defend their own country against Japan. They had to send in new recruits who had completed only half their basic training. Churchill was quite happy to allocate the Supreme Commander SE Asia job to the idiot Mountbatten, who proceeded to divide up countries - leading to the Korean and Vietnam wars, before going on to cause a vast number of deaths in India by mismanaging the partition of that country. Churchill would have known that Mountbatten was an idiot - and hence must be held responsible for the troubles Mountbatten caused. Churchill met with Stalin and the US president in the closing moments of the War and the three of them agreed to divide the world up, allocating countries between the three of them - without bothering to consult the countries and people affected. Which is why we have had so many wars since, up to and including the Ukraine war today. Churchill was a war criminal, having Bomber Harris carpet and firebomb residential and commercial areas of Germany, having little effect on Germany's willingness or capability to fight, but causing the extreme distress and death to vast numbers of civilians who had no say in the war.
1
@Inferno-Dante Why would you think that? The Queen decided early on that her children should get a regular education rather than tutors as royalty had always had before. Charles was sent to Timbertop school in Australia instead of a high school in Britain. There are two particular attributes of Timbertop as it was at the time: 1) it was isolated, preventing the press from keeping an eye on Charles; 2) it was the sort of discipline school that rich folk sent their dumb kids, too dumb to succeed at college, to so that they could learn a degree of independence and leadership, ready to take over the family firm under advice from a comprador/right hand man. Over the years since, Charles has spoken on various subjects, often saying stupid things.
1
@peterbrongers Mountbatten was given those high status jobs because he was royal or if you like because of his connections. The real Elizabeth was apparently very fond of him, but he was certainly not highly respected, in part because of incompetence and in part because of his sexual perversions and his wife's sexual carrying on with different people, which he did nothing about. He was in fact not very bright, and generally went about those high status jobs in an incompetent way. Mountbatten was responsible for a vast number of deaths in India because of the terrible way he handled partition. As SAC SE Asia, he split Korea and Vietnam each into two, thus setting them up for the Korean and Vietnam wars later. A clear indication of how dim-witted Mountbatten was, was that on meeting Stalin at a war coordination conference, he told Stalin that he (Mountbatten) was a distant cousin of the Russian royal family and would like to visit them when the war is over. As you can imagine, Stalin's reaction was "interesting". In case you don't know, Stalin's predecessor had the Russian royals all shot, so they could never cause trouble. His dimness did have one benefit though. In the 1920's he was put in charge of the Royal Navy school for radio technicians (then known as wireless telegraphy and telephony). He was unable to understand the textbooks, and made the instructors write new ones in simple language so that he could. These became known as the Admiralty Handbook of Wireless Telegraphy and Telephony and three generations of military and civilian radio techs were raised on it. I have a copy - it is indeed easy to understand for such a highly technical subject. Churchill always regarded Asia as unimportant. Making Mountbatten SAC SE Asia was Churchill's way of keeping Mountbatten away from anything important while keeping face with the royal family. Pretty much the same strategy as when Churchill sent the incompetent general in charge of forces in North Africa to command India instead. The strategy means you don't have to affect public morale in letting them see that the men in charge have been fools. Britain seems to have had a habit of appointing upper class fools as First Sea Lord and hoping they don't meddle too much. The wartime Dudley Pound comes to mind.
1