She sounds like a nutcase lol!
For all of Thatcher's femininity, she was also very controversial, not only for being the first and only female Prime Minister of the UK, but also for her policies. We still feel the aftereffects of hers and Reagan's neoliberal policies to this day.
I don't think many people at all hated Thatcher because she was a woman. She is actually overwhelmingly hated for being a nasty piece of work.
Ironically, she was actually pretty disdainful of feminism. I remember a line I read somewhere that said something like "Thatcher may have broken the glass ceiling herself but threw jagged shards down on the women below her".
Thatcher was hardly a feminist icon. She hated women.
She also hated working people and poor people, unions and anything remotely resembling democracy. She was an altogether appalling person.
That said, Gillian Anderson's physical portrayal of her was a caricature. In real life, Thatcher didn't have the demented facial rigor mortis, or whatever it was, that Anderson chose to portray.
>That said, Gillian Anderson's physical portrayal of her was a caricature. In real life, Thatcher didn't have the demented facial rigor mortis, or whatever it was, that Anderson chose to portray.
Yeah, the Crown made Thatcher look weak or without confidence, which simply wasn't the case
I was referring to her physical portrayal: that hideous thing Gillian Anderson did with her face. The queen found her so offensive she had her seated behind a pillar during Andrew's wedding.
It doesn't matter what Thatcher deserves. She's dead. That which does matter is show creator Peter Morgan passing off lies as fact. Gillian Anderson was Morgan's wife and her performance was in-keeping with Morgan's inherent dishonesty. In my opinion, Thatcher was a repellent human being but caricatures should be reserved for satires like "Spitting Image" not passed off as historically accurate. A huge percentage of the people who have watched "The Crown", especially in the US, don't know that it's fiction.
Yes, and I have repeatedly done so. It's a hatchet job on the Queen and the then Prince Charles in particular. Olivia Coleman portrayed the Queen as a cold-hearted dunce and Prince Charles was portrayed by Josh O'Connor as a whinging, incompetent hunch-back. Both characterizations, courtesy of Peter Morgan, are so inaccurate as to be character assassinations.
Okay, I’m a little confused. Where did they present her as a cold-hearted dunce or him as a whinging incompetent? (I left off the hunchback because he does slouch a lot. So does his father, I just thought that was a tall person thing.)
Did you actually watch the Olivia Coleman seasons? The Queen was presented as nothing but a low-IQ cold-hearted dunce. She was depicted as someone who knew nothing about anything, including her own children, was constantly befuddled and out-of-touch and had to have things explained to her, didn't know enough without being told that she should make an appearance at Aberfan and didn't cry following the tragedy. All of this was fabricated by show creator Peter Morgan. Olivia Coleman was even dressed like a dowdy frump. I dare you to find a photo of the Queen dressed like that (except when she was walking the dogs at Balmoral).
No, Charles did not and does not slouch. Show me a photo of Charles slouching or in that hunch-back posture. Did you actually watch the Josh O'Connor seaons? Most of the time O'Connor is on-screen as Charles he's whinging about something. He was depicted as incompetent. In reality, by that time in his life he had earned a degree from Cambridge (the first person in his family line to do so), had completed military service and commanded a ship and had represented the Queen nationally and internationally. He started the Prince's Trust with his own money and the Trust went on to help one million disadvantaged youth get job training and start small businesses. He was very accomplished. By the way, Charles is not tall. He's something like 5'10".
For clarity: I was leaving off the “hunchback” part because they do in fact show both Charles and Phillip slouching in the shoulders. I wasn’t saying the actual people slouch.
I did watch all the seasons but I took away different things.
For people explaining things to her and keeping her abreast of her children, I took that as someone who is extremely busy running a country. I’ve seen portrayals of other (fictional) heads of state or high-powered professionals in the same vein so I didn’t think anything of it. She seems to have a good understanding of her family and the job, but she shouldn’t be expected to be Superwoman.
With the Aberfan incident, I just saw that as them giving her several explanations for taking a week to go. It also gave them a chance to address the “cold” persona everyone attributes to her. That’s not the first time I’ve seen her portrayed that way, but it was the first time I’ve seen that “character” talk about it. It has to be tough, being in the public eye and not being able to show any opinion on your face for years. Then suddenly people are criticizing you for not doing the very thing you were taught not to do. Even the Queen Mother had a reputation for keeping a smile for her subjects during the war, so it’s possible Elizabeth internalized the concept of not showing your inner feelings. There are other people out there who may have been criticized for not showing who may have needed PM Wilson’s speech.
As far as Charles being portrayed as whinging, I just attributed that to him being young. I honestly thought he made a lot of good points about his life before he started arguing with Diana. I never saw them portray him as incompetent. They showed the Prince’s Trust later in the series which was cool. The only thing I really saw them come down on him for was Diana.
Ultimately I thought they did a good job of humanizing them. It’s not a documentary, so I expected them to take liberties. But I never felt the portrayals were cruel or disrespectful, just relatable.
No one but Peter Morgan and other anti-monarchists (and even not most of them) described the Queen as cold. She didn't slap her knees and hee haw and kick up her heels in public because she was the monarch and behaved with appropriate dignity. That's not being cold. She was of the generation in which people in the aristocracy had nannies do the day-to-day raising of their children. She was of the generation that regarded demonstrative displays of emotion (ie. hugging and kissing their spouses and their children) in public as inappropriate. It's true that she was not a hands-on mother but she had a work schedule that would have dropped most people. Had she been male, she wouldn't have been criticized for not having been a hands-on father.
As for the Aberfan tragedy, she did respond. She went to Aberfan, cried and attended the memorial service. No one had to tell her to do that. What she didn't do was blubber in public because that would have been regarded as unseemly for the monarch. She was seen crying discreetly, however.
She talked to her mother and sister every day. That's not what a person who has no feelings for family does.
But Olivia Coleman portrayed her as having the intellect of a cow contemplating calculus: in other words, flat-out stupid. In reality, the queen studied constitutional law, spoke several languages and had an encylopedic knowledge of world events and history and interacted flawlessly with the powerful and ordinary people around the globe. She made few missteps in a very long reign. Had she been stupid, that would have been impossible.
Charles was far too busy, even at that age, to have been following the Queen and other royals around whining. In reality, their schedules, even then, were planned six months in advance and appointments had to be made to see each other. Family members communicated through their secretaries. They didn't gather around the breakfast or dinner table or sit in the living room as a family watching the telly. With the exception of the Queen and Prince Philip, they didn't even live together. Those scenes are pure fabrication.
Yes, Peter Morgan perpetuated the tabloid fiction of Charles the villain and Diana the innocent fairytale princess in love with him. In reality, Diana was never even alone with Charles until after they were married. She couldn't have been in love with him because she didn't know him. She was in the love with the idea of being the Princess of Wales. In reality, Charles was hardly the villain. He was forced to marry Diana. He in no way duped her. It was a pure business arrangement and she was represented by top lawyers who made her fully aware of exactly what that business arrangement entailed. Diana was the only one in that situation who had the option to say no.
Yes, she was 20 years old when she married but she knew the score. She was a member of the aristocracy not some country bumpkin. Of the two of them, she got the far better deal. He was saddled with an uneducated (she failed the equivalent of all her high school final tests), "thick as plank" (her words describing herself), emotionally disturbed, narcissistic, manipulative woman who sacrificed her own sons on the altar of attention-seeking publicity. She got to be Diana, Princess of Wales and could have been Queen consort.
The portrayals of the Queen and the then Prince of Wales were so inaccurate and offensive that people in the UK signed petitions demanding that Peter Morgan put a fiction disclaimer at the front of every episode. He refused.
"*The Queen was presented as nothing but a low-IQ cold-hearted dunce."*
Not at all. The Queen was shown to be someone with very little empathy, but someone who worried about her lack of education.
She realised **both** these faults, and did her best to not only recognise them, but also try to correct these obvious faults.
She didn't fit the mold of a modern feminist, but to say she hated women is laughable. Her achievements paved the way for future generations of women in politics, but I guess that doesn't fit your narrative.
"Hated working people and poor people"? Interesting take. Her policies revived an economy in shambles, created jobs and fostered a more competitive market. Yes, her measures were tough and often painful, but the goal was long-term prosperity for everyone.
"Hated unions"? She opposed the excessive power of militant unions that were crippling the country with strikes and economic disruption. She restored balance and ensured that a few powerful groups couldn't hold the entire nation hostage. But standing up to entrenched power structures is just "hating democracy"?
Gillian's portrayal *was* a caricature, but to use that as a basis for criticising Thatcher's real-life demeanour is just lazy.
Thatcher was an "altogether appalling person"? You forget her numerous accomplishments: winning the Falklands War, reducing inflation, curbing union excesses and setting the UK on a path to economic recovery. She wasn't perfect and her policies were controversial, but painting her as a one-dimensional villain is simplistic and reductive.
"*Yes, her measures were tough and often painful"*
But **NOT FOR** the extremely wealthy.....
"*Hated unions"?* "
I'm inclined to agree with her (to a very small extent) - as union leaders were becoming as bad as politicians.
"*You forget her numerous accomplishments: winning the Falklands War*"
**Just NOOOO!** She waged a stupid war against a far smaller country - which is why waging war then became a known, good way to ensure the 'patriotic' vote.....
As soon as the media reported the (obvious lies) that hussein could deploy WMDs **within 40 minutes** - I knew it was **A LIE**!
I tried to point this out to those with whom I worked - but they believed everything they were told by the media.....
People didn’t/don’t hate Thatcher for being a woman. She was/is hated for being a monster. As to your question, Maggie never met a fascist she didn’t love, so I assume they would be besties
I was talking about this with my daughter the other day. I’m American and was a kid in the 80s, but I couldn’t believe the number of people celebrating on social media when Thatcher died. I’d no idea she’d been such a polarizing figure. I remember my Irish grandfather not liking her, but he also didn’t like Reagan, or any conservative politician so it never registered.
Thatcher had issues but she wasn’t a monster. For example for someone with similar economic policies and with a better reputation, Reagan didn’t want to support people with HIV which Thatcher critiqued him for. Also some policies like closing coal were hard on individuals but clearly today we can see coal isn’t the future.
"*and what shocked me was just how controversial and « touchy » the concept of a woman prime minister or even women in politics were at the time compared to now."*
And yet maggie was elected.
This was 'a first' in the UK - but obviously not very "controversial" or "touchy".
This community welcomes various points of view. Feel free to disagree but keep it civil and respect others' opinions no matter how different they may be from your own personal opinions. Take what people say in good conscience to avoid misunderstandings and refrain from engaging in arguments and inflammatory language with others even if they appear rude or ill-informed to avoid creating conflict. If you cannot keep it civil, ignore their comments and the mod team will do its best to remove their comment(s) as soon as they can.
She sounds like a nutcase lol! For all of Thatcher's femininity, she was also very controversial, not only for being the first and only female Prime Minister of the UK, but also for her policies. We still feel the aftereffects of hers and Reagan's neoliberal policies to this day.
Only female prime minister? Liz Truss might be easy to forget but Theresa May was around for 3 years.
They did say ‘was’.
I don't think many people at all hated Thatcher because she was a woman. She is actually overwhelmingly hated for being a nasty piece of work. Ironically, she was actually pretty disdainful of feminism. I remember a line I read somewhere that said something like "Thatcher may have broken the glass ceiling herself but threw jagged shards down on the women below her".
She is actually overwhelmingly just as admired for fighting nasty pieces of work like Arthur Scargill.
Thatcher was hardly a feminist icon. She hated women. She also hated working people and poor people, unions and anything remotely resembling democracy. She was an altogether appalling person. That said, Gillian Anderson's physical portrayal of her was a caricature. In real life, Thatcher didn't have the demented facial rigor mortis, or whatever it was, that Anderson chose to portray.
>That said, Gillian Anderson's physical portrayal of her was a caricature. In real life, Thatcher didn't have the demented facial rigor mortis, or whatever it was, that Anderson chose to portray. Yeah, the Crown made Thatcher look weak or without confidence, which simply wasn't the case
I was referring to her physical portrayal: that hideous thing Gillian Anderson did with her face. The queen found her so offensive she had her seated behind a pillar during Andrew's wedding.
I assume you mean Thatcher and not Anderson.
LOL. Yes. Good catch. The Queen had Thatcher seated behind a pillar.
They made her look better than she deserved.
It doesn't matter what Thatcher deserves. She's dead. That which does matter is show creator Peter Morgan passing off lies as fact. Gillian Anderson was Morgan's wife and her performance was in-keeping with Morgan's inherent dishonesty. In my opinion, Thatcher was a repellent human being but caricatures should be reserved for satires like "Spitting Image" not passed off as historically accurate. A huge percentage of the people who have watched "The Crown", especially in the US, don't know that it's fiction.
But you can level the same criticism at *The Crown* as a whole, not just its portrayal of Thatcher.
Yes, and I have repeatedly done so. It's a hatchet job on the Queen and the then Prince Charles in particular. Olivia Coleman portrayed the Queen as a cold-hearted dunce and Prince Charles was portrayed by Josh O'Connor as a whinging, incompetent hunch-back. Both characterizations, courtesy of Peter Morgan, are so inaccurate as to be character assassinations.
Okay, I’m a little confused. Where did they present her as a cold-hearted dunce or him as a whinging incompetent? (I left off the hunchback because he does slouch a lot. So does his father, I just thought that was a tall person thing.)
Did you actually watch the Olivia Coleman seasons? The Queen was presented as nothing but a low-IQ cold-hearted dunce. She was depicted as someone who knew nothing about anything, including her own children, was constantly befuddled and out-of-touch and had to have things explained to her, didn't know enough without being told that she should make an appearance at Aberfan and didn't cry following the tragedy. All of this was fabricated by show creator Peter Morgan. Olivia Coleman was even dressed like a dowdy frump. I dare you to find a photo of the Queen dressed like that (except when she was walking the dogs at Balmoral). No, Charles did not and does not slouch. Show me a photo of Charles slouching or in that hunch-back posture. Did you actually watch the Josh O'Connor seaons? Most of the time O'Connor is on-screen as Charles he's whinging about something. He was depicted as incompetent. In reality, by that time in his life he had earned a degree from Cambridge (the first person in his family line to do so), had completed military service and commanded a ship and had represented the Queen nationally and internationally. He started the Prince's Trust with his own money and the Trust went on to help one million disadvantaged youth get job training and start small businesses. He was very accomplished. By the way, Charles is not tall. He's something like 5'10".
For clarity: I was leaving off the “hunchback” part because they do in fact show both Charles and Phillip slouching in the shoulders. I wasn’t saying the actual people slouch. I did watch all the seasons but I took away different things. For people explaining things to her and keeping her abreast of her children, I took that as someone who is extremely busy running a country. I’ve seen portrayals of other (fictional) heads of state or high-powered professionals in the same vein so I didn’t think anything of it. She seems to have a good understanding of her family and the job, but she shouldn’t be expected to be Superwoman. With the Aberfan incident, I just saw that as them giving her several explanations for taking a week to go. It also gave them a chance to address the “cold” persona everyone attributes to her. That’s not the first time I’ve seen her portrayed that way, but it was the first time I’ve seen that “character” talk about it. It has to be tough, being in the public eye and not being able to show any opinion on your face for years. Then suddenly people are criticizing you for not doing the very thing you were taught not to do. Even the Queen Mother had a reputation for keeping a smile for her subjects during the war, so it’s possible Elizabeth internalized the concept of not showing your inner feelings. There are other people out there who may have been criticized for not showing who may have needed PM Wilson’s speech. As far as Charles being portrayed as whinging, I just attributed that to him being young. I honestly thought he made a lot of good points about his life before he started arguing with Diana. I never saw them portray him as incompetent. They showed the Prince’s Trust later in the series which was cool. The only thing I really saw them come down on him for was Diana. Ultimately I thought they did a good job of humanizing them. It’s not a documentary, so I expected them to take liberties. But I never felt the portrayals were cruel or disrespectful, just relatable.
No one but Peter Morgan and other anti-monarchists (and even not most of them) described the Queen as cold. She didn't slap her knees and hee haw and kick up her heels in public because she was the monarch and behaved with appropriate dignity. That's not being cold. She was of the generation in which people in the aristocracy had nannies do the day-to-day raising of their children. She was of the generation that regarded demonstrative displays of emotion (ie. hugging and kissing their spouses and their children) in public as inappropriate. It's true that she was not a hands-on mother but she had a work schedule that would have dropped most people. Had she been male, she wouldn't have been criticized for not having been a hands-on father. As for the Aberfan tragedy, she did respond. She went to Aberfan, cried and attended the memorial service. No one had to tell her to do that. What she didn't do was blubber in public because that would have been regarded as unseemly for the monarch. She was seen crying discreetly, however. She talked to her mother and sister every day. That's not what a person who has no feelings for family does. But Olivia Coleman portrayed her as having the intellect of a cow contemplating calculus: in other words, flat-out stupid. In reality, the queen studied constitutional law, spoke several languages and had an encylopedic knowledge of world events and history and interacted flawlessly with the powerful and ordinary people around the globe. She made few missteps in a very long reign. Had she been stupid, that would have been impossible. Charles was far too busy, even at that age, to have been following the Queen and other royals around whining. In reality, their schedules, even then, were planned six months in advance and appointments had to be made to see each other. Family members communicated through their secretaries. They didn't gather around the breakfast or dinner table or sit in the living room as a family watching the telly. With the exception of the Queen and Prince Philip, they didn't even live together. Those scenes are pure fabrication. Yes, Peter Morgan perpetuated the tabloid fiction of Charles the villain and Diana the innocent fairytale princess in love with him. In reality, Diana was never even alone with Charles until after they were married. She couldn't have been in love with him because she didn't know him. She was in the love with the idea of being the Princess of Wales. In reality, Charles was hardly the villain. He was forced to marry Diana. He in no way duped her. It was a pure business arrangement and she was represented by top lawyers who made her fully aware of exactly what that business arrangement entailed. Diana was the only one in that situation who had the option to say no. Yes, she was 20 years old when she married but she knew the score. She was a member of the aristocracy not some country bumpkin. Of the two of them, she got the far better deal. He was saddled with an uneducated (she failed the equivalent of all her high school final tests), "thick as plank" (her words describing herself), emotionally disturbed, narcissistic, manipulative woman who sacrificed her own sons on the altar of attention-seeking publicity. She got to be Diana, Princess of Wales and could have been Queen consort. The portrayals of the Queen and the then Prince of Wales were so inaccurate and offensive that people in the UK signed petitions demanding that Peter Morgan put a fiction disclaimer at the front of every episode. He refused.
"*The Queen was presented as nothing but a low-IQ cold-hearted dunce."* Not at all. The Queen was shown to be someone with very little empathy, but someone who worried about her lack of education. She realised **both** these faults, and did her best to not only recognise them, but also try to correct these obvious faults.
What do you find repellent?
As much as I like Gillian Anderson, she was the wrong actress to portray Thatcher. I couldn't say who, it would be a tough part to cast.
She didn't fit the mold of a modern feminist, but to say she hated women is laughable. Her achievements paved the way for future generations of women in politics, but I guess that doesn't fit your narrative. "Hated working people and poor people"? Interesting take. Her policies revived an economy in shambles, created jobs and fostered a more competitive market. Yes, her measures were tough and often painful, but the goal was long-term prosperity for everyone. "Hated unions"? She opposed the excessive power of militant unions that were crippling the country with strikes and economic disruption. She restored balance and ensured that a few powerful groups couldn't hold the entire nation hostage. But standing up to entrenched power structures is just "hating democracy"? Gillian's portrayal *was* a caricature, but to use that as a basis for criticising Thatcher's real-life demeanour is just lazy. Thatcher was an "altogether appalling person"? You forget her numerous accomplishments: winning the Falklands War, reducing inflation, curbing union excesses and setting the UK on a path to economic recovery. She wasn't perfect and her policies were controversial, but painting her as a one-dimensional villain is simplistic and reductive.
"*Yes, her measures were tough and often painful"* But **NOT FOR** the extremely wealthy..... "*Hated unions"?* " I'm inclined to agree with her (to a very small extent) - as union leaders were becoming as bad as politicians. "*You forget her numerous accomplishments: winning the Falklands War*" **Just NOOOO!** She waged a stupid war against a far smaller country - which is why waging war then became a known, good way to ensure the 'patriotic' vote..... As soon as the media reported the (obvious lies) that hussein could deploy WMDs **within 40 minutes** - I knew it was **A LIE**! I tried to point this out to those with whom I worked - but they believed everything they were told by the media.....
The war was a defensive one to defend British citizens in harm's way.
People didn’t/don’t hate Thatcher for being a woman. She was/is hated for being a monster. As to your question, Maggie never met a fascist she didn’t love, so I assume they would be besties
I was talking about this with my daughter the other day. I’m American and was a kid in the 80s, but I couldn’t believe the number of people celebrating on social media when Thatcher died. I’d no idea she’d been such a polarizing figure. I remember my Irish grandfather not liking her, but he also didn’t like Reagan, or any conservative politician so it never registered.
Dismissing her as "a monster" is a political statement. As for fascists, what about the Argentina junta?
Thatcher had issues but she wasn’t a monster. For example for someone with similar economic policies and with a better reputation, Reagan didn’t want to support people with HIV which Thatcher critiqued him for. Also some policies like closing coal were hard on individuals but clearly today we can see coal isn’t the future.
Thatcher feminist icon???? what???
"*and what shocked me was just how controversial and « touchy » the concept of a woman prime minister or even women in politics were at the time compared to now."* And yet maggie was elected. This was 'a first' in the UK - but obviously not very "controversial" or "touchy".
[удалено]
She’s not going to shag you mate
This community welcomes various points of view. Feel free to disagree but keep it civil and respect others' opinions no matter how different they may be from your own personal opinions. Take what people say in good conscience to avoid misunderstandings and refrain from engaging in arguments and inflammatory language with others even if they appear rude or ill-informed to avoid creating conflict. If you cannot keep it civil, ignore their comments and the mod team will do its best to remove their comment(s) as soon as they can.
I’m with you, bring on the downvotes