Martial Law Crybabies feeling validated by mention of Imelda Marcos in Netflix’s ‘The Crown’

Philippine Opposition Netizens are abuzz over the mention of Imelda Marcos’s shoe (or shell) collection in an episode of the fourth season of Netflix series The Crown. The scene features Princess Margaret (played by Helena Bonham Carter) describing a banquet she attended in Manila wherein she is approached by then First Lady Imelda Marcos who wanted to show her shoe collection. The princess is portrayed by Carter acting confused as to whether Marcos referred to shoes or to “shells”.

The scene shows Princess Margaret in the company of Queen Elizabeth (played by Olivia Colman), Prince Charles (played by Josh O’Connor), Princess Anne (played by Erin Doherty), and Prince Philip (played by Tobias Menzies) all having a chuckle about the incident.

Here is an account of Princess Margaret’s visit to Manila in 1980 that the scene is likely to be referring to as described by The Royal Watcher on its April 2020 article “Princess Margaret in the Philippines, 1980”…

Princess Margaret was hosted by First Lady Imelda Marcos on her Official Visit to the Philippines on this day in 1980, on behalf of the Queen. After visiting the tomb of national hero Jose Rizal, inaugurating the Lungsod ng Kabantaan hospital for children and viewing locally made handicrafts, the highlight of the visit was the Official Dinner in honour of the Princess (wearing the Poltimore Tiara and the Teck Circle Necklace) at the Malacanang Palace in Manila, which was followed by a visit to the the United Nation’s Indochinese Refugee Camp and a Reception at the British Embassy.

Imelda Marcos continues to be a celebrity in the Philippines. Back in 2014, photos of students of the Ateneo de Manila University posing for photos with Marcos circulated over the Net provoking outrage amongst her haters.

Ateneo students seem to apply a more open mind to the Marcos family than their teachers.

It’ll be interesting of course to see how the communists, a key ally of the Yellowtards (the leading partisan bloc within the Philippine Opposition loyal to the Aquino-Cojuangco clan), would react to this latest “trending” piece of Martial Law Crybaby collateral. This is in considering that the English royal family are also anathema to the communist “cause” which seeks to destroy not just all aristocratic dynasties but any national government that they do not directly control.

In any case, much creative license is applied to the production of every episode of The Crown so it remains debatable as to how much of this scene (if at all) actually played out within closed doors.

print

11 Comments on “Martial Law Crybabies feeling validated by mention of Imelda Marcos in Netflix’s ‘The Crown’”

  1. Imelda Marcos is history…the same as the late President Ferdinand Marcos. So, these people are no longer relevant in our political scenes, or political discussions.

    If you compare what the Aquinos, especially , Cory Aquino and her dumbass son, Pnoy Aquino did to this country…the Aquinos were worse than the Marcoses…

    Cory Aquino freed, the commies. Made Jo Ma Sison, be exiled in Amsterdam, together with his groups of commies. Cory Aquino, allowed the Partylists, to include/legitimize, commie fronts, to receive funds, to fund the New People’s Army. The New People’s Army was founded by Ninoy Aquino, Jr.

    There were unrestrained corruptions, ghost projects and many crooks, during the Aquino era.

    We have to put the past behind us…let the politicians, who will be running for offices, run on their own merits…they have to show us, who thy had done, and their political platforms, of what they can do for us, and the country. They have to show us, how they can solve the problems of our country, and improve our lives…

    We want rational discussions of the issues…not Politics of nonsense and Politics of destruction …

    Engage in discussion with us bloggers !

    1. “Imelda Marcos is history…the same as the late President Ferdinand Marcos.”

      In a way, I believe you my friend, but…

      In a show called Powerhouse, Mel Tiangco commented to Imelda Marcos, “If we go by all of these, you are rich beyond compare.”.

      The former First Lady then replied, “No, this will save the world. This is the reason I want to survive. And it’s not for me anymore.”.

      Back in the ’90s, Imelda even sought the help of the Senate and appealed to them to help her regarding the matter in order to help the country.

      “The most urgent reason I was looking forward to my coming to this hearing of the Philippine Senate is to seek your help – Honorable Senators – to help me implement the LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT of the late President Marcos to enlist assets in the hands of Trustees, to implement the Marcos humanitarian foundation so that we can help the country in our economic crisis and help the Filipino people in their agony and suffering.“

      In ‘The Philippine Diary Project’ website of Manolo Quezon III, in an entry dated January 1, 1970, then President Ferdinand Marcos, in his own handwriting, mentioned about this transfer of all his worldly possessions:

      “I have today given away by general instrument of transfer all my worldly possessions to the Filipino people through a foundation to be organized known as the Marcos Foundation.

      “Moved by the strongest desire and the purest will to set the example of self-denial and self-sacrifice for all our people, I have today decided to give away all my worldly possessions so that they may serve the greater needs of the greater number of our people.

      “It is my wish that these properties will be used in advancing education, science, technology and the arts.”

      If we are to believe about the Marcoses’ unfinished business and, if somehow granted, that would be history too.

  2. Did somebody just randomly slip those lines and think it’s just funny? I don’t see how anybody’s political beliefs should be validated by that… It’s the same level as Robredo’s LOL response to the election protest case. She’s probably nervously laughing. Doesn’t she notice that despite the media promoting her left and right, her approval and trust ratings are less than stellar?
    Mrs. Imelda Marcos is quite a woman. It seems there are those who are afraid being proven wrong by her and the testament she holds.

  3. That’s just flimsy. Here’s the real deal: Imelda Marcos was found guilty of seven counts of graft by the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court back in November, 2018 of seven counts of graft for creating private foundations in Switzerland when she was a government official and sentence to a minimum of 42 years in prison.

    Imelda Marcos posted bail since the Sandiganbayan’s conviction which was granted the same citing health reasons. Until now, she’s free enjoying and attending parties while many old senior prisoners are imprisoned just because they are poor and powerless. Where’s fairness and equity? Until now Marcos appeal to the Supreme Court is still pending after 2 years. If she will be convicted by the SC, that could somehow really validate the sentiments of Marcos martial law victims.

    1. I just want to remind you that jailing an old lady didn’t even win the Opposition an election. You’re just wasting your breath.

      And I just hope that the “Marcos martial law victims” are the ACTUAL ones and not members of the Communist Party of the Philippines.

      1. That’s because the opposition didn’t use Imelda to malign Imee Marcos senate’s bid or anyone in Duterte’s side. They were focused on Duterte only at that time. Nonetheless, it won’t negate the fact Imelda Marcos is convicted and deserves punishment.

        Of course it’s a guarantee they were actual victims. BTW, the beginning of NPA and CPP and their coalition and solid recruitment happened during Marcos time, they were never defeated nor deprived. So martial law was just a waste of time and resources. Marcos should have done what Duterte did to MILF today, and that is to make peace agreement. Maybe he already silence them long ago.

      1. I laughed so hard. Why would I weep? Firstly, who is Rigoberto Tiglao? He is a columnist not a lawyer, who obtained a degree in philosophy. His articles are mostly opinionated and not based on laws and jurisprudence.

        This last sentence of him from your above shared article of him encapsulates why his opinion is just his opinion and clearly based on his ignorance of Philippine law:

        ” I found it strange that the decision had to note that for conviction, “moral certainty is only required.”

        Section 2 ofRule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court says that:

        “Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal case…moral certainty is only required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction of an unprejudiced mind.”

        See? Tiglao doesn’t know about this so his biased article is just a waste of time to read. The audacity of him to correct and belittle the decision of Justices of Sandiganbayan against Imelda Marcos, whose Justices spent many years studying and applying laws is just plainly ridiculous.

        Now it’s your turn to really weep and get absolutely embarassed. Enjoy your blunder, you gullible the Arganaut. Hahaha

        1. “The audacity of him to correct and belittle the decision of Justices of Sandiganbayan against Imelda Marcos, whose Justices spent many years studying and applying laws is just plainly ridiculous.”

          Is that your moral certainty? Or the forbidden fruit for you? Good luck on that.

        2. The funny thing about Jason’s arrogant display of feeling validated is the fact that aside from the idiotic-easy usual resorting to ad-hominem he does not fail to convince that he’s just really incapable of giving out something valid counter-arguments to the points raised by Mr. Tiglao.

          The moronic joker is not really into the discussion. His tunnel vision is without-merit and goes nowhere but dead end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.