Edwina Mountbatten film starring Cate Blanchett is cancelled

Lord and Lady Mountbatten opening the Echo's Above Bar offices

Cate Blanchett

First published in What's On Hampshire Chronicle: Photograph of the Author by , Senior News and Video Reporter

AT the time it was one of the most famous and glamorous marriages in the country.

But Hollywood producers have found telling the story of Romsey’s Lord and Lady Mountbatten’s relationship too controversial and have pulled out of making a movie based on the Hampshire couple’s time during the last days of the British Empire in India.

The film Indian Summer had been due to star Oscar-winning actress Cate Blanchett as Lady Edwina Mountbatten, wife of Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma.

The movie, set during Britain’s handover of India in 1947, became too hot for India’s government who reportedly voiced concerns at the script, which focused on an alleged affair between Lady Mountbatten and the country’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

Hampshire Chronicle: Click below to see a video of today's headlines in sixty seconds

The relationship has often been described as an “intimate friendship”

between the two. Books written over the past 50 years by people close to the Indian prime minster show that the personal interests of the single Nehru and socialite Lady Mountbatten did nothing to diminish the rumours.

Now studio bosses at Universal have shelved the movie, originally scheduled for release in 2011, after additional problems over the film’s budget saw the cost of making it spiral to an estimated £26m. It is believed that Indian officials had eventually given the film, based on the non-fiction book Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire, by Alex von Tunzelmann, the go-ahead.

But in an interview with trade magazine Variety, director Joe Wright admitted the wrangling with the country’s officials sealed the movie’s fate.

“We were in between a rock and a hard place.

The Indian government wanted us to make less of the love story while the studio wanted us to make more of the love story,” he said.

Appointed Last Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten faced the impossible task of uniting Muslim and Hindu factions of the country when he arrived in Delhi in March 1947.

Civil war raged shortly after the Union flag was lowered on August 15 the same year but it was here that Mountbatten and his wife came into their own.

She organised relief work and medical supplies while he chaired an emergency committee – each spending 15 months in the country playing an integral part in its history.

Their union was far from conventional but they remained together until Lady Mountbatten’s death in 1960, after almost 40 years of marriage.

Lord Mountbatten, who was great uncle to Prince Charles, died in 1979 after an IRA bomb attack on his fishing vessel off the north west coast of Sligo in Ireland. He was killed along with three others including 14- year-old grandson Nicholas who was twin brother to the current Lord Brabourne.

Oscar winning Australian born actress Blanchett and Atonement director Wright are still reportedly committed to the film if it ever goes ahead.

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:49pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Ted Rogers says...

Cut and paste journalism with an inaccurate headline.

How on earth did this paper win any kind of industry award?
Cut and paste journalism with an inaccurate headline. How on earth did this paper win any kind of industry award? Ted Rogers
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Paramjit Bahia says...

Ted Rogers wrote:
Cut and paste journalism with an inaccurate headline. How on earth did this paper win any kind of industry award?
Because over the years standards of other papers have gone down even more.
[quote][p][bold]Ted Rogers[/bold] wrote: Cut and paste journalism with an inaccurate headline. How on earth did this paper win any kind of industry award?[/p][/quote]Because over the years standards of other papers have gone down even more. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Tue 27 Oct 09

southy says...

the big problem is the americans will not stick to the facts when it comes to history, just like the enigma code breaking and the japanese code breaking was done by the british, but according to american's it was them that done it, the americans do like to rewrite history in there favour, and the problem with this is people belive it.
the big problem is the americans will not stick to the facts when it comes to history, just like the enigma code breaking and the japanese code breaking was done by the british, but according to american's it was them that done it, the americans do like to rewrite history in there favour, and the problem with this is people belive it. southy
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Tue 27 Oct 09

The Mad Dog says...

southy wrote:
the big problem is the americans will not stick to the facts when it comes to history, just like the enigma code breaking and the japanese code breaking was done by the british, but according to american's it was them that done it, the americans do like to rewrite history in there favour, and the problem with this is people belive it.
Spot on Southy.

Weren't John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Rod Stieger & Robert Mitchum and then Tom Hanks soley responsible for the success of the D Day landings?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: the big problem is the americans will not stick to the facts when it comes to history, just like the enigma code breaking and the japanese code breaking was done by the british, but according to american's it was them that done it, the americans do like to rewrite history in there favour, and the problem with this is people belive it. [/p][/quote]Spot on Southy. Weren't John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Rod Stieger & Robert Mitchum and then Tom Hanks soley responsible for the success of the D Day landings? The Mad Dog
  • Score: 0

3:27pm Tue 27 Oct 09

southy says...

The Mad Dog wrote:
southy wrote:
the big problem is the americans will not stick to the facts when it comes to history, just like the enigma code breaking and the japanese code breaking was done by the british, but according to american's it was them that done it, the americans do like to rewrite history in there favour, and the problem with this is people belive it.
Spot on Southy.

Weren't John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Rod Stieger & Robert Mitchum and then Tom Hanks soley responsible for the success of the D Day landings?
lol oh yes they where, and john wayne beat all the native indians of america with one hand tied behind his back, dont for get michum part at the begining of the war ( winds of war ) whitch was so far fetch, and totally untrue, but made to look like it was true history.
[quote][p][bold]The Mad Dog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: the big problem is the americans will not stick to the facts when it comes to history, just like the enigma code breaking and the japanese code breaking was done by the british, but according to american's it was them that done it, the americans do like to rewrite history in there favour, and the problem with this is people belive it. [/p][/quote]Spot on Southy. Weren't John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Rod Stieger & Robert Mitchum and then Tom Hanks soley responsible for the success of the D Day landings?[/p][/quote]lol oh yes they where, and john wayne beat all the native indians of america with one hand tied behind his back, dont for get michum part at the begining of the war ( winds of war ) whitch was so far fetch, and totally untrue, but made to look like it was true history. southy
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Ken Hutchinson says...

I'm all for any film that accurately depicts the monstrosity that is the Royal Family.
I'm all for any film that accurately depicts the monstrosity that is the Royal Family. Ken Hutchinson
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Paramjit Bahia says...

Ken Hutchinson wrote:
I'm all for any film that accurately depicts the monstrosity that is the Royal Family.
Ken you have spoken for many of us. Well done
[quote][p][bold]Ken Hutchinson[/bold] wrote: I'm all for any film that accurately depicts the monstrosity that is the Royal Family. [/p][/quote]Ken you have spoken for many of us. Well done Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Tue 27 Oct 09

southy says...

Ken Hutchinson wrote:
I'm all for any film that accurately depicts the monstrosity that is the Royal Family.
i agree has long they keep to the facts of history, and dont leave any thing out, but history facts and americans dont mix, they do like there fairy tales
[quote][p][bold]Ken Hutchinson[/bold] wrote: I'm all for any film that accurately depicts the monstrosity that is the Royal Family. [/p][/quote]i agree has long they keep to the facts of history, and dont leave any thing out, but history facts and americans dont mix, they do like there fairy tales southy
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Paramjit Bahia says...

southy wrote:
the big problem is the americans will not stick to the facts when it comes to history, just like the enigma code breaking and the japanese code breaking was done by the british, but according to american's it was them that done it, the americans do like to rewrite history in there favour, and the problem with this is people belive it.
Southy,
Americans are not the only one who create their own version of history. All establishments are the same world over.
Stalin's version of events in Russia.
Our own version of Boer War, Britain inventing concentration camps long before Hitler.
So called Indian mutiny 1857, which Indians call First battle for Independence.
British decisions which created famine in Indian state of Bengal during the war, killing over 3 million Indians is hardly mentioned.
How many times we are told the truth that many times more Russians sacrificed their lives in fight against Nazis than the rest of us?
I am sure you are already aware that there was not even a memorial for people from so called ‘Black Parts of Commonwealth’ who sacrificed their lives for UK during the war, till certain Tory Baroness campaigned for it?
Not only that even British soldiers who fought on Burma front were almost treated with less recognition than the rest.
And let us not forget lies of Blair over Iraq.
List is endless.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: the big problem is the americans will not stick to the facts when it comes to history, just like the enigma code breaking and the japanese code breaking was done by the british, but according to american's it was them that done it, the americans do like to rewrite history in there favour, and the problem with this is people belive it. [/p][/quote]Southy, Americans are not the only one who create their own version of history. All establishments are the same world over. Stalin's version of events in Russia. Our own version of Boer War, Britain inventing concentration camps long before Hitler. So called Indian mutiny 1857, which Indians call First battle for Independence. British decisions which created famine in Indian state of Bengal during the war, killing over 3 million Indians is hardly mentioned. How many times we are told the truth that many times more Russians sacrificed their lives in fight against Nazis than the rest of us? I am sure you are already aware that there was not even a memorial for people from so called ‘Black Parts of Commonwealth’ who sacrificed their lives for UK during the war, till certain Tory Baroness campaigned for it? Not only that even British soldiers who fought on Burma front were almost treated with less recognition than the rest. And let us not forget lies of Blair over Iraq. List is endless. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Paramjit Bahia says...

Not only Lady Mountbatten's film may be too hot for Hollywood, the woman herself may also have been excessively hot even for her husband.

Lord Mountbatten had many exceptional qualities and also had other side to his personality.

His role in India's partition and how he exploited his wife’s influence on Nehru to persuade him into accepting the division of the nation against the wishes of Mahatma Gandhi is unforgivable.

I base the above comment on what Mulana Azad (Prominent leader of India) had said "After spending time with Lady Mountbatten next morning Nehru changed his mind".

****/Love of these two people costed well over two million human lives, and even according to government's own figures made 12 to 15 million refugees in their own country.

Mountbatten could have avoided all that if he had not tried to implement stupidly tight time table set by then Labour Government, which was hell bent upon creating poisonous atmosphere in Indian sub-continent to hurt its economy. Many of today’s problems including terrorism have some connections with that mad thinking of Labour, who have the cheek to call themselves socialists.

Hindus Muslims Sikhs and many other religions had lived together in India over the centuries in comparative peace and harmony, Mountbatten did not try to create good relations between them, as impression given in the news item, but in fact exploited the differences, and gave birth to two nations (Pakistan of 14 August and India on 15 August 1947) even without deciding their borders, which in fact were declared later on. How crazy could it get?

All the human slaughter could have been avoided had so called Labour Government, Mountbatten, Nehru, Jinnah and many others listened to Mahatma Gandhi's advice. Where did I get that info from? My father who knew Gandhi and did his bit for India’s freedom. According to him “Nehru stuffed unity of India into a hole between the legs of the Lady…..”
Many intelligent secular minded Indian hold similar views, which corrupt Indian establishment has tried to suppress to save air brushed image of Nehru and his part time spare bit. So hardly surprising they were objecting to this film.
But they do not realise that the truth has very strong DNA, which tends to survive.
Not only Lady Mountbatten's film may be too hot for Hollywood, the woman herself may also have been excessively hot even for her husband. Lord Mountbatten had many exceptional qualities and also had other side to his personality. His role in India's partition and how he exploited his wife’s influence on Nehru to persuade him into accepting the division of the nation against the wishes of Mahatma Gandhi is unforgivable. I base the above comment on what Mulana Azad (Prominent leader of India) had said "After spending time with Lady Mountbatten next morning Nehru changed his mind". ****/Love of these two people costed well over two million human lives, and even according to government's own figures made 12 to 15 million refugees in their own country. Mountbatten could have avoided all that if he had not tried to implement stupidly tight time table set by then Labour Government, which was hell bent upon creating poisonous atmosphere in Indian sub-continent to hurt its economy. Many of today’s problems including terrorism have some connections with that mad thinking of Labour, who have the cheek to call themselves socialists. Hindus Muslims Sikhs and many other religions had lived together in India over the centuries in comparative peace and harmony, Mountbatten did not try to create good relations between them, as impression given in the news item, but in fact exploited the differences, and gave birth to two nations (Pakistan of 14 August and India on 15 August 1947) even without deciding their borders, which in fact were declared later on. How crazy could it get? All the human slaughter could have been avoided had so called Labour Government, Mountbatten, Nehru, Jinnah and many others listened to Mahatma Gandhi's advice. Where did I get that info from? My father who knew Gandhi and did his bit for India’s freedom. According to him “Nehru stuffed unity of India into a hole between the legs of the Lady…..” Many intelligent secular minded Indian hold similar views, which corrupt Indian establishment has tried to suppress to save air brushed image of Nehru and his part time spare bit. So hardly surprising they were objecting to this film. But they do not realise that the truth has very strong DNA, which tends to survive. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Tue 27 Oct 09

southy says...

yes i did know most of that all ready, but you forgot some thing, the pressure that labour was giving to the time scale, was because of the american government, britian knew before the end of wwii, that they was told well not told but demanded, to break up the empire, and this was a case to for the french, spainish portugues and dutch all europian interest in the far east had to be broken up and leave the far east, it must of upset the americans when all but 2 countrys returned and help set up the british commonwealth.
yes i did know most of that all ready, but you forgot some thing, the pressure that labour was giving to the time scale, was because of the american government, britian knew before the end of wwii, that they was told well not told but demanded, to break up the empire, and this was a case to for the french, spainish portugues and dutch all europian interest in the far east had to be broken up and leave the far east, it must of upset the americans when all but 2 countrys returned and help set up the british commonwealth. southy
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Paramjit Bahia says...

Southy
For a socialist it is strange to read you mitigating for imperialism. (Only joking!)
Yes certain American President was against empires, and rightly so. But Churchill was not too keen, on Atlantic agreement or whatever it was called.
Britain pulling out of India had nothing to do with American pressure. Indian National Army of Socialist Netaji Bose may not have been a huge military success, but it shook the foundation of the Raj. That is why they dare not put all the INA soldiers on trial after the war. This in turn encouraged mutiny in Indian Navy. And many other militant movements dominated by the left, which Britain knew will be more challenging that Gandhi's non-violence.
So it was opportunistic policy to cut and run and leaving India in comparatively friendlier hands to save British trade and investments.
Then there were resource implications for Britain after the war.
On top of that what became known in March 2000 was secret British plan of General Wavell, to divide India for creating a puppet state, which turned out to be Pakistan. That is why secret deals were done with Jinnah through Churchill, and he was encouraged not to make peace with Gandhi.
That and similar other reasons were the cause of British establishment deliberately poisoning Indian society on the basis of religion, which led to religious fundamentalism and progressed into today’s terrorism.
Also they did not want Indian economy to start challenging Britain's. So expensive conflict was created on purpose.
British Commonwealth? No my friend word British was removed long time ago. It is Commonwealth of equals of which Britain is a member. I strongly support it and believe UK should have shown more loyalty to Commonwealth than joining the EU. Strangely that is where Lord Mountbatten was at his best. Both he and Nehru were strong believer in Commonwealth. No woman had to be offered to persuade Nehru for this, because he genuinely was committed to commonwealth, as indeed was Mahatma Gandhi.
Southy For a socialist it is strange to read you mitigating for imperialism. (Only joking!) Yes certain American President was against empires, and rightly so. But Churchill was not too keen, on Atlantic agreement or whatever it was called. Britain pulling out of India had nothing to do with American pressure. Indian National Army of Socialist Netaji Bose may not have been a huge military success, but it shook the foundation of the Raj. That is why they dare not put all the INA soldiers on trial after the war. This in turn encouraged mutiny in Indian Navy. And many other militant movements dominated by the left, which Britain knew will be more challenging that Gandhi's non-violence. So it was opportunistic policy to cut and run and leaving India in comparatively friendlier hands to save British trade and investments. Then there were resource implications for Britain after the war. On top of that what became known in March 2000 was secret British plan of General Wavell, to divide India for creating a puppet state, which turned out to be Pakistan. That is why secret deals were done with Jinnah through Churchill, and he was encouraged not to make peace with Gandhi. That and similar other reasons were the cause of British establishment deliberately poisoning Indian society on the basis of religion, which led to religious fundamentalism and progressed into today’s terrorism. Also they did not want Indian economy to start challenging Britain's. So expensive conflict was created on purpose. British Commonwealth? No my friend word British was removed long time ago. It is Commonwealth of equals of which Britain is a member. I strongly support it and believe UK should have shown more loyalty to Commonwealth than joining the EU. Strangely that is where Lord Mountbatten was at his best. Both he and Nehru were strong believer in Commonwealth. No woman had to be offered to persuade Nehru for this, because he genuinely was committed to commonwealth, as indeed was Mahatma Gandhi. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Tue 27 Oct 09

southy says...

a lot of truth in that, but there was a clue in one of churchill speeches, part of it go's some thing like this, should the british empire or >>commonwealth
a lot of truth in that, but there was a clue in one of churchill speeches, part of it go's some thing like this, should the british empire or >>commonwealth southy
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Tue 27 Oct 09

southy says...

a lot of truth in that, but there was a clue in one of churchill speeches, part of it go's some thing like this, should the british empire or >>commonwealth
a lot of truth in that, but there was a clue in one of churchill speeches, part of it go's some thing like this, should the british empire or >>commonwealth southy
  • Score: 0

9:37pm Tue 27 Oct 09

southy says...

seens to be a problem with the echo servers
seens to be a problem with the echo servers southy
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Pedant says...

The Echo is getting beyond a joke. The current Lord Brabourne is the ELDER brother of the late Nicholas Knatchbull, killed by the IRA. His twin brother is Timothy Knatchbull. Echo journalists need to learn how to use information freely available on the web to try to get even the most basic facts right. Print a correction- come on editors get a grip on these amateurs.
The Echo is getting beyond a joke. The current Lord Brabourne is the ELDER brother of the late Nicholas Knatchbull, killed by the IRA. His twin brother is Timothy Knatchbull. Echo journalists need to learn how to use information freely available on the web to try to get even the most basic facts right. Print a correction- come on editors get a grip on these amateurs. Pedant
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Miles Way says...

Pedant wrote:
The Echo is getting beyond a joke. The current Lord Brabourne is the ELDER brother of the late Nicholas Knatchbull, killed by the IRA. His twin brother is Timothy Knatchbull. Echo journalists need to learn how to use information freely available on the web to try to get even the most basic facts right. Print a correction- come on editors get a grip on these amateurs.
And get them to print stuff when it happens - this was widely reported several days ago elsewhere.
I'm actually glad, Mountbatten was a great man and character and I'm not convinced hollywood could handle something, even when only alledged, with any discretion and without discrediting everyone.
Who was playing Lord Louis BTW - Tom Cruise in platform shoes?

Incidentally Southy - "seens to be a problem with the echo servers" don't worry mate, come the Socialist revolution there will be no servers, we'll all be served.

[quote][p][bold]Pedant[/bold] wrote: The Echo is getting beyond a joke. The current Lord Brabourne is the ELDER brother of the late Nicholas Knatchbull, killed by the IRA. His twin brother is Timothy Knatchbull. Echo journalists need to learn how to use information freely available on the web to try to get even the most basic facts right. Print a correction- come on editors get a grip on these amateurs.[/p][/quote]And get them to print stuff when it happens - this was widely reported several days ago elsewhere. I'm actually glad, Mountbatten was a great man and character and I'm not convinced hollywood could handle something, even when only alledged, with any discretion and without discrediting everyone. Who was playing Lord Louis BTW - Tom Cruise in platform shoes? Incidentally Southy - "seens to be a problem with the echo servers" don't worry mate, come the Socialist revolution there will be no servers, we'll all be served. Miles Way
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Tue 27 Oct 09

southy says...

part two

part two southy
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Tue 27 Oct 09

southy says...

have i step on some ones toes at the echo, the truth hurts some times.
have i step on some ones toes at the echo, the truth hurts some times. southy
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Paramjit Bahia says...

Remember the saying
"If you pay peanuts you get the monkey".
So don't blame the poor underpaid jurno, but the owners of the Echo.
Remember the saying "If you pay peanuts you get the monkey". So don't blame the poor underpaid jurno, but the owners of the Echo. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Tue 27 Oct 09

southy says...

i call it protecting usa interests and there agenda.
i call it protecting usa interests and there agenda. southy
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Ozmosis says...

"Hollywood producers have found telling the story of Romsey’s Lord and Lady Mountbatten’s relationship too controversial"... reading the text I could have sworn that spiralling costs were the problem. Still anything for a headline!
"Hollywood producers have found telling the story of Romsey’s Lord and Lady Mountbatten’s relationship too controversial"... reading the text I could have sworn that spiralling costs were the problem. Still anything for a headline! Ozmosis
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Paramjit Bahia says...


Southy
There were lots of bad things about the British Empire but also some good ones, which should have been exploited for the good of whole of commonwealth.. For example:
Common language.
Legal system in most commonwealth nations if not the same is very similar.
Most commonwealth nations are democratic.
Enormous natural resources and supply of skills and land mass.
Massive both in numbers and diversity of population, hence consumers.
Lots of mutually shared (both good and bad) history.
All it needed was for British establishment to come down from its high horse of imperialist and opportunist mentality and start playing the ball on equal basis in commonwealth to create a trading block much better than the EU.
I think it to be a tragedy that possibility of something emerging really good out of bad imperialism was wasted. We ignored or overlooked what Mahatma Gandhi was all about, because of Churchill’s dislike for him. His name was attached only with Indian freedom and rest of his ideas ignored. A successful commonwealth could easily have been a stepping stone towards uniting the whole world. But Ted Heath sacrificed all that at the altar of EU.
Southy There were lots of bad things about the British Empire but also some good ones, which should have been exploited for the good of whole of commonwealth.. For example: Common language. Legal system in most commonwealth nations if not the same is very similar. Most commonwealth nations are democratic. Enormous natural resources and supply of skills and land mass. Massive both in numbers and diversity of population, hence consumers. Lots of mutually shared (both good and bad) history. All it needed was for British establishment to come down from its high horse of imperialist and opportunist mentality and start playing the ball on equal basis in commonwealth to create a trading block much better than the EU. I think it to be a tragedy that possibility of something emerging really good out of bad imperialism was wasted. We ignored or overlooked what Mahatma Gandhi was all about, because of Churchill’s dislike for him. His name was attached only with Indian freedom and rest of his ideas ignored. A successful commonwealth could easily have been a stepping stone towards uniting the whole world. But Ted Heath sacrificed all that at the altar of EU. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Tue 27 Oct 09

Paramjit Bahia says...

Ozmosis wrote:
"Hollywood producers have found telling the story of Romsey’s Lord and Lady Mountbatten’s relationship too controversial"... reading the text I could have sworn that spiralling costs were the problem. Still anything for a headline!
Absolutely correct.
[quote][p][bold]Ozmosis[/bold] wrote: "Hollywood producers have found telling the story of Romsey’s Lord and Lady Mountbatten’s relationship too controversial"... reading the text I could have sworn that spiralling costs were the problem. Still anything for a headline! [/p][/quote]Absolutely correct. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

11:32pm Tue 27 Oct 09

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Southy
There were lots of bad things about the British Empire but also some good ones, which should have been exploited for the good of whole of commonwealth.. For example:
Common language.
Legal system in most commonwealth nations if not the same is very similar.
Most commonwealth nations are democratic.
Enormous natural resources and supply of skills and land mass.
Massive both in numbers and diversity of population, hence consumers.
Lots of mutually shared (both good and bad) history.
All it needed was for British establishment to come down from its high horse of imperialist and opportunist mentality and start playing the ball on equal basis in commonwealth to create a trading block much better than the EU.
I think it to be a tragedy that possibility of something emerging really good out of bad imperialism was wasted. We ignored or overlooked what Mahatma Gandhi was all about, because of Churchill’s dislike for him. His name was attached only with Indian freedom and rest of his ideas ignored. A successful commonwealth could easily have been a stepping stone towards uniting the whole world. But Ted Heath sacrificed all that at the altar of EU.
i agree with you, we could of had some thing much better than the EU. thats way i for one is all for dropping the EU, in favour of the british commonwealth.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: Southy There were lots of bad things about the British Empire but also some good ones, which should have been exploited for the good of whole of commonwealth.. For example: Common language. Legal system in most commonwealth nations if not the same is very similar. Most commonwealth nations are democratic. Enormous natural resources and supply of skills and land mass. Massive both in numbers and diversity of population, hence consumers. Lots of mutually shared (both good and bad) history. All it needed was for British establishment to come down from its high horse of imperialist and opportunist mentality and start playing the ball on equal basis in commonwealth to create a trading block much better than the EU. I think it to be a tragedy that possibility of something emerging really good out of bad imperialism was wasted. We ignored or overlooked what Mahatma Gandhi was all about, because of Churchill’s dislike for him. His name was attached only with Indian freedom and rest of his ideas ignored. A successful commonwealth could easily have been a stepping stone towards uniting the whole world. But Ted Heath sacrificed all that at the altar of EU. [/p][/quote]i agree with you, we could of had some thing much better than the EU. thats way i for one is all for dropping the EU, in favour of the british commonwealth. southy
  • Score: 0

11:55pm Tue 27 Oct 09

CHIMPANZEE says...

I agree with Bahia. I am old enough to remember Ghandhi and the old 'divide and rule' British tactics still successful in Iraq etc. Meanwhile, The empire has gone, so has the commonwealth and we do not fit into EU with the likes of corrupt Mandleson & Blair plc.. on our decadent side. Let us stick to this little sinking and divided BNP island till we are doomed. The same fate holds for Britain as it pirated and plundered the empire. Why blame the Somalis for piracy in their own waters while the UK sails abroad to pirate others.
I agree with Bahia. I am old enough to remember Ghandhi and the old 'divide and rule' British tactics still successful in Iraq etc. Meanwhile, The empire has gone, so has the commonwealth and we do not fit into EU with the likes of corrupt Mandleson & Blair plc.. on our decadent side. Let us stick to this little sinking and divided BNP island till we are doomed. The same fate holds for Britain as it pirated and plundered the empire. Why blame the Somalis for piracy in their own waters while the UK sails abroad to pirate others. CHIMPANZEE
  • Score: 0

1:19am Wed 28 Oct 09

Paramjit Bahia says...

CHIMPANZEE wrote:
I agree with Bahia. I am old enough to remember Ghandhi and the old 'divide and rule' British tactics still successful in Iraq etc. Meanwhile, The empire has gone, so has the commonwealth and we do not fit into EU with the likes of corrupt Mandleson & Blair plc.. on our decadent side. Let us stick to this little sinking and divided BNP island till we are doomed. The same fate holds for Britain as it pirated and plundered the empire. Why blame the Somalis for piracy in their own waters while the UK sails abroad to pirate others.
Share your dislike of Blair and Mandelson, but I don't think you are right about BNP Island.
Hope Britain will never be anything of the sort. Most British people know it better than playing into the hands of fascists.
It was not British people as whole who plundered the empire that is why Gandhi had lots of affection for them, but it was certain class that did the damage both to people in empire and working classes in the UK. Same lot who took us to war in Iraq against the wishes of majority of British public.
[quote][p][bold]CHIMPANZEE[/bold] wrote: I agree with Bahia. I am old enough to remember Ghandhi and the old 'divide and rule' British tactics still successful in Iraq etc. Meanwhile, The empire has gone, so has the commonwealth and we do not fit into EU with the likes of corrupt Mandleson & Blair plc.. on our decadent side. Let us stick to this little sinking and divided BNP island till we are doomed. The same fate holds for Britain as it pirated and plundered the empire. Why blame the Somalis for piracy in their own waters while the UK sails abroad to pirate others.[/p][/quote]Share your dislike of Blair and Mandelson, but I don't think you are right about BNP Island. Hope Britain will never be anything of the sort. Most British people know it better than playing into the hands of fascists. It was not British people as whole who plundered the empire that is why Gandhi had lots of affection for them, but it was certain class that did the damage both to people in empire and working classes in the UK. Same lot who took us to war in Iraq against the wishes of majority of British public. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Wed 28 Oct 09

B. L. says...

The Mad Dog wrote:
southy wrote:
the big problem is the americans will not stick to the facts when it comes to history, just like the enigma code breaking and the japanese code breaking was done by the british, but according to american's it was them that done it, the americans do like to rewrite history in there favour, and the problem with this is people belive it.
Spot on Southy.

Weren't John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Rod Stieger & Robert Mitchum and then Tom Hanks soley responsible for the success of the D Day landings?
Absolutely true. You missed out a few names though like Richard Burton, Kenneth Moore, Sean Connery, Richard Todd etc. :o)
[quote][p][bold]The Mad Dog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: the big problem is the americans will not stick to the facts when it comes to history, just like the enigma code breaking and the japanese code breaking was done by the british, but according to american's it was them that done it, the americans do like to rewrite history in there favour, and the problem with this is people belive it. [/p][/quote]Spot on Southy. Weren't John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Rod Stieger & Robert Mitchum and then Tom Hanks soley responsible for the success of the D Day landings?[/p][/quote]Absolutely true. You missed out a few names though like Richard Burton, Kenneth Moore, Sean Connery, Richard Todd etc. :o) B. L.
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree