"Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work" (2007) - BBC Documentary on the Windsors


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I did notice that Leibovitz tried to reference some of Beaton's portraits (I highly recommend his book for royalphiles--great photos, some never before published or released) so I think she was planning for the look for the portrait with just the navy cape.

Yes, I agree. That picture of the Queen with just the Garter cape as a young woman is quite striking. I wondered if that was the look that Leibowitz was going for.

Leibowitz is a very experienced photographer with famous figures and she is generally well liked by her sitters which is why she keeps getting commissions to do their portraits.

So I don't think she was making a careless error because of lack of preparation but I think she was going for a look that she had seen before and wanted to re-invent. I do think the press made rather more of the incident than either the Queen or Leibowitz felt at the time.
 
I must say I don't think that tiara was a good choice to go with the Garter robes; either the Kokoshnik tiara or Grand Duchess Vladimir's tiara with the pearls would have looked better because they have more weight and less detail and are less pretty and airy-looking. Probably the George IV circlet would have been the best choice for the overall look, but no doubt that would have been a terrible breach of some sort of protocol that none of us know about.
 
Probably the George IV circlet would have been the best choice for the overall look, but no doubt that would have been a terrible breach of some sort of protocol that none of us know about.

I wouldn't have thought so, Elspeth, considering the photos I've recently viewed, where the Queen is wearing the circlet during a state visit by Charles de Gaulle and again in the Rolls on the way to some other event.

I wonder why the Queen has chosen to only wear it for the State Opening of Parliament ever since when clearly it can be worn 'at will' (so to speak)...:huh:

I too believe it would have been a better choice.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree. That picture of the Queen with just the Garter cape as a young woman is quite striking. I wondered if that was the look that Leibowitz was going for.

I know the picture you mean, and it is very striking. However, it isn't the Garter cape.

It was taken in 1968, the last sitting the Queen gave to Beaton. From Cecil Beaton, The Royal Portraits published in 1988 with text by Roy Strong: "Beaton's last photographs of the Queen, taken in 1968, are among his most memorable royal images. He was determined not to repeat his earlier pictures: 'Must rely on a plain white or blue background --- and determine to be stark and clear and bold'. The portraits of the Queen dressed in an admiral's boat cloak were a complete break with the past and received enormous coverage".

Strong then further quotes from Beaton's diaries or letters [Beaton's words]:
'There have been so many pictures of the Queen in tiara, orders and crinoline that I felt I must try something different. I asked Martin [Charteris, the Queen's Private Secretary] if a deer stalker cloak would be suitable. No he didn't think so but what about an admiral's cloak? navy blue serge. That sounded great and when I saw the cape in his office, felt this would be an enormous asset --- we have seen too many two piece suits with brooch and wristwatch --- this would be a great solution. Do you think it would be possible? I can only ask, Martin answered. You know the way it is --- I do. Martin phoned to say that the Queen had agreed to wear the cloak --- was rather giggly about the whole thing --- and said it didn't matter what she wore underneath it ...'
 
Last edited:
Cecil Beaton, The Royal Portraits--wonderful!

It was taken in 1968, the last sitting the Queen gave to Beaton. From Cecil Beaton, The Royal Portraits published in 1988 with text by Roy Strong: "Beaton's last photographs of the Queen, taken in 1968, are among his most memorable royal images. He was determined not to repeat his earlier pictures: 'Must rely on a plain white or blue background --- and determine to be stark and clear and bold'. The portraits of the Queen dressed in an admiral's boat cloak were a complete break with the past and received enormous coverage".

Strong then further quotes from Beaton's diaries or letters [Beaton's words]:
'There have been so many pictures of the Queen in tiara, orders and crinoline that I felt I must try something different. I asked Martin [Charteris, the Queen's Private Secretary] if a deer stalker cloak would be suitable. No he didn't think so but what about an admiral's cloak? navy blue serge. That sounded great and when I saw the cape in his office, felt this would be an enormous asset --- we have seen too many two piece suits with brooch and wristwatch --- this would be a great solution. Do you think it would be possible? I can only ask, Martin answered. You know the way it is --- I do. Martin phoned to say that the Queen had agreed to wear the cloak --- was rather giggly about the whole thing --- and said it didn't matter what she wore underneath it ...'

If you look at all the photos taken these sessions, there was one with just the navy cape (not the Garter robes) with an outdoor background superimposed. Different angle than the Beaton photo but still starker than the usual frou-frou background that Beaton usually used. If someone hasn't seen The Royal Portraits I managed to find two copies last year for less than $10 on Amazon.com (US) but I'm sure other copies are available. I happened to find it at the library first, HAD to have it and found copies online. I also loved the anecdotes about the subjects--how Beaton felt obligated to retouch the Duke of Windsor's photos but the Queen Mother said leave hers as is later in life. HM doesn't appear to have been excessively retouched/Photoshopped either in her portraits. I hope I look as great as she does at 80!
 
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | BBC One boss quits over Queen row

BBC One controller Peter Fincham has resigned after an investigation into footage that misrepresented the Queen.

A documentary trailer was edited out of sequence, and Mr Fincham wrongly told the press it showed the monarch walking out of a photo session "in a huff".

A report into the incident has blamed "misjudgements, poor practice and ineffective systems".
The programme was made by production company RDF Media, whose chief creative officer Stephen Lambert has also quit.

Well this seems drastic for two men to resign but I'm glad that some people take the dignity of the Queen seriously. Perhaps journalistic integrity is not just a buzzword.
 
And here is an article by the Guardian - its usually republican but offers some good insights into what was going on at the BBC after the clip was aired:

Confusions that led to downfall of controller | Special reports | MediaGuardian.co.uk

It was Mr Fincham who, in bullish mood following a run of ratings hits such as Strictly Come Dancing and critically acclaimed dramas such as Life on Mars, flagged up at a press launch in July that the Queen was featured "walking out in a huff" following a bust-up with photographer Annie Leibovitz. It was the first time he had seen the clip and he talked it up, mindful of the need to generate publicity for the autumn season. In fact, as the report makes clear, the full rushes show the Queen walking into, rather than out of, the photo session, saying "I've had enough dressing like this"; and after the clip, in which she looked stern-faced, she chuckled and carried on with the shoot. By 6pm, the director of the series and the executive producer had both "realised what a terrible mistake had been made" in sending Mr Lambert's show reel to the BBC, although there was still confusion over whose fault it was. By 7pm Mr Fincham and Ms Fletcher knew that the order of the clips was wrong and that the Sun was due to splash on the story of the Queen walking out.


Even as the tabloid and other newspapers cleared their front pages Mr Fincham, Ms Fletcher, Mr Lambert and the palace press office could not agree a statement until 9.44pm clarifying the situation. And having agreed its wording, incredibly they decided it should be held over until the morning when both sides could "check the temperature of the story".
Mr Wyatt rules that it was "naive" of the BBC team to think the story would blow over. Meanwhile, the press office did not intervene. And Jana Bennett (pictured), the director of BBC Vision and Mr Fincham's boss, failed to read the statement that had been emailed to her by Mr Fincham.
 
I don't remember where I saw it now, but someone was saying that this sort of thing is standard practice for younger journalists nowadays - in the brave new world of YouTube and Photoshop, reality is pretty much what you make it, and you do whatever it takes to get ratings. The producers of previous documentaries about the Queen were appalled by the cavalier way this clip was manipulated to put sensationalism over accuracy.

I'm glad to see that people have had to resign over it. Not just because it deals with the Queen, but because if it becomes standard practice to spice up news by knowingly introducing outright falsehoods, news won't have any meaning any more.
 
Well it appears that their first mistake was to treat it as a public relations issue rather than a matter of journalistic integrity.

Knowing that they showed misleading footage, they still decided to wait till the next morning to do anything because they wanted to see if the story might blow over.
 
Whatever the nature of the editing, I think we have to look at the fact that the Queen still comes across as miserable on the clips we've seen. "I've had enough of dressing up like this" - sorry Ma'am, that's what you're paid for. Similarly, "Less dressy? What do you think this is?" comes across as quite rude and totally at odds with the sweet old lady we're used to.
 
Whatever the nature of the editing, I think we have to look at the fact that the Queen still comes across as miserable on the clips we've seen. "I've had enough of dressing up like this" - sorry Ma'am, that's what you're paid for. Similarly, "Less dressy? What do you think this is?" comes across as quite rude and totally at odds with the sweet old lady we're used to.

I truly enjoyed reading your post. :flowers:
Oh... You have got a new avatar.
 
Whatever the nature of the editing, I think we have to look at the fact that the Queen still comes across as miserable on the clips we've seen. "I've had enough of dressing up like this" - sorry Ma'am, that's what you're paid for. Similarly, "Less dressy? What do you think this is?" comes across as quite rude and totally at odds with the sweet old lady we're used to.
Indeed, but I have never considered HM as a sweet old lady, she is a cross between Margaret (I AM a Princess) and her mother (cross me and you WILL know it)! :ROFLMAO:

Love the avatar!:flowers::wub:
 
I Dont belive that comes from Arrogance or anything though..hm
 
Well, dear people, it does not come from arrogance, but from the fact that Elizabeth Windsor knows very well who she is. And so does every body else. A thoroughly decent, honest and capable woman, who is known to be kind. But at the same time, the fact that she has some sharp teeth and can use them does not bother me in the least as well as a sense of humour which the idiots appearently missed. Her distant relatives in the past were known to pack the peasants off to the Tower or worse for far less. That she is not a sweet little old lady is asbsolutely refreshing. So right on Lillibet. Go for it!!! Cheers.
 
Indeed, but I have never considered HM as a sweet old lady, she is a cross between Margaret (I AM a Princess) and her mother (cross me and you WILL know it)! :ROFLMAO:

Neither have I. From most of what I read or heard about her as a child, a young woman, and later an adult, she is very aware of who she is and what she represents. And she sure as heck isn't going to take anything from anyone. :D
 
BBC scandal

I know it's a bit old news, but what do you think of the scandal that the BBC did when filming a documentary on the Queen (aka Queen behind the scenes)?
The controvery being that in the add for the documentary they switched the sequences where she's being insulted by Leibowitz and when she was coming to the shooting with the famous photographer. BBC claimed that she stormed out of the room, but it was actually her entery into the room.

I've seen the commercial and would LOVE to see the whole documentary. I believe this woman is funny, kind and just entertaining and we don't know her the we perhas should.
 
You can now order the book which accompanies the series from the BBC shop and Amazon.

I got an e-mail from amazon today to say that the book has been delayed by the publishers and will arrive next week, this I presume is to tie in with the launch of the series which is next Monday night (26th November 2007) at 8.30p.m on BBC 1
 
Did anyone watch the first episode? How was it?
 
Did anyone watch the first episode? How was it?

The first episode was OK though I do have to say we've seen it all before, Elizabeth R and The Queen at 80, some good interviews behind the scenes, I really enjoyed the interview with the social secretary at The British Embassy, and lets hope the rest of the series keeps up the standard of the 1st.
 
yes, she was lovely. I also liked the british embassy in washington, the veranda going to the backgarden with the black and white marble tiles.

The first episode was OK though I do have to say we've seen it all before, Elizabeth R and The Queen at 80, some good interviews behind the scenes, I really enjoyed the interview with the social secretary at The British Embassy, and lets hope the rest of the series keeps up the standard of the 1st.
 
Overall I found it abit boring but still priceless to see HM and the Duke in action. They have my life long admiration for what they do and how they do it. Their stamina and discipline must be enourmous although they have done nothing else in their lives but this job. They are used to it but still an amazing performance for two people whose contemporaries will spend their days in a nursing home, struggling with health or mental problems.

For the first time I realized that HM is acually quite (or very) chubby. I thought she was slimmer. Her figure is more and more a lookalike to the figure of her mother Queen Mom. I hope HM will make it to 100+ years too.

Funny to see some inside view from the White House. Most people agree anyway that Bush is a jerk, he owes a lot to his wife, that's for sure!
 
I enjoyed the first episode. The preparation that goes into a state visit is amazing, and so time-consuming.
 
I just saw it. Quite boring, the Queen came across as a bit rude and offish and quite frankly, it made me more of a republican. Well done Beeb.
 
They actually follow the whole royal family around...that's so funny...

I hope it ends up on youtube soon...
 
ME TOO! thatd be awsome Ive never even heard many of them speak
 
I thought it was an okay documentary but it didn't particulary offer any new insights into the Monarchy or the Queen/Duke. What it did do, however, was provide some interesting glimpses of life at the White House & America's take on the Queen.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom