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

[Saphire]

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

was she right in walking out?

Yahoo: Queen argues over crown with US celebrity photographer - Yahoo! News

CNN: Queen rebukes Leibovitz over crown - CNN.com

MSNBC: Angry queen stormed out of shoot - Britain's Royal Family - MSNBC.com

I don't think it was an unreasonable request.

 

[banda_windsor]

I know. I'm shocked when i read the news. That Leibovitz is just too much!!! Who the heck do you think she is!

 

[debzone]

For what it is worth--over at theroyalist.com they have a Breaking News item with a statement from the BBC. Apparently the trailer was "misleading"..

"The producers of the BBC One series, A Year With The Queen, would like to clarify that the clips shown in a promotional trailer yesterday were not intended to provide a full picture of what actually happened, or of what will be shown in the final programme."
"This was an important photoshoot prior to the Queen’s visit to the United States. In the trailer, there is a sequence that implies that the Queen left that sitting prematurely. That was not the case and the actual sequence of events was therefore misrepresented."

"The BBC would like to apologise to both the Queen and to Annie Liebowitz for any upset that this may have caused."

 

[Empress]

CNN has the same Broadcaster sorry for queen claim - CNN.com

And BBC BBC NEWS | Entertainment | BBC apologises over Queen clips

 

[HRH Kerry]

I think this was to ensure good telly ratings for the program. The usual stir up some controversy and sell tactic.

 

[Saphire]

I think its the ethical thing to do, to come out and say that the advertising was misleading. I would hate to think of the Queen having hissy fits, she is just so regal all of the time that it doesn't fit with my image of her.

 

[fee]

On the other hand I doubt it would trouble the queens reputation one bit, to see her in a bit of a fit, after all she is human, now is she?
And it still is a great PR thing for the movie, documentary, sine at least I will certainly hunt up the clip on youtube as soon as something is available there...

 

[TheTruth]

The Queen's reputation is at the top. This can't disturbe a bit her position in people's opinion. Leibovitz is just a photographer whereas Elizabeth is THE Queen.

 

[Skydragon]

Apparently they reversed the clips to make it seem as if HM was storming out, they should be ashamed!

"But in fact, this clip was filmed before the photographs were taken" - The BBC said the clips for the trailer were "not intended to provide a full picture of what actually happened or of what will be shown in the final programme".

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The Queen's reputation is at the top. This can't disturbe a bit her position in people's opinion. Leibovitz is just a photographer whereas Elizabeth is THE Queen.

No it can't. Her Majesty is larger than life and Leibovitz can't even tell a crown from a tiara

 

[TheTruth]

No it can't. Her Majesty is larger than life and Leibovitz can't even tell a crown from a tiara

Totally true. She knew she was going to photograph the most famous queen and she didn't take a little of her time to get informed on the basic stuff. Even someone who has no interest in royalty could tell the difference IMO.

 

[ysbel]

Annie Leibowitz is a good photographer; she's looking at the picture from the artistic angle. Her Majesty is looking at the picture from a historical and representational angle as well she should. This kind of conflict is healthy and makes for good pictures and I think the photo by Leibowitz was a good photo.

I have to love Her Majesty's comment "Dressy? What do you think this is?" Totally priceless.

 

[Skydragon]

The BBC is at fault for allowing anyone to believe that she stormed out of this session.

I have to love Her Majesty's comment "Dressy? What do you think this is?" Totally priceless.

Priceless indeed!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The BBC is at fault for allowing anyone to believe that she stormed out of this session.

Another big blunder after the phone-in scandal for the BBC.

 

[MARG]

The BBC is at fault for allowing anyone to believe that she stormed out of this session.

Someone once told me that "Perception is everything", and Nobody is going to convince me that the way this trailer was edited was a "mistake".
It's all in the delivery.....eg. Woman, without her man, is nothing! or Woman, without her, man is nothing!

That shot of the Queen walking to the sitting or from the sitting says two totally different things about the Queen.

The BBC blew it and maybe she will become the next member of the BRF to shun the BBC for all official statements or interviews, especially after she allowed them into her private life and they "took advantage" of her, in much the same way as Sophie, Charles et al have suffered mis-representation.

No doubt it will be deemed to be the misguided spin of some barely grown wunderkid from PR. As they say in NZ.....yeah, right!

 

[Duke of Windsor]

The trailer was edited in a way that showed the Queen "storming out". I saw it on the news here in Australia and even before they said it was a mistake I knew the Queen would never do something like storm out of a photo shoot, she has far too much class for that! Futhermore I'm sure Her Majesty really wouldn't give that big of a fuss about removing her crown, honestly!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I'm sure Her Majesty really wouldn't give that big of a fuss about removing her crown, honestly!

I think HM was annoyed because firstly (I found) Leibovitz's remark was a bit offensive, because if you get the honor to work with the Queen you should name the things correctly, here: tiara, and secondly I think it takes a lot of time until the Queen is dressed in the full robe etc and it's not that simple to just remove the tiara because then the hairdresser has to come and fix the hair and so on. It's a timeconsuming and exhausting procedure, who wouldn't be annoyed by such a remark? Leibovitz did not get that it's not about what looks better but about HM wearing that specific robe and everything that goes with it. HM is not a model or wants to look as good as possible as all the other vain people Leibovitz mainly works with, such as actors. She's a monarch after all and it's about her position in history, not about looks.

I like the result though, the pics are great.

 

[Nichola]

Well, they've got what they probably wanted...publicity!

 

[Duke of Windsor]

I think HM was annoyed because firstly (I found) Leibovitz's remark was a bit offensive, because if you get the honor to work with the Queen you should name the things correctly, here: tiara, and secondly I think it takes a lot of time until the Queen is dressed in the full robe etc and it's not that simple to just remove the tiara because then the hairdresser has to come and fix the hair and so on. It's a timeconsuming and exhausting procedure, who wouldn't be annoyed by such a remark? Leibovitz did not get that it's not about what looks better but about HM wearing that specific robe and everything that goes with it. HM is not a model or wants to look as good as possible as all the other vain people Leibovitz mainly works with, such as actors. She's a monarch after all and it's about her position in history, not about looks.

I like the result though, the pics are great.

That's a good point, it would take ages to get all of Her Majesty's hair correct etc after her tiara was removed and it would be a very annoying process indeed. I dont know anything about Leibovitz or who she works with, etc and I haven't yet seen the finished product of her work with Her Majesty - does anyone know if it was a success? I understand that Her Majesty appearing as she did for that portrait was for an historical aspect more than anything, but I just think it was all blown out of proportion, don't you think?
Patrick.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

That's a good point, it would take ages to get all of Her Majesty's hair correct etc after her tiara was removed and it would be a very annoying process indeed. I dont know anything about Leibovitz or who she works with, etc and I haven't yet seen the finished product of her work with Her Majesty - does anyone know if it was a success? I understand that Her Majesty appearing as she did for that portrait was for an historical aspect more than anything, but I just think it was all blown out of proportion, don't you think?
Patrick.

Very true. If the BBC had acted more carefully all this fuss would have not happened. Leibovitz is a star photographer, she does maily AAA VIPS of all kinds. I recall there are four pics from this session and they have been posted somewhere on the forum. Does anyone know where?

 

[Duke of Windsor]

Well, like Nichola said before, all the BBC wanted was publicity, and they sure got that!
I'd love to see those pictures, too, Duke of M., and if a link could be posted in here I'd be most grateful!
Patrick.

 

[Elspeth]

Very true. If the BBC had acted more carefully all this fuss would have not happened. Leibovitz is a star photographer, she does maily AAA VIPS of all kinds. I recall there are four pics from this session and they have been posted somewhere on the forum. Does anyone know where?

Have a look at this thread.

 

[Elise27]

I think its disgraceful what the bbc has done. but the fact is that now more ppl know about the show than would have otherwise because this incident has made news around the world.
I think that leibovitz was very ill-informed about who she was dealing with and not only that but was inconsiderate. here you have an 81 yr old woman going thru the trouble of getting all dressed up, putting the dress, the heavy robes, having the tiara carefully placed by the hair dresser for you to then tell her to take the tiara off, which would have meant that she had to get her hair fixed. Furthermore as has been said the robes and the tiara go together! and lastly Leibovitz should have known that the queen wasnt in the best of moods if as reported, and affirmed by leibovitz herself, she was complaining about having to get dressed up in the middle of the day!
In any event, although none of us can claim to truly know the queen, its just extremely unlike the queen to throw a tantrum she would never do that much less when the camera's are running. I have the feeling that the queen has quite the temper very distinctly from the image that is portrayed of her but she is a professional and because she is the queen she doesnt have to throw temper tantrums anyway, just a subtle comment is enough to shake anyone up.
anyway i found the video on you tube so here is the link if you havent seen it.
YouTube - The BBC's Queen documentary row

 

[Alison20]

Elise27 has made a very valid point - the Queen is 81. It must take up a lot of energy to dress in these heavy robes, and have the tiara placed in your hair. This was probably also one of many engagements she had that day. It is quite likely that any one of us would be a bit 'nippy' if, having dressed appropriately, we were asked to start changing around again.

 

[Madame Royale]

Being admitted into the presence of The Queen of England (other realms and territories etc and so on) isn't an occasion where one should attempt to be fussy imo. The whole process was probably an absolute bore as it is and what's worse is that Her Majesty has stated that unless necessary, she prefers a much less formal attire.

I hope to god she didn't finish off the session with...'Aaaand, we're spent'!

 

[LucyBaker]

Someone once told me that "Perception is everything", and Nobody is going to convince me that the way this trailer was edited was a "mistake".
... No doubt it will be deemed to be the misguided spin of some barely grown wunderkid from PR. As they say in NZ.....yeah, right!

The public broadcasters in Australia have a truly nasty anti-royal (as opposed to considered republican) culture. I have several PR friends from Australia now working for the BBC. All three used to work in the Australian public broadcasters (SBS and ABC) and are in senior positions. I suspect the rot has come from Australia. Shame on the BBC.

Luce

 

[Madame Royale]

The public broadcasters in Australia have a truly nasty anti-royal (as opposed to considered republican) culture. I have several PR friends from Australia now working for the BBC. All three used to work in the Australian public broadcasters (SBS and ABC) and are in senior positions. I suspect the rot has come from Australia. Shame on the BBC.

Luce

Fair crack of the whip, Lucy Baker... (j/k of course)

Channel 9 is not what I would call exceptionally anti establishment considering it is the only mainstream TV broadcaster (besides the ABC which tended to focus more on Diana conspiracy theories) which pays for the rights to air royal related programs.

The Royal Wedding in 2005, The Queen's Castle, Monarchy *still yet to air* and The Diana Tribute at Wembley just to name a few. I remember there even being biographical tributes to the late HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon and HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother at the times of their passing.

And I wouldn't be much surprised that A Year With The Queen shall also be picked up by nine at some stage.

 

[Warren]

This may change now that majority control of the Nine Network has been sold off by the Packer family to the merchant bankers.
On a positive note, "The Queen's Castle" was a big ratings winner for Nine, so the new owners may be encouraged to continue showing quality royal productions.

 

[Picmajik]

lack of planning

I think HM was annoyed because firstly (I found) Leibovitz's remark was a bit offensive, because if you get the honor to work with the Queen you should name the things correctly, here: tiara, and secondly I think it takes a lot of time until the Queen is dressed in the full robe etc and it's not that simple to just remove the tiara because then the hairdresser has to come and fix the hair and so on. It's a time consuming and exhausting procedure, who wouldn't be annoyed by such a remark? Leibovitz did not get that it's not about what looks better but about HM wearing that specific robe and everything that goes with it. HM is not a model or wants to look as good as possible as all the other vain people Leibovitz mainly works with, such as actors. She's a monarch after all and it's about her position in history, not about looks.

I like the result though, the pics are great.

As a photographer, topics of dress/makeup/settings are all covered in the planning stages BEFORE booking the sitting. The subject in this case has a very busy schedule and Leibovitz was honored in my opinion in even being considered as a candidate to photograph HM. I love most of her work but still when dealing with a busy subject who would have her own ideas of what is a proper session details would have been ironed out in advance. 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. However in full Order of the Garter robes that would call for a formal portrait with appropriate headgear--the tiara or the cap. Anything less wouldn't be complete. I adored the comment "Less dressy? What do you think this IS?"--exactly! Full robes, full honors, full ensemble. You may as well have asked HM to expose her unmentionables, it would be just as inappropriate.
As for the BBC editing, if the Queen had stormed out how did they manage to finish all four settings? I know they were not all set up at the same time, shouldn't try to paint such a bad portrait of someone who has taken her role seriously and I'm sure feels she has other things she'd rather do but duty first. If you search online you can see all four final portraits which are fabulous. I would give a body part for the opportunity to photograph HM, she appears based on past photos to be very cooperative as long as her time is not being wasted or being portrayed in a non-flattering way--same as anyone would expect.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I adored the comment "Less dressy? What do you think this IS?"--exactly! Full robes, full honors, full ensemble. You may as well have asked HM to expose her unmentionables, it would be just as inappropriate.

THAT would be the scandal of the century

I wonder what will be left of the programme, guess it will be reviewed 100.000 times in order to prevent another blunder towards HM.