"The Queen": a film about Elizabeth II and the death of Diana.

[fandesacs2003]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

No you don't, unless you were at Balmoral and with the royal family when all this happened. Neither the writer nor the director have had any contact with any members of the royal family, or afaik, any of their friends or servants that would have 1st hand knowledge.

This whole film is a work of fiction based on the writers thoughts on how things might have happened or what might have been said.

Of course I have not bee there. But the whole way thinks happened confirms the film. The Royal family was fully absent for the first days, and people's rection was growing and growing.
And finakl the family changed her behavior.
These ARE THE FACTS.
Of course we do not know the discussions, be the events are known. And do not forget that among Tony Blair's environment, things should have been discused.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

Because, despite that she had a completely different opinion in the beginning, she has been able to "think" and to hear others opinion. This is a sign on intelligence.
Prince Philip has been shown stupid and egoist, from the beginning to the end. He had an old fashioned opinion, and during the whole story, he was fully stubborn.
The Queen tried to understand others opinion, and also, she behaviored in a way to satisfy her people's wishes, despite that she had another position. She is a Queen of a people, she has to try to "hear" people's wishes.
Considering the fossilized and for centuries old fashion mentality according to it she has been grown up, it looked impossible to behavior like this, but she managed.
For me this is an intelligent modern Monarch.
As for Tony Blair, he was clever and he saved the Monarchy this moment, but THIS was not the main point of the story...

Ah, thanks for explaining your point of view, fandescas. I must say I didn't see the Queen change her fundamental values and opinions in this movie that much. It reminded me of Cate Blanchett's version of Elizabeth I, a movie that showed the education of a young Queen in the lessons of poltical manoevering for survival.

I thought of Tony Blair was the central character because on the contrary his internal values and opinion about the Queen seemed to change the most. At first he appears as a flippant, very smooth politician who says the right things and shows emotion but who can be lying. At the end, he really starts to see the Queen as a human being with a sense of dignity and feeling despite the fact that the Queen's manner hasn't changed a lot.

[Elspeth]

I haven't seen it yet but I've read the screenplay. I don't know how it is in the flesh, but on the written page Cherie Blair comes across as a real shrew.

[ysbel]

Oh indeed she does.

In fact, she and Prince Philip appear as polar opposites in politics but totally alike in personality-very contemptous of the other side.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

Of course I have not bee there. But the whole way thinks happened confirms the film. The Royal family was fully absent for the first days, and people's rection was growing and growing.
And finakl the family changed her behavior.
These ARE THE FACTS.
Of course we do not know the discussions, be the events are known. And do not forget that among Tony Blair's environment, things should have been discused.

All we do know for certain about these events is that Diana died in a car crash, that the Queen and the rest of the close family chose to try to protect the boys and allow all of them some time to grieve, in private.
We know about the mob that was waiting for them in London, that in their grief they had to 'parade' in front of and they (including the children) had to read some rather nasty messages left by some people.

We know nothing about what the Queen or any of the family did at Balmoral, before or after the death. We know nothing about what was said by the Queen, the rest of the family or Blair at this time, except the statements made on tv by HM or Blair.

That HM and 2 grieving children were forced by a mob, stirred up by the media, to return to London, is to this day something anyone who took part, should be ashamed of!

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

All we do know for certain about these events is that Diana died in a car crash, that the Queen and the rest of the close family chose to try to protect the boys and allow all of them some time to grieve, in private.
That HM and 2 grieving children were forced by a mob, stirred up by the media, to return to London, is to this day something anyone who took part, should be ashamed of!

Well said Skydragon. I have to admit that I watched that on TV with a morbid sense of fascination.

My common sense told me that none of them should be there, especially the children, but if we're honest we will admit that it was the very first piece of 'Realty Television', as compulsive as watching a train wreck. Perhaps that's why I loathe and never watch reality shows.

As to the movie? In some ways it's like the film community looked back on the whole episode with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and tried to say to say a collective I'm sorry! Gee, Helen Mirren has said she now admires the Queen! As for the public? Many will watch the movie as some sort of guilty penance, and find through through the power of the screen, that the Queen is worthy!

Shame indeed Skydragon.

[ysbel]

I admit I didn't like to watch William and Harry forced out to greet the crowds so soon after the death of their mother, especially with William so shy and private. I would have preferred they be given private space to grieve.

I don't know if Her Majesty ever really read any notes on the flowers left in front of Buckingham Palace after Diana's death that said "They have your blood on their hands" (as was shown in the movie) but I can well imagine that some misguided fan wrote words like that and left them with flowers at the gates.

Even if Her Majesty didn't read such notes herself, I'm sure that she was informed of what was going on including some of the contents of the notes.

I thought it was an unpleasant scene. Others may feel differently.

[Skydragon]

I think I said right at the beginning , that my cause for concern with this film, is that people will believe it is a factual account, of what happened and who said or did what.

What was said or done at this time will never be known.

As a work of fiction, it is worthy of merit, being seen as a docu drama is misguided.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I don't know if Her Majesty ever really read any notes on the flowers left in front of Buckingham Palace after Diana's death that said "They have your blood on their hands" (as was shown in the movie) but I can well imagine that some misguided fan wrote words like that and left them with flowers at the gates.

I am certain that HM saw some of the television coverage of the scenes at BP. "They have your blood on their hands", was only one of many nasty messages left.

[fandesacs2003]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

We know about the mob that was waiting for them in London, that in their grief they had to 'parade' in front of and they (including the children) had to read some rather nasty messages left by some people.

That HM and 2 grieving children were forced by a mob, stirred up by the media, to return to London, is to this day something anyone who took part, should be ashamed of!

I'm sorry but you can not be private when it is suitable and public when it also suitable. Any royal family lives from their people and for their people, and they have to hear their people's wishes, even it sometimes is very difficult.
And do not mix the boys in this story. Nobody claimed the boy's presence, and no one of the british people would have reacted if a 11 years and a 15 years boy would have been crying alone.
People reacted to claim The Queen and Prince Philip, and also Charles, but not in any case the boys.
Look the difference with the Spanish family. Letizia lost her sister, and Queen Sofia immediately interrupted her trip to be back. Erica is not directly involved with the RF, but ALL the SRF is there.
IN UK the mother of the future King died, and the family stays on their holiday's place. I do not say that they were dancing in Balmoral, of course they were sad, but they were absent, and this is not a Monarch's place.
In another register, remember when the submarin KURSK disappeared under the sea. Vladimir Putin did not interrupt his holidays. Of course he was following the events, BUT HE WAS ABSENT, and this was extremely badly taken by the Russian people.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

And do not mix the boys in this story. Nobody claimed the boy's presence, and no one of the british people would have reacted if a 11 years and a 15 years boy would have been crying alone.
People reacted to claim The Queen and Prince Philip, and also Charles, but not in any case the boys.

That's an interesting scenario. Imagine the headlines: "Heartless Royals return to London; grieving boys abandoned and alone at Balmoral."

[fandesacs2003]

Originally Posted by Warren

That's an interesting scenario. Imagine the headlines: "Heartless Royals return to London; grieving boys abandoned and alone at Balmoral."

Good point That's true that press can say all the versions for the same event.

By they could have been back WITH the boys.

But I think this is an endless discussion. They are people considering that Queen Elisabet II, WHATEVER she is doing, she is doing well.
And other people thinking that sometimes she might be wrong.

Someone has his opinion, thst is the good point.

Ciao

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

But I think this is an endless discussion. They are people considering that Queen Elisabet II, WHATEVER she is doing, she is doing well.
And other people thinking that sometimes she might be wrong.

Love the film or hate it, agree or disagree with the writers interpretation of the few facts known, that's fine as long as viewers remember that it is apocryphal.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

Good point That's true that press can say all the versions for the same event.

By they could have been back WITH the boys.

But I think this is an endless discussion. They are people considering that Queen Elisabet II, WHATEVER she is doing, she is doing well.
And other people thinking that sometimes she might be wrong.

Someone has his opinion, thst is the good point.

Ciao

I think you're oversimplifying. Not every one in this discussion actually admires everything the Queen does.

I also think we have a different idea of what being human means. I remember some people in the press reflecting with pride that the Royal Family were like puppets on a string and the people could make them do what they wanted when they wanted. I thought that attitude was inhuman and did not want to see a Queen be just a marionette on a string that public opinion can pull whenever it wants. I prefer a monarch to be as true as they can to their feelings in a public situation. It makes them more real.

For Queen Sofia, it was easy to express affection for the dead sister of Letizia because the Queen Sofia adores Letizia, they have a good relationship and Queen Sofia knows that Letizia and her sister were close. I'm not sure if Sofia wanted to prove anything to her people by showing up at the funeral of Erika but she definitely wanted to show support for Letizia, a young girl she loved very much and she had had no unpleasant dealings with Erika herself to turn her off the girl.

In contrast Queen Elizabeth had liked Diana as a young girl but Diana had declared a public war in the press against the Royal Family and the Queen herself. Also the Queen was very concerned for her grandsons growing up in this environment, especially William, who was very shy and scared of the press. The Queen showed her humanness by paying attention to her grandson's needs first. I believe that anything else would have been inhuman.

Could she have made a public statement and tried to approach the public before? Yes, and I think she would have if Diana hadn't done that last Panorama interview where she criticized the monarchy and Charles' ability to inherit the throne. That one interview put the monarchy in a precarious position and so I find it perfectly understandable that the Queen was at a loss of words to express her thoughts at Diana's passing.

Queen Sofia and King Juan Carlos have never been put in this position by their own immediate family and so you cannot compare the reactions of the two families. If Letizia had died after giving Jaime Penafiel a critical interview against Felipe, Juan Carlos, and Sofia, do you think Sofia would have rushed out to greet the public in mourning for Letizia's death?

[fandesacs2003]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I also think we have a different idea of what being human means.

I think you are fully right. Cultures are very different and regarding where you are coming from, showing your feelings could be considered normal, or not accepted.

Originally Posted by ysbel

I prefer a monarch to be as true as they can to their feelings in a public situation.

The problem is exactly that. After Diana's death, people suspected the Queen being completely cold to Diana's death, because she did not like her. Some thought that she did not hide her emotion, just she had no emotion....

Originally Posted by ysbel

In contrast Queen Elizabeth had liked Diana as a young girl but Diana had declared a public war in the press against the Royal Family and the Queen herself. Also the Queen was very concerned for her grandsons growing up in this environment, especially William, who was very shy and scared of the press. The Queen showed her humanness by paying attention to her grandson's needs first. I believe that anything else would have been inhuman.

Could she have made a public statement and tried to approach the public before? Yes, and I think she would have if Diana hadn't done that last Panorama interview where she criticized the monarchy and Charles' ability to inherit the throne. That one interview put the monarchy in a precarious position and so I find it perfectly understandable that the Queen was at a loss of words to express her thoughts at Diana's passing.

Yes, but the Queen sould not resume Diana's personnality just to one interview, even if she considered that it was a mistakefrom her. Diana was a complex and touching personnality, and despite her weakness to many points, she touched people's hard. And it is extremely egoist from the Queen to reject her, just because she did this interview. And do not forget that she did not lie to this interview. It was a highly manipulation moment, but we should not forget that at the very beginning, this young girl married a guy who was unfaithfull since the beginning, and his family ALL new it. Diana explosed like a uncontrolled bomb, that is true, but SHE was cheated.
out of this interview, Diana did many many good thinks for the people, and I think the people become angry because they just realised that the Queen was indifferent to ALL this.

Originally Posted by ysbel

Queen Sofia and King Juan Carlos have never been put in this position by their own immediate family and so you cannot compare the reactions of the two families. If Letizia had died after giving Jaime Penafiel a critical interview against Felipe, Juan Carlos, and Sofia, do you think Sofia would have rushed out to greet the public in mourning for Letizia's death?

For this I would agree with you, but Queen Sofia would have managed a "middle" behavior, in order not to offense people's feelings.
The Queen behaviored completely ABSENT and this hurt her people. IMO if she had issued a statement the first day after, people would have been satisfied, and they have never asked anything else.
You would never expect from your Monarch to walk around the whole day and to check the flowers in the Palace gate.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

but SHE was cheated.

And in turn did her own cheating! This film and this thread are not about who cheated on who and at what point in the marriage.

out of this interview, Diana did many many good thinks for the people, and I think the people become angry because they just realised that the Queen was indifferent to ALL this.

The only person who benefited from the interview was Diana. Her son's didn't benefit, ordinary people didn't benefit!

Has it never occured to anyone, that HM and the rest of the family were so shocked by Diana's death, that they needed time to come to terms with it, let alone allow two young boys a little time to grieve. Most people who have lost someone in these circumstances are so shocked, that their only grip on sanity is to carry on, in as normal a routine as possible, that crying on demand and in public is not something that was in the British mentality. How terrible that anyone would say, it would have been OK to see them cry, that is not the way everyone wants to behave, in public, after the death of someone close to them!

[fandesacs2003]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

And in turn did her own cheating!

Of course she did.
But when she married she was sincere. Charles and his family NOT. She wed with her illusions, he WED to be more free to cheat.
This is not the point of the thread. I just mentioned it to show that the Queen might have griefs against Diana, but being an intelligent woman, she for sure had think about reasons of Diana's behavior. And this sould have made her being "mild" after her death.

Originally Posted by Skydragon

The only person who benefited from the interview was Diana. Her son's didn't benefit, ordinary people didn't benefit!

I did not say that people benefit from the interview.
I said that people benefit from acts she did during her 15 years of Princess of Wales.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

The problem is exactly that. After Diana's death, people suspected the Queen being completely cold to Diana's death, because she did not like her. Some thought that she did not hide her emotion, just she had no emotion....

Initially the public blamed the press for the accident because of the paparazzi involvement. How easy for the press to deflect blame from themselves onto the royal family because the royal family behaved with their customary control and coolness. There's no reason why the Queen should be showing a public display of emotion about Diana after the "I want to be Queen in people's hearts" and "I don't think Charles is up to the top job" speech. If the Queen felt that staying at Balmoral with the young princes was the correct thing to do, it may have been the first time in her reign that she put personal considerations above cold duty, and it didn't matter to the public, which criticised her anyway. The press was determined that the blame would stick to the royal family, because the alternative was that the press would be the ones to get the blame, and they weren't going to let that happen. So if the Queen and Prince Philip had gone straight to London and left the boys at Blamoral, they'd have been abandoning their grandsons in an attempt to curry favour with the public; if they'd gone to London and taken the boys, they'd have been cynically using the princes to shore up their public image; if they stayed at Balmoral, they'd have been showing indifference toward Diana and the public. There are ways to put a negative spin on anything they did, and the press had a great deal of interest in making sure that's what happened.