The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Electronic Domain (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f220/)
-   -   "A Year With The Queen" documentary 2007 (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f220/a-year-with-the-queen-documentary-2007-a-13254.html)

Saphire 07-12-2007 07:41 AM

"A Year With The Queen" documentary 2007
 
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 07-12-2007 07:56 AM

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 07-12-2007 08:37 AM

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 07-12-2007 09:33 AM

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

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

HRH Kerry 07-12-2007 09:51 AM

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

Saphire 07-12-2007 10:25 AM

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 07-12-2007 10:32 AM

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 07-12-2007 10:49 AM

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 07-12-2007 10:51 AM

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 07-12-2007 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTruth (Post 639890)
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 :shock:

TheTruth 07-12-2007 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 639895)
No it can't. Her Majesty is larger than life and Leibovitz can't even tell a crown from a tiara :shock:

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 07-12-2007 11:01 AM

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 07-12-2007 11:07 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel (Post 639901)
I have to love Her Majesty's comment "Dressy? What do you think this is?" Totally priceless.

Priceless indeed! :rofl:

Duke of Marmalade 07-12-2007 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 639902)
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 07-13-2007 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 639902)
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 07-13-2007 10:23 AM

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 07-13-2007 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Windsor (Post 640327)
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 07-13-2007 11:26 AM

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

Duke of Windsor 07-13-2007 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 640340)
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 07-13-2007 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Windsor (Post 640373)
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? :flowers:

Duke of Windsor 07-13-2007 12:20 PM

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 07-13-2007 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 640381)
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? :flowers:

Have a look at this thread.

Elise27 07-13-2007 07:25 PM

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 07-13-2007 10:02 PM

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 07-14-2007 01:31 AM

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'! :lol:

LucyBaker 07-14-2007 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 640321)
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 07-14-2007 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LucyBaker (Post 640718)
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...:lol: :rofl: (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 07-16-2007 12:03 AM

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 07-27-2007 06:12 PM

lack of planning
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 640340)
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 07-27-2007 06:36 PM

[quote=Picmajik;646175]
Quote:

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 :lol:

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.

ysbel 07-27-2007 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Picmajik (Post 646175)
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.

Elspeth 07-27-2007 11:55 PM

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.

Madame Royale 07-28-2007 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 646347)
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.

selrahc4 07-28-2007 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel (Post 646318)
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 ...'

Madame Royale 07-29-2007 06:22 AM

We are not amused, no we are not!
 
ninemsn

The Queen wants to ban a controversial BBC documentary which wrongly shows her storming out of a photo shoot, reports claim.

Queen wants BBC documentary scrapped

Picmajik 08-09-2007 12:35 PM

Cecil Beaton, The Royal Portraits--wonderful!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by selrahc4 (Post 646518)
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!

ysbel 10-05-2007 09:32 PM

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | BBC One boss quits over Queen row

Quote:

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.

ysbel 10-05-2007 09:56 PM

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

Quote:


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.

Elspeth 10-05-2007 10:14 PM

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.

ysbel 10-06-2007 12:52 PM

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.

BeatrixFan 10-06-2007 05:00 PM

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.

Al_bina 10-07-2007 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 676315)
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.

Skydragon 10-07-2007 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 676315)
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)! :rofl:

Love the avatar!:flowers::wub:

Royal Fan 10-07-2007 04:54 PM

I Dont belive that comes from Arrogance or anything though..hm

Thomas Parkman 10-07-2007 09:44 PM

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.

Vanishing Lady 10-08-2007 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 676688)
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)! :rofl:

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. :biggrin:

graf von Baitz 10-10-2007 09:13 AM

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.

Duke of Marmalade 11-06-2007 04:43 AM

A Year with the Queen turns into The Royal Family At Work
 
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | BBC to screen Queen documentary

The docu will be aired just before Xmas and got a new title.

RoyalProtocol 11-20-2007 09:46 AM

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

marezdote 11-26-2007 10:50 PM

Did anyone watch the first episode? How was it?

RoyalProtocol 11-27-2007 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marezdote (Post 698008)
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.

susan alicia 11-27-2007 06:05 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol (Post 698088)
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.


Duke of Marmalade 11-27-2007 09:15 AM

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!

blondie28 11-27-2007 09:19 AM

Will it air in the United States?

Nichola 11-27-2007 07:00 PM

I enjoyed the first episode. The preparation that goes into a state visit is amazing, and so time-consuming.

BeatrixFan 11-27-2007 08:48 PM

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.

zembla 11-27-2007 09:07 PM

They actually follow the whole royal family around...that's so funny...

I hope it ends up on youtube soon...

Royal Fan 11-28-2007 01:49 PM

ME TOO! thatd be awsome Ive never even heard many of them speak

Elly C 11-28-2007 02:06 PM

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.

Lady Marmalade 11-28-2007 02:32 PM

Will it be airing in the U.S? Thank you. :-)

selrahc4 11-28-2007 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade (Post 698758)
Will it be airing in the U.S? Thank you. :-)

This link from last April
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/apr/17/broadcasting.bbc
says the rights to it were acquired by the ABC network here in the US. But I haven't heard anything since.

zembla 11-28-2007 07:21 PM

If ABC acquired it and it just aired, then it will probably be happening soon in the US...I certainly think it will be an interesting thing to watch...

blondie28 11-28-2007 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zembla (Post 698885)
If ABC acquired it and it just aired, then it will probably be happening soon in the US...I certainly think it will be an interesting thing to watch...

I agree, it would be very exciting and Americans have quite an interest in the royal family.:flowers:

lady_windsor 11-29-2007 11:37 AM

does anyone know where i can find videos of the episode? im really looking forwad to the next episode but i wont be able to watch it. I wonder if anyone can record it and put it on the internet :D

BeatrixFan 11-29-2007 12:09 PM

I thought the whole Annie thing was blown out of all proportion. In the documentary, HM came across as a right old moo - practically ignored Leibovitz's crew, brushed aside her daughter and the flowers she offered and then proceeded to put on this old lady smile in the photographs after we'd just seen her in full crabby glory. Truly surreal. A BBC chap resigned over that?

Duke of Marmalade 11-29-2007 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 699144)
I thought the whole Annie thing was blown out of all proportion. In the documentary, HM came across as a right old moo - practically ignored Leibovitz's crew, brushed aside her daughter and the flowers she offered and then proceeded to put on this old lady smile in the photographs after we'd just seen her in full crabby glory. Truly surreal. A BBC chap resigned over that?

The Annie thing was not only blown out of porportion but also had for me clearly the intention to mislead and make the series more interesting (what a failure!). I am sure some BBC chap has resigned in the meantime but why would he worry - he probably got the usual pay off £££

Regarding Annie herself I saw it the other way around - I thought she was not only badly prepared (knew nothing about tradition and all this stiff stuff that surrounds HM - how embarrassing to ask her to remove the tiara), turned up in trainers, her small daughter and 22 assistants and made some odd suggestions. I thought she was very snobbish and arrogant and I had perfectly understood if HM had stormed out indeed as Annie would have deserved exactly this szenario. Hollywood stars might line up and do even more to be photographed by Annie but HM is a different league, something Annie did not appreciate at all. The result are some nice pics though.

BeatrixFan 11-29-2007 12:34 PM

The point I was making was that the row was that the Beeb had painted the Queen in a negative light by altering the running order of the footage. Well, the real running order still made the Queen look like a miserable old boot without any interference from Aunty. So what was the fuss about? I think we've all been had in a clever attempt to cover up a darker side of Betty.

zembla 11-29-2007 12:52 PM

It's possible the Queen has become just a grumpy old lady...she can't always be sweet. If she came off negatively...it's probably reality. LOL

BeatrixFan 11-29-2007 12:57 PM

Exactly. But it just annoys me that Annie L came off as the villain of the piece. I mean, all that "I've had enough of dressing like this" was just ridiculous - it's your job Liz!!

Duke of Marmalade 11-29-2007 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 699156)
Well, the real running order still made the Queen look like a miserable old boot without any interference from Aunty.

Hmmm ... I did not see her at all as a miserable old boot, I thought she came across as usual and I did not expect something else since she always remains authentic. I actually appreciate that she sticks with all this stiff stuff that came along with her long reign, handbags, gloves, protocol etc. I thought the series presented her as a clever old woman who believes in who she is and what she stands for. She does have wit and humour but does not make a fool of herself. I think the series shows perfectly well why QE II enjoys worldwide respect since there is always substance to what she does.

Duke of Marmalade 11-29-2007 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 699167)
But it just annoys me that Annie L came off as the villain of the piece. I mean, all that "I've had enough of dressing like this" was just ridiculous - it's your job Liz!!

She deserved it. I mean 22 assistants and nobody told her the difference between a tiara an a crown and that her daughter could have curtsied. She came across respectless and like a know-it-all. All these VIPs Annie has worked with will do anything she suggests because they want the shoot that makes them even more famous but that does not work with a monarch since the attitude is totally different. She could have been better prepared and would have avoided this embarrassment. I wish the Queen had stormed out but as we could see she never loses it :cool:

BeatrixFan 11-29-2007 01:16 PM

The tiara/crown thing is just silly - the Queen knew what she meant and if she can't be bothered to take it off and re-style her hair for pictures that are meant to show her as a dedicated Head of State then she needs to remember that some of us have real work to do whilst 'dressing up' is the most taxing part of her day.

Duke of Marmalade 11-29-2007 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 699176)
The tiara/crown thing is just silly - the Queen knew what she meant and if she can't be bothered to take it off and re-style her hair for pictures that are meant to show her as a dedicated Head of State then she needs to remember that some of us have real work to do whilst 'dressing up' is the most taxing part of her day.

I'd call it bad preparation and unprofessional if such a high profile photographer thinks a "crown" can just be removed like that, because it might look better, and if not, will you just put it back on? There are hairdressers and stylists involved and it will take time to fix it. I fully understand the Queen's annoyance since I could not believe to be asked a question like that if I was a monarch for 50 years or more (thank god I am not :lol:)

BeatrixFan 11-29-2007 01:34 PM

You miss my point. If the biggest trial of the Queen's day is putting a bit of jewellery on and off, doesn't that say more about the Queen than Annie?

Duke of Marmalade 11-29-2007 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 699179)
You miss my point. If the biggest trial of the Queen's day is putting a bit of jewellery on and off, doesn't that say more about the Queen than Annie?

Give her a break she's in her 80s and I don't think it's putting a bit jewellery on and off and back on and maybe off again. It's not that easy. Come on she's the Queen and not used to such treatment and for a reason. This whole tiara thing was not appropriate, that's all I am saying.

Lady Marmalade 11-29-2007 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selrahc4 (Post 698785)
This link from last April
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/apr/17/broadcasting.bbc
says the rights to it were acquired by the ABC network here in the US. But I haven't heard anything since.


Thank you! :flowers:

BeatrixFan 11-29-2007 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 699183)
Give her a break she's in her 80s and I don't think it's putting a bit jewellery on and off and back on and maybe off again. It's not that easy. Come on she's the Queen and not used to such treatment and for a reason. This whole tiara thing was not appropriate, that's all I am saying.

Well if she's finding it a strain, then she should abdicate. If she can't hack it because of her age, then she shouldn't do it anymore. Danny La Rue does more dressing up than the Queen and he's the same age as her. As to not being used to it, she's perfectly used to it. She's done it for years. The fact remains that the photographs show one side of the Queen, the photoshoot footage shows a completely different side.

Warren 11-30-2007 12:44 AM

Quote:

If she can't hack it because of her age, then she shouldn't do it anymore.
BeatrixFan, you're such a stirrer. Enfant terrible. :smile:

Polly 12-02-2007 10:45 PM

Whether HM can 'hack' her job any longer isn't really moot. She's the Queen until she dies and that's that! I think her terrific in her efforts to keep on keeping on. She'll never abdicate (doesn't believe in it, quite properly) and there's no sign that she has any diminution of her intellect so won't be replaced by her son as Regent.

I can readily overlook her occasional grumpiness or impatience, if that indeed is what it was. And which of us knows how grumpy Danny la Rue is when he's out of the public purview? I'd suggest that he does what he does from choice; HM does what she does from a sense of duty.

As for Annie's daughter not curtsying.....why should she have? I wouldn't curtsy to the King and Queen of Spain, or Denmark, or wherever. It would be inappropriate.

BeatrixFan 12-03-2007 05:49 AM

Well, the Queen was in public view wasn't she? She knew there was a camera there for a documentary and she chose to throw a queeny strop. Danny La Rue does what he does for the money, the Queen should remember she has to do the same.

RoyalProtocol 12-03-2007 09:07 AM

Well, regardless of how rude Annie was HM is never wrong.

My book to accompany the series arrived the other day and is excellent, lots of behind the scenes details and photos of state invitations etc.

zembla 12-03-2007 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 699156)
The point I was making was that the row was that the Beeb had painted the Queen in a negative light by altering the running order of the footage. Well, the real running order still made the Queen look like a miserable old boot without any interference from Aunty. So what was the fuss about? I think we've all been had in a clever attempt to cover up a darker side of Betty.

:lol: I wonder if anyone calls her Betty...I totally would...

BeatrixFan 12-10-2007 06:01 PM

Impressions of Episode 3;

1) The Queen's Press Officer is a bit of a moody cow.
2) The British Ambassador in Estonia seems to be married to Su Pollard.

The redeeming part was a full 5 minutes focusing on Vaira Vike-Freiberga who spoke about monarchy, the Queen and Latvia. Faaaaaaaabulous!

Nichola 12-10-2007 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 703384)
1) The Queen's Press Officer is a bit of a moody cow.

Agreed!:lol:

My favourite episode remains the first one - I loved the American insight and the interviews with Laura Bush!

BeatrixFan 12-10-2007 06:32 PM

Wasn't she just ghastly? "How dare you?!" and all that guff. The only thing she didn't bark was "Don't you know who I am?". Typical Palace flunkie - seems to think she's more Royal than her boss.

I agree with you, seeing Mrs Bush was a real treat. Such a wonderful First Lady.

Nichola 12-10-2007 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 703407)
I agree with you, seeing Mrs Bush was a real treat. Such a wonderful First Lady.

I liked the part where she was showing the private apartments, and preparing for the private lunch by choosing appropriate crockery etc. Also, she seemed really family orientated when she said her first priority when moving to The White House was getting her girls settled by decorating their rooms first.:wub:

Although I have enjoyed the series, I thought it would show more members of the royal family out and about. I hoped to see more of Camilla and Sophie doing their daily duties. Oh well, maybe next week...:rolleyes:

BeatrixFan 12-10-2007 06:43 PM

I agree, the First Lady came across as very friendly, very thoughtful and very considerate. I've always said she was a credit to the USA, the programme just confirmed it - just as it did tonight with Vaira.

I agree with you about the other members of the family not getting a look in - it sort of misses an opportunity to show what they do in supporting the monarch.

RoyalProtocol 12-11-2007 08:55 AM

I really thought that The Ambassador's wife was great, so down to earth, though she could have done with getting her hair sorted out for the state occasions.

Duke of Marmalade 12-11-2007 09:31 AM

Whenever HM talks or her gestures remind me so much of Prince Charles. He is very much like his Mommy! Again, I admire HM's stamina and discipline a lot. I hope she can live up to her own high standard for many more years to come.

crm2317 12-11-2007 11:24 AM

I agree the ambassadors wife needed her hair done and it was so funny when she knocked over her chair:rofl:

Love the family scenes the best. When the were waiting for the plypast and when the lift had broken and Prince Phillip and the Queen were trying to find a way to get the first lady of Ghana up the stairs.

BeatrixFan 12-11-2007 04:22 PM

Now, I must disagree about the Ambassador's wife. Mad as a box of frogs. A bit clumsy, not a snazzy dresser and a bit OTT - as I said, pure Su Pollard.

PrincessofEurope 12-15-2007 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 703780)
Now, I must disagree about the Ambassador's wife. Mad as a box of frogs. A bit clumsy, not a snazzy dresser and a bit OTT - as I said, pure Su Pollard.


BeatrixFan I couldnt agree more a complete nutcase :lol::lol: but she was very funny in her own unique way especially when she knocked the chair over at the banquet the Queen just gave her this look of disgust

BeatrixFan 12-19-2007 03:03 PM

Thoughts on this week's episode;

1. Lovely to see Charles and Camilla down on the farm
2. The Queen was alot jollier this episode
3. Those 'Royal Watchers' should be shot. How embarrasing. One insisted on pestering the Queen twice and then shouted at the organisers 'cos they wanted to let schoolchildren meet the Queen. And that guy in the Union Jack suit! Grabbed the Queen, then bored her with tales of music and then gave her pictures of herself. Moron. Good job I'm not Queen, I'd have decked 'em.

Duke of Marmalade 12-19-2007 04:50 PM

Yep this week was quite interesting. C & C at the farm, that was great. The owners showed some imagination and named two cows after them :cool:
As for the events, the footie topic was quite eyecatching but I HATE all these corgies running around in Buckingham Palace when the Queen receives her guests. I wonder if she has employed a pitiful human being for cleaning the carpets only :eek:
The Royal Train should be abolished - only HM thinks that trains will go directly to Brighton in 45 minutes and commuting isn't as bad :rolleyes: I appreciated that she went into that day care center though, very down to earth. Hope it wasn't for PR reasons only.

Lady Marmalade 12-19-2007 05:31 PM

How many episodes are there in total???? Will it be shown in the U.S.? I am SO ENVIOUS of all of you...Sam, great play by play comments by the way. :-)

BeatrixFan 12-19-2007 05:31 PM

I agree about the Royal Train. It is an extravagance that really isn't justified.

BeatrixFan 12-19-2007 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade (Post 706762)
How many episodes are there in total???? Will it be shown in the U.S.? I am SO ENVIOUS of all of you...Sam, great play by play comments by the way. :-)

:lol: Thankyou m'dear. I believe there are 4 episodes. If they're not shown in the US (which I doubt) I'm sure there'll be a DVD. Next week is following the other members of the Royal Family on their day to day rounds. Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew all give interviews apparantly.

RoyalProtocol 12-19-2007 05:39 PM

You can now pre-order the DVDs from either Amazon or the BBC shop, Amazon's cheaper!

Lady Marmalade 12-19-2007 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalProtocol (Post 706772)
You can now pre-order the DVDs from either Amazon or the BBC shop, Amazon's cheaper!

Bless you!! Thank you for letting me know.

Nicole

debzone 12-19-2007 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade (Post 706762)
How many episodes are there in total???? Will it be shown in the U.S.? I am SO ENVIOUS of all of you...Sam, great play by play comments by the way. :-)

Agreed--great play by play. Really wets the appetite.

I am hoping it will be shown here. I had read that ABC had bought the rights for the American showing possibly with Diane Sawyer hosting. So maybe a Primetime Special?? I guess with the writers strike and ABC running out of TV shows to put on..there is a chance we may see it soon?? Usually, these type of programs are shown on my state's PBS Channel.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises