Barbara Walters Special on the Windsors ("A Year with The Queen" edited) 2008 - ABC - Page 9

zembla · #**161** 03-04-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RubyPrincess168

I also found this part amusing. I hope I can manuver like that at 81 too.

That's what I kept saying, I was like damn she can move fast!

Anyway it was pretty boring minus that part and the Annie photo session...

NGalitzine · #**162** 03-04-2008, 06:51 PM

I saw the original 5.5 hrs when it was broadcast in Canada. I dont mind so much that Barbara presented an edited down version for America but I wish that she had at least got all her facts right when doing her bit.

The Queen was never heir apparent to her father, she was heiress presumtive. Princess Anne does not come after Charles, William, Henry, Andrew and Edward in the line of succession....Barbara forgot the 2 York princesses and the son and daughter of Edward who also preceed Anne.

Referring to the Crown Jewels as bling was a bit over the top too.

wbenson · #**163** 03-04-2008, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabby

but as you pointed out, most American commentators aren't experts in royalty

If they intend to show themselves as such on a national television broadcast, then they should at least try to be. Simply making statements that were quite obviously unresearched shouldn't be acceptable for a professional news team.

iowabelle · #**164** 03-05-2008, 03:44 PM

I'm still stuck on Annie L. Having the Queen wear her Garter Robes on a horse would have made HM look like... Zorro, right?

I noticed the heir presumptive/heir apparent bobble too --- and bling, which has to be the most over-used ghetto expression ever (besides, "wassup?"). Barbara's attempt to be cool, I guess.

I was taken by the differences in the voices of HM and the PoW versus Andrew and Edward. To this American ear the Queen speaks in a VERY high pitch (although she seems to have lowered it over the years), while Charles mumbles. The younger Windsors seem more intelligible to me. Is this part of a change in the speaking patterns of aristocratic English people?

Of course, I'm sure that they would have a few comments on my weird hybrid of regional American English!

Lady Marmalade · #**165** 03-05-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

I saw the original 5.5 hrs when it was broadcast in Canada. I dont mind so much that Barbara presented an edited down version for America but I wish that she had at least got all her facts right when doing her bit.

The Queen was never heir apparent to her father, she was heiress presumtive. Princess Anne does not come after Charles, William, Henry, Andrew and Edward in the line of succession....Barbara forgot the 2 York princesses and the son and daughter of Edward who also preceed Anne.

Referring to the Crown Jewels as bling was a bit over the top too.

And she called Beatrice by Eugenie's name...TWICE!

EmpressRouge · #**166** 03-05-2008, 05:29 PM

Did Barbara Walters write the entire script? I have a feeling ABC just didn't bother doing all the research or want to spend the money to hire a historian/fact checker and figured Americans just wouldn't know.

Also, the whole Beatrice/Eugenie thing. I think the lady watching the balcony probably wouldn't tell them apart from afar and thought it
was Beatrice, and when they aired the footage, ABC just took her word for it, and the studio was just too lazy to search for a picture. Come to think of it, they could have just checked "their" myspace pages.

kyansaunt20 · #**167** 03-05-2008, 06:16 PM

The whole Barbara Walters special to me was a joke. It was like she never researched her material and several of the facts were dead wrong. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed getting up close and personal with Queen Elizabeth and I love how she threw a temper tantrum when they tried to get her to do her picture with her Garter Robes on the back of a horse

. But ABC especially should have checked their facts before airing the special!

windsorgirl · #**168** 03-05-2008, 06:35 PM

Agree, agree, agree -- the errors were so obvious and easy to catch that I was surprised they managed to get through the editing process, especially the part about Anne being 5th in line behind her brothers and William & Harry!! Also, Laura Bush made a faux pas by referring to HM and HRH as "Their Majesties."

ysbel · #**169** 03-05-2008, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlitteringTiaras

Well that's obvious.

However, it clearly demostrates how terrible and incredibly lazy Barwa's research team is. I mean how hard is it to check and double check simple facts? The answer: It isn't. For anyone wanting to be a researcher for informative programs (i.e. 20/20, The History Channel, etc.), this is your que to hand in your CV asap to these people.

This is the surprising thing because when she was on the Today show in the 60s, Barbara Walters was known for her thorough research and meticulous interviewing. In fact, that's how she got the ABC anchor spot. She wrote a book called How to Talk with Practically Anybody about Anything and it was used as a primer in high school journalism classes for reporters. I still have it in my library and refer to it often.

Amazon.com: How to Talk With Practically Anybody About Practically Anything: Barbara Walters: Books

Oddly, some of her anecdotes in the book are about meeting and talking with members of the Royal Family and in that book she didn't make a mistake.

I'm sure she knew that some of this stuff was wrong but the question is why did she air it? I got a similar sensation when seeing the 60 minutes interview about Charles. Steven Kraft did it and it wasn't too good but 60 minutes is known for top notch reporting and interviewing.

It is almost as if they don't care about what they're reporting even though they know how to do it well; they just don't.

BeatrixFan · #**170** 03-05-2008, 09:38 PM

I remember seeing Babs interview Bette Davis and she did a good job. I wonder where it all went wrong?

zembla · #**171** 03-05-2008, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I remember seeing Babs interview Bette Davis and she did a good job. I wonder where it all went wrong?

I saw that on youtube. Bette is

Barbara is just becoming as senile as Larry King...even on The View she is so annoying.

Bella · #**172** 03-06-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zembla

I saw that on youtube. Bette is

Barbara is just becoming as senile as Larry King...even on The View she is so annoying.

This is too funny! And totally true.

RubyPrincess168 · #**173** 03-06-2008, 11:59 AM

Well she is in her 70s now. I imagine things are slipping (I meant her mind, although I've heard rumors of face lift). There's an interview in this month's VOGUE (the american one) about her memoir coming out. It mentions her contract with ABC entails doing four specials per year (one being the year's most fascinating people) and The View. If this is her way of getting a special done and out of the way,

tsk tsk Barbara!

EmpressRouge · #**174** 03-06-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

This is the surprising thing because when she was on the Today show in the 60s, Barbara Walters was known for her thorough research and meticulous interviewing. In fact, that's how she got the ABC anchor spot. She wrote a book called How to Talk with Practically Anybody about Anything and it was used as a primer in high school journalism classes for reporters. I still have it in my library and refer to it often.

Amazon.com: How to Talk With Practically Anybody About Practically Anything: Barbara Walters: Books

Oddly, some of her anecdotes in the book are about meeting and talking with members of the Royal Family and in that book she didn't make a mistake.

I'm sure she knew that some of this stuff was wrong but the question is why did she air it? I got a similar sensation when seeing the 60 minutes interview about Charles. Steven Kraft did it and it wasn't too good but 60 minutes is known for top notch reporting and interviewing.

It is almost as if they don't care about what they're reporting even though they know how to do it well; they just don't.

When she's on The View and the ladies are discussing the royal family, she is the most knowledgeable and will correct any errors the ladies or (if they're discussing a tabloid article) the media made. However, for this special, I think she was just handed a script to read in the recording studio and thus probably wasn't out checking the facts herself. Maybe we shouldn't be so harsh on her.

iowabelle · #**175** 03-06-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windsorgirl

Agree, agree, agree -- the errors were so obvious and easy to catch that I was surprised they managed to get through the editing process, especially the part about Anne being 5th in line behind her brothers and William & Harry!! Also, Laura Bush made a faux pas by referring to HM and HRH as "Their Majesties."

I noticed that Mr. Bush also referred to HM as Your Royal Highness. Or maybe he was using that as a collective reference to HM and the Duke (sort of like Southerners say "y'all"). That really bugs me when people refer to the Queen as Your Highness/Her Highness.

I guess I should be grateful that he didn't grab the Queen and give her a neck rub a la Angela Merkel.

Lady Marmalade · #**176** 03-06-2008, 03:47 PM

And I guess we should be grateful she visted now, instead of 8 years ago, or the one before him might have tried to hit on her and seduce her on a couch in the oval office... ;-)

Mermaid1962 · #**177** 03-06-2008, 03:55 PM

I have a hard time making out William and Harry. I find the older folks easier to understand. The Queen's pitch has definitely lowered, and she doesn't sound so much like cut glass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I'm still stuck on Annie L. Having the Queen wear her Garter Robes on a horse would have made HM look like... Zorro, right?

I noticed the heir presumptive/heir apparent bobble too --- and bling, which has to be the most over-used ghetto expression ever (besides, "wassup?"). Barbara's attempt to be cool, I guess.

I was taken by the differences in the voices of HM and the PoW versus Andrew and Edward. To this American ear the Queen speaks in a VERY high pitch (although she seems to have lowered it over the years), while Charles mumbles. The younger Windsors seem more intelligible to me. Is this part of a change in the speaking patterns of aristocratic English people?

Of course, I'm sure that they would have a few comments on my weird hybrid of regional American English!

Mermaid1962 · #**178** 03-06-2008, 03:57 PM

What was it called up here? Did CBC run it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

I saw the original 5.5 hrs when it was broadcast in Canada. .

Mermaid1962 · #**179** 03-06-2008, 04:02 PM

That sounds like plot for a reality show!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspate

I enjoyed watching the special but I have to admit I was disappointed because I was expecting to see more of her private life. Everything shown was public. I was expecting to see a little more about a day in the life of Queen Elizabeth and the other royals....behind closed doors.

Picmajik · #**180** 03-06-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I remember seeing Babs interview Bette Davis and she did a good job. I wonder where it all went wrong?

If you were a tree, what tree would you be?--that's the interview featuring that infamous question.
Barbwa said at one point she was still living that question down and I think it's been hit or miss ever since

I'm still amazed that she ever got as far as she did in tv journalism with that speech impediment of hers. NBC must have been desperate for a female onscreen at that point (late 60s, early 70s).