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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I also found it far too short (perhaps 1/3 the length of the original, if you subtract the Barbara Walters intros after every commercial), and most likely re-edited for the American audience. I can't imagine that the American visit segment was as lengthy and foregrounded for audiences outside the US. It didn't add anything, and it made us look provincial.

I did like the segment where the cameras caught Prince Charles making small talk with a pregnant woman while they watched local children dancing. He's genuinely good at it, and he did seem warmer and more human that the press ordinarily portrays him. I'd like to have seen more of moments like those.

Although I think Annie Leibowitz misread how she should deal with her subject during the photo shoot, I thought her description of the Queen as "feisty" was apt, and I did love the final portrait (with crown firmly intact!).
 
One error I caught was when Ms. Walters said something about the Queen becoming the "heir apparent" when she was 10. Technically, she was the heir presumptive, since she could have been displaced if her parents had had another child, and the child was male.

I, too, plan on buying the DVD because I would like to see the entire 5 1/2 hour program as it was originally produced. I wonder if the DVD has any "extras"; "Windsor Castle: A Royal Year" had a whole disc of extra footage.

I also wonder if there's any possibility that PBS, BBC America, or even WE might broadcast the entire program at a later date.
 
Thanks,ellen. I was wondering what her drink was too, but I couldn't understand the man entirely, as I could only make out his explanation about the ice on top. What did he mean when he said, it's just for HM? Only HM has that kind of drink, or she has a specially cyphered glass? I thought all the glasses bear her cypher at the palace parties.
Thanks again for answering the question about the drink. I really did want to know it. :flowers:
IIRC, it is only HM who has the Dubonnet - her drink is distinctive looking (with the two ice cubes atop the slice of lemon). Plus I think the Dubonnet gives it a rosy color.
 
...I did like the segment where the cameras caught Prince Charles making small talk with a pregnant woman while they watched local children dancing. He's genuinely good at it, and he did seem warmer and more human that the press ordinarily portrays him. I'd like to have seen more of moments like those...

Wasn't that sweet? Prince Charles even asked when she was due. I believe she said July and he even commented about how hot it would be.:flowers:
 
typical media thinking we're all stupid

Five minutes into this program, and there are many mistakes made on Barwa's part. Someone should email her, via the View, and tell her how incredibly sloppy her reporting is/was.

Commentary in the beginning of the program is clearly tailored for an American audience... I'm so embarrassed.

Gee, the folks that would be interested in this show KNOW all these details already--and more accurately than Baba Wawa is reporting.

The tiara was the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland which can be seen in the jewelry threads. I just love how Her Majesty has taken to wearing all white on some occasions, shows off her jewelry and draws attention to her face.
http://cachens.corbis.com/CorbisImage/170/18/32/87/18328791/42-18328791.jpg

http://cachens.corbis.com/CorbisImage/170/18/32/89/18328964/42-18328964.jpg


I can't wait to get the DVD will all 5 hours of footage from the BBC either. No Baba Wawa.

This is also the first time I remember hearing Princess Anne speaking--lower voice than I expected but pleasant. I'm impressed at how busy all the "kids" are--all the different royal patronages. Clearly they aren't slackers if their schedules are examined. When do they have free time? I see Edward is starting to fill in more than he used to; didn't he have to give up his production company and start doing more royal duties?
I would liked to have seen more about Andrew also as well as focusing more on the Queen.
 
Last edited:
Ouch! Well...It is countless especially when the networks have so called duty experts. If this show had been edited any further, there would've been no show. This was clearly for the American audience and a ratings grabber.

I enjoyed it and it gave is something to talk about.
 
Windsor-A Royal Year similar

I'd never really heard from Prince Philip or Prince Edward before and I was really impressed with the both of them. I think the whole family is a lot more friendlier than they're given credit for.

I remember seeing the Windsor Royal Year last year on PBS and I was impressed by how much Prince Philip knew about running the grounds and how much he supervised to keep things running smoothly. Yes, he has his moments with gaffes but still, he has been the Queen's "rock" and I am sure she would not suffer fools gladly. Both Prince Philip and and the Queen impress me on a regular basis with how agile and up on current events they are. I hope I do half as well at in my 80's.

I loved Edward's specials that used to run on A&E with different stories with royal history and properties.
 
I loved it!! I thought she came across as just so sweet. You can tell she is somewhat shy, and she tries to make people feel at ease in presence.

I thought it was hysterical when Charles was talking to the pregnant lady about when she was due!!!!!! It was so cute....

Of course to me the highlight was the visit to the U.S. I thought they pulled it all off magnificently..

I remember the story of the little boy who marched up to her wanting a flower and she gave it to him...so cute.

But, I also wish PBS had taken it over and run the whole series so we could have seen everything too... ;-)
 
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.
 
Gee, the folks that would be interested in this show KNOW all these details already--and more accurately than Baba Wawa is reporting.


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

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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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! :ohmy:
 
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.
 
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:ohmy:. But ABC especially should have checked their facts before airing the special!
 
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."
 
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.
 
I remember seeing Babs interview Bette Davis and she did a good job. I wonder where it all went wrong?
 
I remember seeing Babs interview Bette Davis and she did a good job. I wonder where it all went wrong?

:lol: I saw that on youtube. Bette is :wub:

Barbara is just becoming as senile as Larry King...even on The View she is so annoying.
 
:lol: I saw that on youtube. Bette is :wub:

Barbara is just becoming as senile as Larry King...even on The View she is so annoying.
This is too funny! And totally true.
 
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, :sad:tsk tsk Barbara!
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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... ;-)
 
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.


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!
 
That sounds like plot for a reality show!:flowers::ROFLMAO:


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.
 
Katharine Hepburn

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:lol:
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).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom