The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 11-23-2021, 10:15 AM
hel hel is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Kitchener, Canada
Posts: 661
One thing I did find interesting was the straight-up admission that the "workshy Wills" narrative was deliberately manufactured.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-23-2021, 10:42 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 23,405


Indeed, and that the Duchess of Cambridge was targeted for no other reason than that she did not 'give' the best photos as she often had her hair loose.

There was a great irony in one of the reporters suggesting that the palace was filled with 'vipers' because looking at this documentary one could conclude that some of the reporters and perhaps especially their editors would be far more deserving of that label.
__________________

__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-23-2021, 10:55 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 486
I was very unfavourably impressed by the fact that there was this reminder of Chelsy. The royals are, more or less, fair game (in most cases, less but still!). The press is part of their lives, like it or not. But Chelsy isn't a royal. She's just a onetime girlfriend of a now married Prince. Why go back to the times where she was followed, had her phone hacked, etc.? What does it bring to the table, except for splashing her across the world as the woman who was once checked for "sexual diseases", just in case we forgot? (I was happy having forgotten about this.)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-23-2021, 01:47 PM
princess gertrude's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Columbia, United States
Posts: 2,784
I have to agree with many that have said, "why now?". I am not sure what purpose this documentary serves at this point in time. A year or so ago, before or shortly after Harry and Meghan's interviews, maybe, but not now.

Also, if the palace did not have knowledge of content and H & M did, that actually leads me to believe that there is someone/something else behind this other than the BBC. The BBC knows how the royal family works and what lines to not cross, so why would they even attempt something so daring. Was there a nudge from other parties?

Just makes me think.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-24-2021, 06:30 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 387
Well, if the Sun to be believed, there might be some truth about the boycott rumour.

Prince William and Kate Middleton ban BBC from screening Christmas carol concert amid fury over royal documentary

Quote:
(...)

Last night a TV source said of the royal snub to the Beeb: “This is a real coup for ITV. It is a brand new format — the royals have never hosted a televised TV concert before. And to have the Duchess leading on it is a big deal.

“Naturally most royal programming goes automatically to the*BBC*as the national broadcaster. Now it looks like they will work more with ITV in the future.”

The source added: “ITV were very surprised but delighted to get the late call offering them this incredible exclusive. It will be a fantastic Christmas carol concert that will be TV gold for viewers at home.

“It was all arranged to be on BBC1 but it was switched in the last few days because of the terrible row over the documentary.

“And things are likely to get a lot worse between the Royal Family and the BBC before they get better as the second part of the documentary threatens to go further.”

(...)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-24-2021, 07:45 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,540
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...-dirty-laundry

Review of the documentary by The Guardian.

Of course, Harry may never have believed in the Deal. The media’s treatment of his mother – from Martin Bashir’s importunate interview to the paparazzi who shadowed her to her car-crash death – made him, understandably, hate the press. As did the hacking of his previous girlfriends’ phones. The case for his scepticism was strengthened here by Rajan’s interview with private investigator Gavin Burrows who told that he and others hacked into Chelsy Davy’s voicemails, tried to find out whether she had had an abortion, attempted to get hold of her medical records and scrutinised her sexual past. And then flogged the information to the red tops.
And then there was the racism. Our prime minister’s sister Rachel was interviewed about her column of four years ago in which she wrote of Meghan bringing “exotic DNA” into the Windsor bloodline. These days, she suggested, she wouldn’t have written such stuff. Why? Because “it sounds either eugenicist or racist”, she replied. Rajan rightly pointed out, it wouldn’t have sounded any less so four years ago.
Ultimately, Rajan’s programme eloquently if unwittingly made the case for the republicanism he once overtly espoused. Royal journalism, as he showed it in action, does the opposite of exciting reverence: rather, it places its hand gently on the backs of Britons’ heads and pushes our noses deep into the royal family’s dirty linen. Everybody involved gets degraded by it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-24-2021, 09:22 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by princess gertrude View Post
Also, if the palace did not have knowledge of content and H & M did, that actually leads me to believe that there is someone/something else behind this other than the BBC. The BBC knows how the royal family works and what lines to not cross, so why would they even attempt something so daring. Was there a nudge from other parties?

Just makes me think.
A lot of BBC programmes these days have a strong political agenda, which is why there are so many calls for it to be defunded. If you choose to buy a newspaper or subscribe to a pay TV channel with political bias, that is your choice - it's your money, spend it how you like. But the BBC is funded by the licence fee, and is supposed to be neutral. Rajan is open about being a republican - again, he's entitled to his personal views, but not to push them on the BBC. And they interviewed Gina Miller, a political activist who holds strong anti-British views - and I can't see that she had any relevance to the issues except that her picture once happened to feature on a newspaper front page which also featured a picture of Meghan, in relation to a completely different story.

Having said all that, I didn't think that the first episode said anything that might have upset the Royals. The criticism was all of the horrible tactics used by royal reporters, especially against Kate and Chelsy. But it does sound as if the second episode's going to be more controversial: the Christmas concert has definitely been moved to ITV, because ITV's own website's reported it now, so William and Kate are clearly very upset about something.

I don't know what the BBC's playing at. And it shouldn't be playing at anything - it's taxpayer-funded and therefore isn't supposed to have any sort of agenda. They're doing themselves no favours - even people who aren't particularly royalist don't want to see the Queen upset when she's recently been widowed and is suffering from health problems.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-24-2021, 09:32 AM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Nowheresville, United States
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
Anita Singh of the Telegraph wrote a mixed review of Part One:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2021/...ed-us-already/


This clip from the review is indicative of the tone of the program:

"... One of the factors that marks out Rajan from his peers is his relaxed presenting style. If he leaned back any further in that chair, he’d be horizontal. It makes his fellow news presenters seem stuffy by comparison. He’s also very smart, but this programme wasn’t his finest work. Perhaps he felt under certain constraints, the BBC having a chequered history when it comes to covering the royals. Remember the BBC One controller having to resign after wrongly claiming that the Queen had stormed out of an Annie Leibovitz photoshoot in a huff? I’m sure Rajan would say he shows no fear or favour, but he also knows when not to overstep the mark. ..."
If someone is able to post an archive of the telegraph review, I’d appreciate it - thanks!

I agree, this is beyond tacky! Sounds more like something the DM would do instead of the BBC; reply to Moran.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
A lot of BBC programmes these days have a strong political agenda, which is why there are so many calls for it to be defunded. If you choose to buy a newspaper or subscribe to a pay TV channel with political bias, that is your choice - it's your money, spend it how you like. But the BBC is funded by the licence fee, and is supposed to be neutral. Rajan is open about being a republican - again, he's entitled to his personal views, but not to push them on the BBC. And they interviewed Gina Miller, a political activist who holds strong anti-British views - and I can't see that she had any relevance to the issues except that her picture once happened to feature on a newspaper front page which also featured a picture of Meghan, in relation to a completely different story.

Having said all that, I didn't think that the first episode said anything that might have upset the Royals. The criticism was all of the horrible tactics used by royal reporters, especially against Kate and Chelsy. But it does sound as if the second episode's going to be more controversial: the Christmas concert has definitely been moved to ITV, because ITV's own website's reported it now, so William and Kate are clearly very upset about something.

I don't know what the BBC's playing at. And it shouldn't be playing at anything - it's taxpayer-funded and therefore isn't supposed to have any sort of agenda. They're doing themselves no favours - even people who aren't particularly royalist don't want to see the Queen upset when she's recently been widowed and is suffering from health problems.
I am really saddened and concerned about this politicism of the BBC. As an American when something is going on and our papers and media now are obviously biased, I would look to the BBC for unbiased reporting…. I am old enough to remember Walter Cronkite here. We just don’t have someone trustworthy like that anymore :(.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-24-2021, 09:57 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post
If someone is able to post an archive of the telegraph review, I’d appreciate it - thanks!

(...).
Here:
Article by Anita Singh
https://archive.ph/T6nnf

Article by Camilla Tominey
https://archive.ph/cLHWj

Quote:
Originally Posted by princess gertrude View Post
I have to agree with many that have said, "why now?". I am not sure what purpose this documentary serves at this point in time. A year or so ago, before or shortly after Harry and Meghan's interviews, maybe, but not now.

Also, if the palace did not have knowledge of content and H & M did, that actually leads me to believe that there is someone/something else behind this other than the BBC. The BBC knows how the royal family works and what lines to not cross, so why would they even attempt something so daring. Was there a nudge from other parties?

Just makes me think.
Scobie and Camilla said they did it last year, so this doc was in production since before Oprah.

I agree with posters up thread, more than "The Princes and the Press", this should be "Harry-Meghan and the Press". There seems to be 4 eps podcast of "Harry, Meghan, and the Media" as a follow up of this documentary.

Hopefully this is not BBC trying to pull another Bashir's panorama. He managed to lure Diana, giving her the stage to tell "her truth", now it does seems like they're doing the same with Harry. In which it's not really about anti-monarchy, but more about getting "exclusive scoop".
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-24-2021, 10:00 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post


Indeed, and that the Duchess of Cambridge was targeted for no other reason than that she did not 'give' the best photos as she often had her hair loose.

There was a great irony in one of the reporters suggesting that the palace was filled with 'vipers' because looking at this documentary one could conclude that some of the reporters and perhaps especially their editors would be far more deserving of that label.


This and the manufactured “workshy Wills” story reflects very poorly on journalists. I haven’t watched this documentary, and don’t plan to, but it sounds pretty bad to me.

It also seems somewhat biased and one sided if the Sussexes lawyer and Scobie were included.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-24-2021, 10:03 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
Well, if the Sun to be believed, there might be some truth about the boycott rumour.



Prince William and Kate Middleton ban BBC from screening Christmas carol concert amid fury over royal documentary


Wow. Makes you wonder about Part II.

It sure seems like the BBC are going out of their way to alienate the BRF. In light of the Martin Bashir mess, you’d think they’d tread lightly. Especially given HM’s age, the recent loss of her husband and health concerns. Go figure. Seems counter productive to me.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-24-2021, 10:10 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 23,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
A lot of BBC programmes these days have a strong political agenda, which is why there are so many calls for it to be defunded. If you choose to buy a newspaper or subscribe to a pay TV channel with political bias, that is your choice - it's your money, spend it how you like. But the BBC is funded by the licence fee, and is supposed to be neutral. Rajan is open about being a republican - again, he's entitled to his personal views, but not to push them on the BBC. And they interviewed Gina Miller, a political activist who holds strong anti-British views - and I can't see that she had any relevance to the issues except that her picture once happened to feature on a newspaper front page which also featured a picture of Meghan, in relation to a completely different story.

Having said all that, I didn't think that the first episode said anything that might have upset the Royals. The criticism was all of the horrible tactics used by royal reporters, especially against Kate and Chelsy. But it does sound as if the second episode's going to be more controversial: the Christmas concert has definitely been moved to ITV, because ITV's own website's reported it now, so William and Kate are clearly very upset about something.

I don't know what the BBC's playing at. And it shouldn't be playing at anything - it's taxpayer-funded and therefore isn't supposed to have any sort of agenda. They're doing themselves no favours - even people who aren't particularly royalist don't want to see the Queen upset when she's recently been widowed and is suffering from health problems.
I assume with 'anti-British views' you mean that Mrs. Miller was anti-Brexit? By that definition nearly half of the UK is anti-British. The BBC will never be unbiased enough for the some as that would mean that the BBC would only invite whomever supports the political party/ views these critics agree with.

I suppose that the idea was that Mrs. Miller was faced with a high number of death threats and racism, perhaps due to her being an outspoken woman of colour. The documentary maker perhaps saw a link to the situation of the duchess of Sussex, also a woman of colour and also at the receiving end of rascist online abuse. Nothing odd I would say, though the documentary maker could also have invited other high profile women of colour such as Diane Abbott. There are a high number of other people interviewed, even the sister of the prime minister. That could be considered biased by the opponents of the prime minister perhaps.

The documentary maker can be a republican, there is nothing wrong with that perse. It is as potentially biased as having a monarchist doing such a show. In this case I can't see what his ideology has to do with the content of his documentary. Much harsher things could be said about the monarchy, while it all seems rather mild. By him being open about it, he at least gives the viewer some transparency. That way the viewer can decide for him/herself if and where the republican views come in play.

Over the years how many reports and documentaries have been made by supporters of the monarchy? Most of them I would say. I especially remember the diamond jubilee and the -IMO- pompous and idolizing language of the BBC reporters, who seems to use the word 'glorious' in each and every sentense. Not the kind of reporting that I am used to in the Benelux, where such adoration would be considered absurd by much of the public.

--
The view from the Irish Times. They seem to agree with those of us who claim that the documentary contains nothing new:

Quote:
In fact, Rajan’s investigation into the dystopian dynamic between William and Harry and the UK press – or, more specifically, the tabloids – feels like old coals raked over. It is a shopworn, albeit entertaining, portrayal of two dysfunctional institutions: Fleet Street and the British Monarchy. But ultimately it lacks bombshells and is unlikely to prompt much calumny within “the Firm”.

This is one of those docs in which already established facts are presented as the scoop of the century. Did you know the British royals vie for media coverage? Or that royal correspondents do deals with “palace” insiders. And that those same insiders brief against other royal households?

If you’ve watched five minutes of The Crown – or ever perused a British red-top – the answer is that of course you did.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/t...rchy-1.4736387
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-24-2021, 11:13 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
...

The documentary maker can be a republican, there is nothing wrong with that perse. It is as potentially biased as having a monarchist doing such a show. In this case I can't see what his ideology has to do with the content of his documentary. Much harsher things could be said about the monarchy, while it all seems rather mild. By him being open about it, he at least gives the viewer some transparency. That way the viewer can decide for him/herself if and where the republican views come in play.

Over the years how many reports and documentaries have been made by supporters of the monarchy? Most of them I would say. I especially remember the diamond jubilee and the -IMO- pompous and idolizing language of the BBC reporters, who seems to use the word 'glorious' in each and every sentense. Not the kind of reporting that I am used to in the Benelux, where such adoration would be considered absurd by much of the public.
....
I agree that as a taxpayer supported broadcaster, BBC commentary should include a diversity of views, including both monarchists and republicans. However, there is an issue of basic fairness. It sounds like the first broadcast was fairly balanced and it may be that the second part will also be fairly balanced, but I think the BBC should have let the palace review first, since they are the primary subject. That would have given the BBC the opportunity to correct anything that was inaccurate or give the palace the opportunity to respond to anything the palace felt was inaccurate.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-24-2021, 11:41 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I agree that as a taxpayer supported broadcaster, BBC commentary should include a diversity of views, including both monarchists and republicans. However, there is an issue of basic fairness. It sounds like the first broadcast was fairly balanced and it may be that the second part will also be fairly balanced, but I think the BBC should have let the palace review first, since they are the primary subject. That would have given the BBC the opportunity to correct anything that was inaccurate or give the palace the opportunity to respond to anything the palace felt was inaccurate.
The only question I have with that regard is that if Meghans lawyer was interviewed, and although it was only minutes, unless there is more next time, it would suggest that Meghan was made aware of the programme. The lawyer rather than Omid is the question mark for me.
I would have thought for balance that the palace would have been made aware.
I am not saying they would have put somebody on or maybe they were, refused but expected to see the programme before transmission
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-24-2021, 12:23 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 532
For those who are unaware, Omid has tweeted that he was interviewed for this program in November 2020 and is letting everyone know this "for full transparency."

I found it interesting that he is at pains to let everyone know when he gave his perspective. He is letting everyone know he waded into this war about who from the Royal Family briefs whom among the royal rota before it was exposed that he is the biggest beneficiary of them all when it comes to getting the inside scoop straight from the horse's mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-24-2021, 12:45 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
The only question I have with that regard is that if Meghans lawyer was interviewed, and although it was only minutes, unless there is more next time, it would suggest that Meghan was made aware of the programme. The lawyer rather than Omid is the question mark for me.
I would have thought for balance that the palace would have been made aware.
I am not saying they would have put somebody on or maybe they were, refused but expected to see the programme before transmission
I agree. I'd also like to know the times Meghan was made aware of the program and the time BP was informed.

This said, I can't quite imagine a representative of any of the royal courts sending someone to engage in he said, she said with Meghan's people.

I say Meghan's people because no lawyer, in no country is going to discuss a client's case on TV without authorization.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-24-2021, 02:56 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
For those who are unaware, Omid has tweeted that he was interviewed for this program in November 2020 and is letting everyone know this "for full transparency."

I found it interesting that he is at pains to let everyone know when he gave his perspective. He is letting everyone know he waded into this war about who from the Royal Family briefs whom among the royal rota before it was exposed that he is the biggest beneficiary of them all when it comes to getting the inside scoop straight from the horse's mouth.
Camilla Tominey also tweeted that she was interviewed a year ago. Also, none of them was aware about what the others said, so BBC could intertwin their words as they pleased.

I found the whole program to be quite superficial.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-24-2021, 11:32 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...-dirty-laundry

Review of the documentary by The Guardian.

Of course, Harry may never have believed in the Deal. The media’s treatment of his mother – from Martin Bashir’s importunate interview to the paparazzi who shadowed her to her car-crash death – made him, understandably, hate the press. As did the hacking of his previous girlfriends’ phones. The case for his scepticism was strengthened here by Rajan’s interview with private investigator Gavin Burrows who told that he and others hacked into Chelsy Davy’s voicemails, tried to find out whether she had had an abortion, attempted to get hold of her medical records and scrutinised her sexual past. And then flogged the information to the red tops.
And then there was the racism. Our prime minister’s sister Rachel was interviewed about her column of four years ago in which she wrote of Meghan bringing “exotic DNA” into the Windsor bloodline. These days, she suggested, she wouldn’t have written such stuff. Why? Because “it sounds either eugenicist or racist”, she replied. Rajan rightly pointed out, it wouldn’t have sounded any less so four years ago.
Ultimately, Rajan’s programme eloquently if unwittingly made the case for the republicanism he once overtly espoused. Royal journalism, as he showed it in action, does the opposite of exciting reverence: rather, it places its hand gently on the backs of Britons’ heads and pushes our noses deep into the royal family’s dirty linen. Everybody involved gets degraded by it.
I was interested in the mea culpa from Gary Burrows, a private investigator rather than a reporter who apologised was basically "part of a group of people who robbed him of his normal teenage years. Ruthless,” Burrows reflected on his participation and contribution to the frenzy around young Prince Harry. Talking about the life he led and the excesses enabled by the muckraking he and other PI's indulged in while snorting their cocaine. But cocaine does not come cheap and yes in the early 2000's they set their sights on Harry for no other reason than William will be King one day and Harry was then, just the spare.

Trying to re-create the Diana-mania by making William the lazy entitled one who got to cruise through everything and Harry the one who pushed the envelope, the outcast, the person who doesn't quite fit the square peg the one who was loved less with ghastly stories about his father not wanting him because he had red hair and the media speculation as to if he was even Charles child, trying to drive a wedge between Harry and both his father and his brother. All of that factors into the man that Harry is today and the fact that he loathes the press of any kind. It's worth remembering that the BRF are still in litigation with some media outlets.

Enter Meghan and her seemingly effortless way of managing the media attention. No wonder Harry thought she was wonderful and no wonder she put the cat among the pigeons with a royal media that had been hounding the BRF since the day Charles and Diana announced their engagement. She didn't understand that they knew the media better, that the US Celebrity press and the UK Royal Media could not and cannot be compared. Even Harry knew that it was a brief respite or media honeymoon when they got engaged. I think he desperately wanted Meghan to be right.

I like the article by Ed Powers in the Irish Times:

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/t...rchy-1.4736387
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-25-2021, 09:17 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 69
Well fellow royal reporter and documentary participant, Robert Jobson has a very different take from Camilla Tominey, and confirms there are indeed inter-palace briefings.
I think that's quite obvious over the years, despite declarations to the contrary.

@2:02
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-25-2021, 09:22 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...-dirty-laundry

Review of the documentary by The Guardian.

Of course, Harry may never have believed in the Deal. The media’s treatment of his mother – from Martin Bashir’s importunate interview to the paparazzi who shadowed her to her car-crash death – made him, understandably, hate the press. As did the hacking of his previous girlfriends’ phones. The case for his scepticism was strengthened here by Rajan’s interview with private investigator Gavin Burrows who told that he and others hacked into Chelsy Davy’s voicemails, tried to find out whether she had had an abortion, attempted to get hold of her medical records and scrutinised her sexual past. And then flogged the information to the red tops.
And then there was the racism. Our prime minister’s sister Rachel was interviewed about her column of four years ago in which she wrote of Meghan bringing “exotic DNA” into the Windsor bloodline. These days, she suggested, she wouldn’t have written such stuff. Why? Because “it sounds either eugenicist or racist”, she replied. Rajan rightly pointed out, it wouldn’t have sounded any less so four years ago.
Ultimately, Rajan’s programme eloquently if unwittingly made the case for the republicanism he once overtly espoused. Royal journalism, as he showed it in action, does the opposite of exciting reverence: rather, it places its hand gently on the backs of Britons’ heads and pushes our noses deep into the royal family’s dirty linen. Everybody involved gets degraded by it.
I can't link, but our papers say the royals were given the opportunity to have their side forward in the show and declined. Quite rightly IMO.

Their anger stems from the fact that they were not provided a preview of the documentary which would give them the right of reply.

I personally believe this is the Streisand effect in full action.
This was on BBC 2, and might have received some column inches and then blown over like the myriad of royal docs we've had this year.

Now, it's become a whole other matter.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 16 (3 members and 13 guests)
Binz, Catcatcat91, Ista
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Victoria & Albert: The Royal Wedding" (2018) - BBC Two Documentary Film wartenberg7 The Electronic Domain 11 12-31-2018 11:21 AM
"Reinventing The Royals" (2015) - BBC Two Documentary on the Windsors Dman The Electronic Domain 236 05-22-2015 06:00 PM
"Queen Victoria's Children" (2013) - BBC Two Documentary Dman The Electronic Domain 37 05-15-2014 08:34 AM
"Royal Cousins at War" (2014) - BBC Two Documentary about World War I An Ard Ri The Electronic Domain 20 02-07-2014 03:50 PM




Popular Tags
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britannia british british royal family cadwallader camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles charles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house coronation crown jewels dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree gemstones genetics george vi harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove ingrid-alexandra japan japanese imperial family jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia nara period noble families norway crown princely couple politics portugal prince harry prince of wales prince of wales in jordan queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit sussex suthida thai royal family tokugawa unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:46 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×