Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

[Sun Lion]

A new book by Robert Lacey coming out in October -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...eneration.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews...rift-new-book/

[Lumutqueen]

This is the man who is the historical consultant on The Crown.

Think that tells you all you need to know about this work of fiction.

[Prinsara]

He was also a reputed biographer of Elizabeth II before that, probably why he got the Crown job.

The sensationalist title and subject is not encouraging, though I'm trying to think what else he could have called it.

[Alison H]

Some people will write anything to make money. This has to be one of the worst things about being royal - people can write all sorts about you, causing hurt and upset, and sell a load of copies.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Sun Lion

A new book by Robert Lacey coming out in October -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...eneration.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews...rift-new-book/

I like Robert Lacey a lot, but I’m not looking forward to this as I’m sure somehow Charles will be blamed. Referring to William and Harry as Diana’s boys ticks me off.

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

This is the man who is the historical consultant on The Crown.

Think that tells you all you need to know about this work of fiction.

I don’t understand this. He actually is no fan of The Crown and, I believe he may have quit. Even if he didn’t, he can’t force the writers to be historically accurate - they’re going to do what they want to do no matter what he advises, and that means being dramatic even if they have to make things up.

Robert Lacey is not a sleazy journalist; he’s a very reputable Royal historian.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Some people will write anything to make money. This has to be one of the worst things about being royal - people can write all sorts about you, causing hurt and upset, and sell a load of copies.

Thatl's life, if you are wealthy and famous... provided they dont break any laws, people can write books about the wealthy and famous.

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I don’t understand this. He actually is no fan of The Crown and, I believe he may have quit. Even if he didn’t, he can’t force the writers to be historically accurate - they’re going to do what they want to do no matter what he advises, and that means being dramatic even if they have to make things up.

Robert Lacey is not a sleazy journalist; he’s a very reputable Royal historian.

He could have not taken the job as historical consultant, if he didn't think they were likly to go with his recommendations as to historical accuracy..

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Denville

He could have not taken the job as historical consultant, if he didn't think they were likly to go with his recommendations as to historical accuracy..

I watched the Crown and a great deal of it is historical fact, but nobody knows what private conversations take place.

A whole series made up of historical fact with only recorded provable conversations was not going to sell.

An example is between monarch and prime minister at the weekly meetings, they were not recorded in any form.

He did not write The Crown, he was the historical advisor.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I watched the Crown and a great deal of it is historical fact, but nobody knows what private conversations take place.

A whole series made up of historical fact with only recorded provable conversations was not going to sell.

An example is between monarch and prime minister at the weekly meetings, they were not recorded in any form.

He did not write The Crown, he was the historical advisor.

I haven't watched the Crown but from what I've read it is pretty poor on historical accuracy... Lacey was the historical consultant/advisor...and while I agree that they didn't have to go by his advice, he must have known that it was unlikely that they would.. but he took the job.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Denville

I haven't watched the Crown but from what I've read it is pretty poor on historical accuracy... Lacey was the historical consultant/advisor...and while I agree that they didn't have to go by his advice, he must have known that it was unlikely that they would.. but he took the job.

Well, you can disparage him all you like by your comments, but I respect him. He’s one of my go-tos, and I’m always happy to see him on a program about Royals...

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Denville

I haven't watched the Crown but from what I've read it is pretty poor on historical accuracy... Lacey was the historical consultant/advisor...and while I agree that they didn't have to go by his advice, he must have known that it was unlikely that they would.. but he took the job.

I did watch it, therefore I feel able to comment.There was dramatic license around the facts.
In any historical drama a few true events are blended into one scene to deliver a message but not exactly accurate possibly in the timing or who was all in the room at any one time, or the conversation.
I am not going to list examples because it would take us off the thread but Lacey is well respected
and he was an advisor not the writer, if we all took the attitude we would not take payment from an employer we didn't agree with how many would earn a living.

[fabaunty]

I do hope that the written legacy of Robert Lacey will not be diminished by his association with " the Crown " . It is a Drama after all , although some viewers may think it is a " factual" programme . he is no " lady colin cambell " .

[Iluvbertie]

Sadly I have seen many people, here and elsewhere who believe that The Crown is the 'official' version of events and even when something is pointed out as incorrect people don't accept that The Crown can be wrong. The problem with a lot of historical fiction is that many people (statistics in 2007 had 76% of US people for instance) learn their history from historical fiction.

[Osipi]

When presenting a historical drama that's palatable to viewers and to make the story more interesting, poetic or dramatic license is applied. To present an event in the Crown such as Margaret's romance with Peter Townsend, to have interactions between the cast of characters that were involved (fictional dialogue) can present not only how it may have been but highlight the reasons why Margaret and Peter were deemed unsuited. Same thing with the scene of Elizabeth and Philip's fight early on in their marriage in Australia. The actual film capture was destroyed but it was played out fictionally to provide the information that the the couple didn't always see eye to eye but yet had those filming the event had respect enough to destroy the film.

Otherwise we'd be back in history class where events are droll and repetitive of dates, locations and battles we needed to learn by rote. Historic advisors are the ones for the Crown that assure the factual history is on par with the show. Otherwise it may have ended up that the show had Anthony Armstrong-Jones as the divorced lover Margaret gave up and later married Peter Townsend.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Sadly I have seen many people, here and elsewhere who believe that The Crown is the 'official' version of events and even when something is pointed out as incorrect people don't accept that The Crown can be wrong. The problem with a lot of historical fiction is that many people (statistics in 2007 had 76% of US people for instance) learn their history from historical fiction.

I keep trying to tell my mother this. I refused to watch the Tudors for the same reason....I don’t lack for documentaries, so I choose fact over fiction.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Osipi

When presenting a historical drama that's palatable to viewers and to make the story more interesting, poetic or dramatic license is applied. To present an event in the Crown such as Margaret's romance with Peter Townsend, to have interactions between the cast of characters that were involved (fictional dialogue) can present not only how it may have been but highlight the reasons why Margaret and Peter were deemed unsuited. Same thing with the scene of Elizabeth and Philip's fight early on in their marriage in Australia. The actual film capture was destroyed but it was played out fictionally to provide the information that the the couple didn't always see eye to eye but yet had those filming the event had respect enough to destroy the film.

Otherwise we'd be back in history class where events are droll and repetitive of dates, locations and battles we needed to learn by rote. Historic advisors are the ones for the Crown that assure the factual history is on par with the show. Otherwise it may have ended up that the show had Anthony Armstrong-Jones as the divorced lover Margaret gave up and later married Peter Townsend.

I don’t need dramatics to make history interesting - it’s interesting enough in its own (and I loved history class).

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I keep trying to tell my mother this. I refused to watch the Tudors for the same reason....I don’t lack for documentaries, so I choose fact over fiction.

I loved the Tudors, I liked the earlier series of the Crown but I do not take it all as fact. We cannot know what conversations went on but we know Henry got rid of Anne Boleyn. I think what they do is give an insight into royal life, and the roles of the courtiers. I find that all quite interesting.
Let's be honest we will never know the real truth of what goes on behind closed doors in any generation. It is all opinion and gossip.
.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I loved the Tudors, I liked the earlier series of the Crown but I do not take it all as fact. We cannot know what conversations went on but we know Henry got rid of Anne Boleyn. I think what they do is give an insight into royal life, and the roles of the courtiers. I find that all quite interesting.
Let's be honest we will never know the real truth of what goes on behind closed doors in any generation. It is all opinion and gossip.
.

The TUdors was a particularly bad episode of historical fiction.. I havnent seen the Crown but it does not seem form what I've read of it, to be a lot better...

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Sadly I have seen many people, here and elsewhere who believe that The Crown is the 'official' version of events and even when something is pointed out as incorrect people don't accept that The Crown can be wrong. The problem with a lot of historical fiction is that many people (statistics in 2007 had 76% of US people for instance) learn their history from historical fiction.

Fair point. Though to me, that is more a reflection on those people, as opposed to The Crown, which has never set out to be an accurate historical documentary.

[LauraS3514]

Originally Posted by Denville

The TUdors was a particularly bad episode of historical fiction.. I havnent seen the Crown but it does not seem form what I've read of it, to be a lot better...

I never even tried to watch "The Tudors". Just the idea of a dark-haired and shortish Henry VIII just didn't sit well with me (IRL he was 6'4" with red hair). And of course, Katherine of Aragon also had red hair even though on screen she is usually pictured as dark haired because, hey, "Spaniard!"

[Denville]

Originally Posted by LauraS3514

I never even tried to watch "The Tudors". Just the idea of a dark-haired and shortish Henry VIII just didn't sit well with me (IRL he was 6'4" with red hair). And of course, Katherine of Aragon also had red hair even though on screen she is usually pictured as dark haired because, hey, "Spaniard!"

Those are small details compared with the sheer awfulness of the Tudors over all.