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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

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.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

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..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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 " .
 
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.
 
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. :D
 
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.
 
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. :D

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

It was probably highly entertaining, but these types of shows take huge liberties, not just with smaller scenes, and that’s my biggest issue. I did watch Wolf Hall (at least several episodes) and White Princess, but they did actually attempt to be accurate. Still, I prefer documentaries like the Smithsonian Channel’s Private Lives of the Monarchs (which is a British produced series hosted by Tracy Borman) and anything with Lucy Worsley. The Henry VIII episode of Private Lives was especially good.
 
It was probably highly entertaining, but these types of shows take huge liberties, not just with smaller scenes, and that’s my biggest issue. I did watch Wolf Hall (at least several episodes) and White Princess, but they did actually attempt to be accurate. Still, I prefer documentaries like the Smithsonian Channel’s Private Lives of the Monarchs (which is a British produced series hosted by Tracy Borman) and anything with Lucy Worsley. The Henry VIII episode of Private Lives was especially good.

WOlf Hall isn't accurate, its based on a novel by Hilary Mantel who seems to have her own ideas about historical characters and isn't always fair to them. But it is a novel and not a historical serial per se.
And these series vary in how inaccurate they are. The Tudors was quite risible, I dont know how bad the Crown is but it doesn't see too good. So if I were a historian or biographer I wouldn't take a job as historical consultant to these sorts of things because they are not going to listen if you tell them something si wrong...
 
Perhaps there's value in the dramatization of anything. Even a book that supposedly gives the scoop on the intimate relationship between two brothers, William and Harry.

Sometimes epic dramatization of history like, for example, The Last Kingdom, appeals to someone first off because of certain appeals such as handsome actor, a whole lot of pillaging and violence or even sex opens up a window in someone's mind to actively seek out the real history and research facts for themselves and explore the lives and times of the era whether it be the medieval ear or the Tudor era or the other really well researched histories out there of the British Royal Family.

Baby steps. We have to crawl before we walk and walk before we run. Sometimes the baby steps is what attracts us to crawl in the first place. :D
 
It was probably highly entertaining, but these types of shows take huge liberties, not just with smaller scenes, and that’s my biggest issue. I did watch Wolf Hall (at least several episodes) and White Princess, but they did actually attempt to be accurate. Still, I prefer documentaries like the Smithsonian Channel’s Private Lives of the Monarchs (which is a British produced series hosted by Tracy Borman) and anything with Lucy Worsley. The Henry VIII episode of Private Lives was especially good.
Well, "White Princess" got at least one huge thing wrong: the first time Elizabeth Wydville was introduced to Edward IV's little brother Richard and Richard's future wife Anne Neville, Richard was twelve and Anne was eight. Not teenagers at a formal court banquet but children, with Anne just out of the nursery. I didn't dare watch that one either - my daughter, who watches such programs with me, hates when I correct the history...


And since we've gone waaay off topic, I'll stop here.
 
Last edited:
A new book on the relationship between Prince William and Prince Harry in leading up and following on from the Sussexes stepping back from Royal Duties will be published on 15 October. The author of Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the True Story of the Royal Family in Tumult is Robert Lacey, who is British historian and author. He is also known for "consulting on Netflix's hit royal series The Crown".

There seems to be so many books on the Sussexes. There is already a book on the tension between the William & Catherine and Harry & Meghan.

From reading the Tatler article, this book will focus on the relationship between William and Harry. There are some promises on the details of the Sandringham Summit and the alleged confrontation between Harry and the Palace following Harry and Meghan's announcement on leaving the roles of Senior working royals.

https://www.tatler.com/article/robert-lacey-battle-of-brothers-prince-william-prince-harry

Amazon UK link to the book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Bro.../ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= (Also attached to the Tatler article)
 
Rebecca English is tweeting that Buckingham Palace is bracing itself for the release of this book.

Being published on October 15th.

Will be covering the Sandringham Summit and Her Majesty's angry response to the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Another article with details -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sive-tell-book.html?__twitter_impression=true

I won't be suprised if this one is also serialised by this or that newspaper.
 
Last edited:
Rebecca English is tweeting that Buckingham Palace is bracing itself for the release of this book.

Being published on October 15th.

It will be covering the Sandringham Summit and Her Majesty's angry response to the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Another article with details -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sive-tell-book.html?__twitter_impression=true

I won't be suprised if this one is also serialised by this or that newspaper.

I like Robert Lacey a lot, and he’s extremely reputable, so I think I can trust the information in the book. I’m looking foreword to reading about the Queen’s reaction to Megxit, but no wonder she’s “bracing” for the publication - I’m sure Charles is as well. What they hoped would remain private is now going to be laid to bare...
 
I have seen Robert Lacey interviewed many times during various documentaries on the royals and he comes across as credible and reputable.
 
Rebecca English is tweeting that Buckingham Palace is bracing itself for the release of this book.

Being published on October 15th.

Will be covering the Sandringham Summit and Her Majesty's angry response to the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Another article with details -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sive-tell-book.html?__twitter_impression=true

I won't be suprised if this one is also serialised by this or that newspaper.

Thank you Sun Lion for the Daily Mail article. I apologise for not finding your thread earlier.

I wonder if this book could have an effect on the one-year review since the Sandringham submit. I also wonder what the Royal Family members and Palace staff are thinking right now. :ermm:
 
The senior royals might be pondering how they can stop possibly unfavourable leaks between the Press and writers of Royal biographies and their staff.

Having said that, the Fail always ups the ante. The Palace and Royal family is forever 'bracing' for something or other if a book or controversial article is in the offing. Just as their journalese comes into play with William and/or Prince Philip reportedly 'incandescent with rage' over something or other the Sussexes have done. The Fail has a certain MO which it finds successful with its readers when reporting Royal stories.

The Royal Family are probably mildly interested in Lacey's forthcoming book, and that's it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom