1969 Documentary about The Queen & Family

[SwingingLondon]

Does anyone remember the documentary made back in 1969 about the Queen?

Apparently her maj. hates it, so it's rarely been seen again. Also saw an interview in which Princess Anne talked about how she hated it being made.

I was wondering if anyone, anywhere has a copy.

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by SwingingLondon Does anyone remember the documentary made back in 1969 about the Queen?

I'm pretty sure I must do becauseI can recall the fuss and excitement that we were to 'meet' the Royal Family.

Some say that it marked the beginning of a long and slow painful death for the monarchy as an Institution. Something to do with the mystery of unknown icons. The passing of Elizabeth will be an interesting time for the country. Let's hope she has a few more years in her yet. I've had enough of constitutional change recently.

My only hope is that if the Majesties do go, then we do not replace them with some President or other. I've never quite understood the republican campaign that says replace the Royals with some much worse political parasite. I'm all for the Queen, god bless her. But let's face it, if she has no actual power, once we have decided to do away with her successors, why on earth replace them?

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin I'm pretty sure I must do becauseI can recall the fuss and excitement that we were to 'meet' the Royal Family. Some say that it marked the beginning of a long and slow painful death for the monarchy as an Institution. Something to do with the mystery of unknown icons. The passing of Elizabeth will be an interesting time for the country. Let's hope she has a few more years in her yet. I've had enough of constitutional change recently. My only hope is that if the Majesties do go, then we do not replace them with some President or other. I've never quite understood the republican campaign that says replace the Royals with some much worse political parasite. I'm all for the Queen, god bless her. But let's face it, if she has no actual power, once we have decided to do away with her successors, why on earth replace them?

Interesting views, I guess there are some people who like the idea of being citizens rather than subjects, I don't really know what a republican is supposed to be in the UK, someone who wants to be considered a citizen?? Im not a political animal at all but I do support the idea of all things democratic, as far as I can see the Royal Family do have a fair amount of "power" and influence, they obviously cant make laws or introduce acts of parliament and so on but Prince Charles is notorious for expressing his views and exerting his inluence as a Royal personnage on things he is often unqualified to talk about at all. The thought of Charles as King and Parker Bowles as Queen I think makes a mockery of the whole Royalty issue. I think the Queen is a very dignified person as was the Queen Mother, would the British public embrace the possibilty of Charles as King? while I may not neccessarily support the concept of Royalty I do have great respect for the Queen as a person, I do not feel the same about Charles and I beleive I am not alone in that view even amongst supporters of the Royal family. I think the natural progression in a modern democracy would be to have an elected head of state, we have aleady rightly seen the demise of heriditary peerage excerting inluence in the House of Lords, as I say the natural progression would be to extend that democratic process....

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by christoph404 Interesting views, I guess there are some people who like the idea of being citizens rather than subjects, I don't really know what a republican is supposed to be in the UK, someone who wants to be considered a citizen?? Im not a political animal at all but I do support the idea of all things democratic, as far as I can see the Royal Family do have a fair amount of "power" and influence, they obviously cant make laws or introduce acts of parliament and so on but Prince Charles is notorious for expressing his views and exerting his inluence as a Royal personnage on things he is often unqualified to talk about at all. The thought of Charles as King and Parker Bowles as Queen I think makes a mockery of the whole Royalty issue. I think the Queen is a very dignified person as was the Queen Mother, would the British public embrace the possibilty of Charles as King? while I may not neccessarily support the concept of Royalty I do have great respect for the Queen as a person, I do not feel the same about Charles and I beleive I am not alone in that view even amongst supporters of the Royal family. I think the natural progression in a modern democracy would be to have an elected head of state, we have aleady rightly seen the demise of heriditary peerage excerting inluence in the House of Lords, as I say the natural progression would be to extend that democratic process....

What do you see as being the difference between being a citizen and a subject? Would you notice the difference?

When Charlie boy pontificates on a subject he only influences the people who want to let themselves be influenced and he is only reported on because the meeja people want to brown-nose and be considered a "Royal correspondent". If they didn't want that then I see no other reason to report much of what they get up to.

Diana was only a "people's princess" because the media (and then Blair) declared her to be so. Some may say that she was shabbily treated, others may say she handed out a lot of shabby treatment herself. "There were three of us in this marriage", yes, you and your boyfriends. None of them were innocent parties. Didn't she understand when they told her that they only wanted her to inject some fresh genes into the family?

I think an elected head of state would be a huge step backwards. They are self-important enough already. Which politician of any party has there been in the last 40 years that you think we could put up with as a head of state?

A Royal as the head of state does seem to be an antiquated institution, but I think it's better that any other option. Especially as their power has been curtailed since Cromwell.

Talking of Cromwell, didn't we try a republic under Cromwell? And we decided we didn't like it

Steve

[ican]

The doco was by Richard Cawston, I was only 9 at the time but I remember it was shown on both BBC and ITV (without ads?). I'm sure I read somewhere that it was out as part of a box set with other programmes.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by ican The doco was by Richard Cawston, I was only 9 at the time but I remember it was shown on both BBC and ITV (without ads?). I'm sure I read somewhere that it was out as part of a box set with other programmes.

Richard Cawston - who went on to ... never work in the industry again.
(or so it would seem. Nothing listed on the IMDb after this documentary)
Off with his head

Steve

[SwingingLondon]

Originally Posted by ican I'm sure I read somewhere that it was out as part of a box set with other programmes.

Somehow I don't think so. I wish.

Strange about Richard Cawston though.

[christoph404]

Well I suppose being a citizen brings a concept of equality whereas being a subject somehow suggests that we are below and beholden to the monarchy and we are obliged to bow or courtsey whether we want to or not for fear of causing outrage!!!.....or getting your head lopped off!.. I think it is all part and parcel of the British class system I suppose which is possibly why people want to hold on to it,... fear of change?I said I was not a political animal and it would not occur to me that it would have to be a politician that should be head of state and I can't think of any politician I would want in that role, I was thinking more along the lines of a noble and charitable figure with integrity who is in the public eye, I could think of quite a few figures from the entertainment industry.......Roger Moore, Richard Branson, Jk Rowling....Helen Mirren......there must be someone, would it have to be a politician? I think politicians should be excluded from standing for the job to be honest, the current head of state is required not to express a political preference or allegiance I think so an elected head of state should follow the same crteria.

[Fellwanderer]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook A Royal as the head of state does seem to be an antiquated institution, but I think it's better that any other option. Especially as their power has been curtailed since Cromwell.

I fail to see why the fact that mummy or daddy was head of state should confer the same right on their offspring. I despise those who fawn over the monarchy simply because they are "of royal blood". I respect people for who they are and what they have done - not who their ancestors were.

Talking of Cromwell, didn't we try a republic under Cromwell? And we decided we didn't like it Steve

Partly because he tried to set himself up as a quasi-monarch.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by christoph404 Well I suppose being a citizen brings a concept of equality whereas being a subject somehow suggests that we are below and beholden to the monarchy and we are obliged to bow or courtsey whether we want to or not for fear of causing outrage!!!.....or getting your head lopped off!.. I think it is all part and parcel of the British class system I suppose which is possibly why people want to hold on to it,... fear of change?

I don't think anyone's seriously held the Royal family in any real awe for a couple of generations at least. I support the concept of a Royal family (until someone can come up with a better idea) but I certainly don't feel at all subjugated by or beholden to them. They are doing a job that has to be done and I certainly wouldn't want to do it. They don't do it perfectly, but they do it quite well. They're not very expensive, a lot cheaper than politicians and the civil service

Nobody's obliged to bow or curtsey. What do you think might happen if you don't. I pay respect where respect is due and that could be to anyone who does something well, regardless of "rank" or "position"

Steve

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by christoph404 I said I was not a political animal and it would not occur to me that it would have to be a politician that should be head of state and I can't think of any politician I would want in that role, I was thinking more along the lines of a noble and charitable figure with integrity who is in the public eye, I could think of quite a few figures from the entertainment industry.......Roger Moore, Richard Branson, Jk Rowling....Helen Mirren......there must be someone, would it have to be a politician? I think politicians should be excluded from standing for the job to be honest, the current head of state is required not to express a political preference or allegiance I think so an elected head of state should follow the same crteria.

Yes, Helen Mirren could do the job. She passed the interview/rehearsal

Who, apart from a politician, would be vain or silly enough to volunteer?
That was one of the many great concepts in the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in about book 4 of the trilogy. There had to be a supreme ruler of the universe, but anyone who wanted to do it was automatically excluded

Steve

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Fellwanderer I fail to see why the fact that mummy or daddy was head of state should confer the same right on their offspring. I despise those who fawn over the monarchy simply because they are "of royal blood". I respect people for who they are and what they have done - not who their ancestors were.

But at least there's a chance they've had some decent training and know what to expect.

Political dynasties don't always work well. Look at the troubles they've led to for our American cousins

But that's another reason why you shouldn't mix politics with the head of state

Steve

[Moor Larkin]

I still don't understand why we have to have a Head of State

If it's just someone to quaff champers, be polite and show Brits in a good light at the Elysee Palace, can't we just send Michael Aspel or something?

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin I still don't understand why we have to have a Head of State If it's just someone to quaff champers, be polite and show Brits in a good light at the Elysee Palace, can't we just send Michael Aspel or something?

You just need someone's face to put on the currency and the stamps.
Oh, and to deal with all the cr@p that the newspapers throw at them

Steve

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin I still don't understand why we have to have a Head of State If it's just someone to quaff champers, be polite and show Brits in a good light at the Elysee Palace, can't we just send Michael Aspel or something?

mmmm....Michael Aspel?..maybe, I think I would prefer Michael Parkinson or even Michael Caine but I would not have Terry Wogan under any circumstances though I think he would get a lot of votes!! To answer Steve's suggestion that we don't have to bow or courtesy if we don't want to, well of course that is true, it is not a criminal offence to refuse to bow to the Queen but I believe there would be consequences if you followed that attitude. Robbie Coltrane famously refused to bow to the Royal Box during a theatre performance at which Princess Anne was present, he didn't half get some criticism and stick in the press and no one publicly supported his decision, not that he would care anyway. If a wimbledon tennis player refused to bow to the Royal box each time he/she came on and left court and then went on to win Wimbledon I bet the powers that be would make an exception in not allowing him/her to become a member of Queens club as they did with McEnroe because they didn't like his on court antics. So yes I do think we have a choice but I believe society does not like non conformists and ways would be found to punish the transgressors......I guess I can forget about my OBE...