The article lists a handful of what I would consider minor inaccuracies. The historic parts, scandals and relationships are documented. Whether it was the queen dancing with the President of Ghana, Margaret’s fling with a young man on the beaches of the Bahamas, Charles obsession with Camilla, the Queen’s cold demeanor, her love of horses, Her friendship with Billy Graham, the Profumo scandal, Churchill, Thatcher’s warmongering over The Falklands and all the other little tidbits, all seem to be pretty darn accurate.
There is no such thing as ‘minor inaccuracies’ when it comes to matters constitutional.
And that’s precisely what is at stake here.
The monarch is the head of state.
The unelected head of state … for life … dynastically.
Think about that.
This isn’t a soap opera … tabloid gossip … it’s the framing of the Public’s understanding of how (and by whom) it is ruled (not governed).
Now, I’m no monarchist … far from it … but ‘seems to be pretty darn accurate’ isn’t good enough. Seems accurate won’t do. If the tale is to be told, it should be factual, not fiction — the writers’ ‘interpretation’ of events to which they were not privy has no place in such a narrative.
It’s bad enough when it’s a re-interpretation of fiction
‘Based upon a true story’ won’t do.
Or would you trust the Pragmatics of Bronson, for instance?
Director gets notorious for penning love letter to Britain’s most notorious violent criminal. Sure … a totally reliable tale of what ‘really’ happened … told for reasons of wanting to set the record straight … tell the other side of the story … not make sales or raise profile.
It, furthermore, trivialises matters in a nation that is long overdue … long overdue … a serious discussion about how it is governed … and trivialising the subject serves to nullify it.
Moreover, Diana was a Spencer … which potentially lends an altogether different aspect to it — whose story is being told and why?
The British public is largely ignorant of its own history … we’ve even recently had a hairdresser flouting lockdown and, when prosecuted, attempting to rely upon the Magna Carta in defence; displaying a complete … and utter … lack of knowledge of what that document was, how it came to exist, what its effect was, why and what it resulted in — here’s a clue: it concerned the power-balance between the monarch of the day and twenty-five barons, made no mention of anything or anyone else, was repealed a year later and has no bearing upon anything whatsoever in the World today beyond its historical significance (four hundred years later, the monarchy was still so out of control that Charles I had to be beheaded in order for the point to be made).
What chance, therefore, that they will even know of, let alone appreciate, the significance of her being a Spencer?
When millions of viewers are told that both Diana and Thatcher were humiliated by the royal family at Balmoral, we should not have to rely on someone like Vickers to reply that this was utterly untrue. The correction will pass millions of viewers by.
Painting Thatcher in a different light … making her the victim?
Please.
Whatever I may think of the Royal family, it was bound to get their backs up when she said “We are a grandmother.”
Whatever I may think of Philip (and I don’t hold any of them in high regard, let alone him), to suggest that implicating him in the Profumo Affair is a mere inaccuracy (let alone a minor one) is … I don’t even know where to begin explaining what is wrong with that — It was one of the most significant scandals in British history … anything but a simple ‘sex scandal’ and went right to the heart of of the UK’s secret services (and the English establishment) being influenced, if not outright infiltrated, by foreign interests.
Nobody hugs. Is that the way of all Brits,
Who are these ‘Brits’ of whom you speak?
The English, (some of the Northern) Irish, Scots or Welsh?
You might as well ask if it’s the way of all Germans, Swiss, Dutch, Austrians and Luxemburgers — they all speak German, so they’re all Germans, right?
There’s no such thing as ‘Brits.’ The only people who think there are are:
- the English — who mistake English for British.
- foreigners — who mistake English for British.
Go to the wrong parts of the UK/Ireland and talk about ‘Brits’ and, if you’re lucky, some kind soul will advise you to leave … for your own good … now, before it’s too late. This is (naturally) most true of Éire and Northern Ireland (despite the Good Friday Agreement, the Troubles lasted decades, ended relatively recently and memories are long ¹), but also of the more nationalist parts of Wales and Scotland (which latter is increasingly desirous of quitting the ‘Union’ altogether).
The only occasion on which the British may be said to exist is when comparing the inhabitants of the British Isles to those of other parts of the World … or when the Irish, Scots and Welsh are called upon to die on behalf of the English.
Or when we have common cause … like when we are pointing out the obvious flaws in another culture … at which point all internecine differences are forgotten ² whilst we band together to ensure the heathens from another part of the World learn their true place in it: if you’re not British, you’re inferior … a subhuman lifeform slightly below tapeworm on the evolutionary scale — ironically, that actually is the case, but it’s coincidental, not the point here ³.
or just the upper crust?
The English aren’t into effusive displays of emotion, no.
The Irish … it depends. They are historically culturally less reserved than the English but, after centuries of oppression and genocide, that doesn’t necessarily translate to hugs and kisses — they aren’t French. Are they Irish Irish or Anglo-Irish? And even in that latter case, the social class will determine how deep the English tradition runs.
The Scots, as far as I have experienced them have not been prone to being inappropriately touchy-feely either — if they don’t know you, they aren’t going to touch you any more than would I.
The Welsh I have no experience of in their own culture … and outside it, well, people who move abroad aren’t terribly representative of their own culture to begin with and, in a foreign culture, you adapt to the local mores anyway — so, I couldn’t say.
But, as I said, it’s nonsensical to try to speak of the ‘British’ in anything other than geohistorical terms anyway and that’s not even considering all the various subcultures that make up modern England — those of Asian, Caribbean, African, Pakistani or Chinese descent (amongst many others) are as English as the next person but their familial culture may result in different behaviour in different circumstances.
That said, however, whilst we’re not as extreme as the Finns, it is largely my experience that we, none of us (English, Irish, Scots or Welsh), are in the habit of unnecessary touching nor of ludicrously flamboyant outbursts, like the rest of you — if a thing isn’t bad, it isn’t bad … it isn’t awesome
What is the youth of today going to do when it runs out of the last totally awesome vestige of hyperbole that has any remaining impact?
One way to reign in U.S. teenagers would be to treat hyperbole as a finite resource and tax it appropriately.
I recommend learning more about ‘British’ (and specifically English) history and then re-reading that article in light of the knowledge gained as a result. That program is far from accurate, let alone ‘pretty darn’ so. It’s fiction based upon a loose interpretation of a number of ‘true’ stories serving several agendas … bordering on (if not even crossing the line into) propaganda.
If you want to understand what really happened, stop watching it, learn some appropriate history and realise that the only people who ever will are those who were there at the time (i.e. not you, not me, not the writers, not the producers, nor anyone else).
It’s as historically accurate as this:
By all means, enjoy it if you must, but do not make the mistake of thinking it’s even remotely accurate — if it is, nobody alive today is likely to ever learn that ⁴ … and, more than likely, it’s wildly inaccurate.
.
—
¹ What’s more, only the English think they only lasted a few decades — they were actually the culmination of centuries of oppression and genocide … a long time coming.
² Unless you’re Irish, of course — in which case it’s not necessarily entirely certain you won’t side against the English and any Scots/Welsh collaborators.
³ Having lived in a variety of countries myself, I can categorically state that, whilst the English in particular and the ‘British’ in general are wrong about that … and there are many places I prefer to live (anywhere except the UK really) … except for when I disagree and consider some other culture superior in some way, it’s fundamentally true — except for when (I say) it isn’t, every other culture is inferior.
⁴ The establishment hasn’t survived this long by allowing its secrets to be leaked.
