by The Laird o’Thistle
October 28 2011
I saw a week or so ago that The Earl of Wessex’s television production company has now been liquidated. While the undertaking never took off in the way that Prince Edward had hoped, I am actually thankful for the often much-maligned series of programs that he made on various royal topics during the time that the company was in business. (Who else, after all, could have had such access?) I truly enjoyed the “Crown & Country” series and productions such as “Edward on Edward.” One of my regrets is to never have secured a copy, or even seen, “Windsor Restored.” Once one grants that such programs were made with a clear bias from the perspective of the current royal family, they are quite informative and well done.
Among the distinctions of the current reign – which include the still ceaseless official travels of the Queen – is the use of media. In that sense “Edward Wessex” came by his professional interest quite naturally. In recent weeks I have been re-watching a number of my collection of documentaries made on the royals over the last thirty or so years. In the process, several things have fallen into place in my mind concerning their use of the media over the last forty-some years.
The 1969 film “Royal Family” was a landmark event in the modern history of the House of Windsor. For the first time, the private life of the royal family was put on display, complete with go-carts and Scottish barbecues. The young royals – from twenty-one-year-old Charles down to five-year-old Edward – and their parents were shown in various settings from the private dining room at Windsor Castle to the village shop near Balmoral, where the Queen bought Edward an ice-cream. (See the link to this clip, below.)
The credit, or blame, for the film is said to go to Prince Phillip, who thought it would help to reconnect the royals with the British people. Hailed at the time, subsequent reflections have largely come to regard the undertaking as unwise, having in the eyes of many opened the way for the more intrusive press coverage that culminated in the paparazzi frenzy surrounding Diana Princess of Wales right up to the moment of her death. The years since Diana have in many ways been a time of the re-privatization of the lives of the members of the royal family. What struck me in my current review process, however, is how they learned from and adapted their approach to media in the wake of “Royal Family.”
The 1981 film “Treasures of the British Crown” is in some ways a sequel to “Royal Family.” Introduced by Prince Philip, it took viewers into the various royal homes, palaces, and castles to see the historical treasures of the Royal Collection. The presenter was Sir Huw Weldon of the BBC, but various members of the royal family themselves also appeared. Prince Charles talked about Balmoral and Queen Victoria’s diaries. The Queen Mother spoke of how Buckingham Palace weathered World War II and showed off her beloved Castle of Mey in Caithness. Prince Phillip told of the collection of recreational carriages dating back to George IV and gave a brief driving demonstration. H.M. the Queen described the Imperial State Crown worn by her at the State Opening of Parliament. Several key events, that have become “set pieces” in these documentaries, were included such as the annual Diplomatic Reception at Buckingham Palace, the preparation of the table for a State Banquet at Windsor, and the Ghillies Ball at Balmoral.
Milestone birthdays were popular subjects of documentaries in the 1980s. There was “The Queen at Sixty” (1986), “Charles at Forty” (1988), and – my favorite – “The Queen Mother at Ninety” (1990). In the last of these, the Queen Mother proudly showed off the gardens that she and “The King” created at Royal Lodge, Windsor.
1992’s “Elizabeth R” returned to the “royal year” format of the “Royal Family” film, but with a focus on the Queen in her official role and duties. It shows her sitting for an official portrait, presiding over an investiture, meeting her ministers during the first Gulf War, and visiting Washington during the administration of the first President Bush. (One rather poignant scene shows her trying to get someone to bring some decaffeinated coffee to a clearly somewhat confused Ronald Reagan.) The family scenes in “ER” were carefully staged, with clips from the christening of Princess Eugenie at Sandringham at Christmas, and a summer holiday scene of the Queen (with Prince William’s help) taking little Beatrice on a pony ride at Balmoral. “Elizabeth R” ends with the Ghillies Ball and shows the principal royals (the Queen Mother, the Queen, Prince Phillip, Charles, Anne, and Andrew) all laughing and having great fun joining in the traditional reels.
The early 1990s also saw two documentaries featuring Prince Charles advocating for his passions. “The Earth in Balance” (1991) was one of the first major presentations on the climate crisis. That was followed in 1994 by a look at Charles’ views on architecture. The Prince returned to this format as recently as 2010 with his documentary and book, “Harmony.”
Finally, for this review, the multi-part documentaries “Windsor Castle: A Royal Year” (2005) and “Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work” (2007) in a way brought “Royal Family” full circle. “Windsor Castle” includes not only the familiar set-pieces, but also a tour of the estate conducted by Prince Philip, and a characteristically candid interview. The Queen is shown not just as the hostess of a State Banquet, but also as the true “chatelaine” welcoming members of the castle staff who have come “a-caroling” to a glass of Christmas cheer. Similarly, in “Monarchy” the view behind the façade shows the garden parties and royal tours, but also the Queen’s (now famous) show of pique during her photo shoot with Annie Leibovitz, and the introduction of Charles and Camilla to a pair of cows named in their honor. The young royals of 1969 now recall, “with a cold sweat” according to Princess Anne, how awful they were in their early duties. (Also, in “Monarchy” Catherine Middleton makes her first appearance in the royal supporting cast.)
Despite the supposed “mistake” of 1969, I suspect that without “Royal Family” we would never have progressed to the excellent royal documentaries of the last twenty years. Earlier this year it was announced that, for the first time in decades, Buckingham Palace had agreed for just a brief clip of “Royal Family” to be shown as part of an exhibit put on by the National Portrait Gallery in celebration of the Diamond Jubilee. I, for one, hope that eventually we will get to see the whole thing once more, and be able to view it as part of the larger body of work which followed.
Yours aye,
– Ken Cuthbertson