The royals - Kitty Kelley [111]
“It’s terribly important people should understand it’s not a film about ceremonies. What they really want to know about is what the Queen does, what goes on inside the Palace, what the job consists of…. It won’t be a formal type, but more of a film about people than buildings and ceremonies. The object of any documentary is to show people as they really are.” He reassessed his view after seeing the effect of his film on people: “Monarchy is PR…. Public relations—a focus for public interest—is what it is all about.”
The anthropologist David Attenborough had told the producer that the documentary would kill the monarchy. “The whole institution depends on mystique and the tribal chief in his hut,” he said. “If any member of the tribe ever sees inside the hut, then the whole system of the tribal chiefdom is damaged and the tribe eventually disintegrates.”
The television cameras stayed in the Queen’s hut for seventy-five days and even accompanied her on a state visit to Chile. More than forty hours were filmed at a cost of $350,000. The 105-minute* documentary, entitled Royal Family (but nicknamed Corgi and Beth), was seen by forty million Britons in June 1969. It was shown again in December, which is why the Queen canceled her annual Christmas Day message that year. “Enough is enough,” said the Palace, but twenty thousand Britons disagreed and wrote letters protesting her not delivering the yuletide address.
“The most exciting film ever made for television” was how the BBC commentator introduced the show to viewers. Then they watched their Queen and Prince Charles prepare a salad at a family barbecue while Prince Philip and Princess Anne grilled sausages and steaks.
The Queen tested the salad dressing by poking her little finger into the mixture and licking it. She grimaced. “Oh, too oily,” she said. She added more vinegar, pronounced the dressing perfect, and walked over to her husband. “Well, the salad is finished,” she said.
“Well done,” said Prince Philip. “This, as you will observe, is not.”
In another scene, the Queen, known to her subjects as the richest woman in the world, fingers a fabulous necklace of rubies. She says how much she likes it and that it came to Queen Victoria from the ruler of Persia. Then, in a puzzled voice, she turns to her lady-in-waiting and asks, “I have actually worn this, haven’t I?”
Minutes later the monarch, who supposedly never handles money, goes into a shop with her four-year-old son, Prince Edward, to buy him a sweet. She pays, saying she has just enough cash on her to cover the bill.
In another scene, the Queen laughs as she asks her family: “How do you keep a regally straight face when a footman tells you: ‘Your Majesty, your next audience is with a gorilla’? It was an official visitor, but he looked just like a gorilla.” The Queen said she could not hide her laughter.
“Pretend to blow your nose,” advised Prince Charles, “and keep the handkerchief up to your face.”
The Queen did not need to censor the film beforehand, although her husband worried that she might be concerned about the scene where Prince Charles shows his youngest brother how to tune a cello. In tightening the instrument, Charles breaks the A string, which grazes Edward’s cheek, stinging him to tears. After screening the film, the Queen said, “It’s the sort of thing that can happen to anyone.” She pronounced the film fine just as it was.
Most of the critics agreed, including the Times, which editorialized about the importance of the documentary in showing the advantages of the British system of monarchy, especially when the sovereign is trained in the duties of royalty and is surrounded by a family with similar training and tradition of service.
“A romp with royalty,” raved one critic. “Everyone deserves a bow for this show.”
“The refurbishing of the royal image that has been going on for some time now has been managed with some skill,” wrote William Hardcastle, a former newspaper editor, “and skill in this