MovieChat Forums > The Queen (2006) Discussion > What does this line signify?

What does this line signify?


PC: Why do they hate us so much

Queen E:Not us dear

PC: Huh?

QE: Huh?

What is the significance of this? Does this mean that the movie wants the Queen to be portrayed as ignorant of the peoples feelings?

reply

[deleted]

It's the part where the queen and charles were on the jeep. The queen was driving...

reply

[deleted]

Quite so, mhansen...

The line speaks to a rather astonishing array of various hits taken by Charles, over nearly his entire adult life. Not to say he hasn't deserved some criticism for certain decisions over the years. As well as some for his more peculiar eccentricities (an odd bird, even by Royal Family standards)...

The list is nearly endless, really... But to name just a few... Attacks on his campaign against modern design (architecture in particular)... Before Diana: unfounded rumors that he was gay; or, conversely, exaggerated stories of his being a womanizing cad... Serious, relentless discussions over how to possibly devise a way for the crown to skip over him and pass to his son... Snide "wishes" for the Queen's long life, specifically because Charles would presumably make such a horrible monarch...

IMHO, the man deserves a great deal of credit for simply pushing on through all these years of abuse without being driven utterly mad.





Quid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?

reply

[deleted]

Ah. I never looked at it that way, actually.

I like that narrow interpretation much more than my broader one. It speaks much better of the queen, I think... Looking at it the way I was, it sounded like a low blow (coming from the man's own mother and all)...

Thanks!










Quid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?

reply

You make some great points here, and I am no Charles fan. But he really did have to put up with a lot over the years. He's actually earned some of my respect--partly because of how he handled Diana's death and partly for his support of organic farming. I still despise how he treated Diana during their marriage but he has some strong and good qualities.

reply

[deleted]

Re the Royal We - or in this case, the royal 'us' - that would be an unlikely joke, since it's Charles who says 'us'; and only a sovereign can refer to him/herself with "we/our/us." The dig from Mummy ("not 'us' - you") is clearly, I think, the meaning of the line.

The plurality of sovereignty is first found in the (Jewish) Bible, in phrases where G-d is talking to himself and says things like, "Let us make man in our image". This is King's English for "Let me make man in my image." Likewise, in English translations of the Christian Testament (but it's also found in the Latin and Greek versions), when Yeshua Bar-Yosef speaks in his capacity as the Son of Man, he speaks Common English (I/my/me) but when he speaks in his capacity as King of Kings, he speaks the King's English - as in "Give us today our daily bread"; which is King's English for "Give me today my daily bread."

Thus, historically, when the monarch spoke as sovereign, he/she spoke the King's/Queen's English. Otherwise, he/she spoke common English like everybody else.

Elizabeth I famously called herself "I" in her famous speech to the militia at Tilbury. By saying 'I' instead of 'We,' she was telling the people that she was no different than any of them. This "I am one of you and we are all in this together" has been a classic motif in the British royal family for centuries, and may well be the single-most important reason that monarchy survives in Britain.

Victoria was the last monarch to use the royal We in public. Her son, Edward VII, very famously and pointedly called himself "I".

Edward VIII, his grandson (whom I like to call "The Once and Former King"), and Wallis Simpson made a pun on the royal "We" by spelling it "WE" and using it as an acronym for "Wallis & Edward."

Elizabeth II, like her father, George VI; grandfather, George V; and great-grandfather, Edward VII; has also avoided the royal We. But she also thinks of "I" as sounding a little selfish. So, she typically says "one" in formal speeches, and "I" when she talks to people in her walkabouts and in less formal speeches(especially speeches like her annual Christmas Message, when she very much wants to talk to people to people directly, in their homes, like any normal person would).

She also used to be very famous for including Philip in her speeches, especially when he was with her at an event, with the phrase, "My Husband and I." That was part of the speech to which you refer.

The occasion was a speech at the Guild Hall in 1972 that coincided with their 25th wedding anniversary. "My Lord Mayor," the Queen said. "On this, of all days, I feel it is appropriate to begin my speech with the words, 'My Husband and I.'" After laughter and applause from the audience, the Queen continued, "We - and by that, I mean *both* of us ..." I forget what came after that, but there was a *lot* of laughter.

You are right to say that respect is not love. But the Queen has garnered both. She is respected by almost everyone. And she is loved, or beloved, by at least a majority of her fellow citizens.

Note the term "British Subject" now applies only to people born in Ireland prior to 1949, who retain certain rights in relation to the UK (just as people born in the Philippines prior to the date of independence in 1946 remained citizens of the United States afterward, as well as becoming citizens of the Philippines); and a very small group of other people who are designated "British Subjects Without Citizenship."

The British Nationality Act of 1981 came into force on 1 January 1983. As of that date, except for people born in Ireland before the Republic of Ireland Act came into force in 1949, there are no more British Subjects. There are instead "British Citizens," "British Overseas Territory Citizens," and "British Overseas Citizens," depending upon where in the world they actually live.

The people in the Falkland Islands, for example, have the status of "British Citizen" under the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983.

reply

Check this thread: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436697/board/thread/196352531.

reply

No doubt the line signified that Charles was the one hated, not the entire Royal family. Remember one thing, Chuck lost the public during the divorce. Practically the whole world took Di's side of things. And to top it all off, she dies in a horrific car accident. That made the public hate him even more.

To this day I still wonder how he found Camilla attractive over Di, but he did and if he had been allowed to marry Camilla from day one there wouldn't have been such a poor public opinion of him. Think back to the 1990s. Because of Charles' torrid affairs there was a strong movement that he wouldn't be fit to be king had the Queen passed on. Luckily that never happened.

As time has healed, he has slowly gotten a decent reputation back. The public forgave him and aren't as hard on him as they used to be. Heck, he MARRIED Camilla, who would have thought that? But remember one thing, in 1997 Charles was not adored by the public because of how he treated Di.

reply

Interesting discussion. This is one line that's always intrigued me as well. As I see it though, she's referring to herself. Charles says why do they hate us, when the Queen feels it's her that they, the public, dislike.

I can almost imagine her adding to her response to say, "not US dear, ME." The public after all wasn't much happy with the Royal Family's initial reaction to Diana's death, and I think they held the Queen, rather than any other of the family, responsible for that stance.

reply

I don't think that is what it is supposed to mean. We he say's they hate us, she responds not "us" dear because she feels that the family is being grouped together because of him. At that point she believes the criticisms are directed more so at him, with her being blamed merely by association, which is sort of true. She does not believe at that point people truly blame her.

reply

I loved Diana and what I remembered about the day she died and the days afterwards, all the public, who had adored her, just wanted the royal family to acknowledge her death and the loss the people of the World of an extraordinary and kind person she was to everyone. It took them way too long to respond. I get that they were trying to protect William and Harry. The various polls that were taken telling the Royal family they were no longer needed in modern society since the Queen has no say in how her Country is run. Parliament and the Prime Minister make those decision while the Queen sign off on the documents. Of course, after they came out to thank the people for their well wishes, the flowers, the gifts the tides turned and they were no longer hated elitist. I think the one memory that I will never forget was the letter that Harry wrote to his mother that was placed on her casket Mummy. They are famous, have privilege but on that day they were a 15 year old and a 13 year old mourning the loss of their mother.

I never like the way the royal family treated her from day one. It seemed like the Queen never liked her and I think the one person who helped her in the beginning was the Queen Mother. I think the more the Queen disregarded Diana, the more they loved her.

This was an excellent movie and Helen Mirren was outstanding and deserved all the awards she received.

reply

Agreed with everything.

The photographers IMHO helped to cause Diana's death.



Amanda Bynes is hot and Lindsay Lohan is not.
Profile pic: Courtney Thorne-Smith.

reply

If you did research and read things that weren't pandering to the saint Diana image,you might have different opinions. Also, when have you ever seen the royal family publicly balling over anyone that died. They didn'tdidn'owe you anything more than the initial statement, Diana was an ex royal, she was not owed any royal designation. Why would this family express anymore than a statement, that made life a living hell while she was alive?.Diana alienated herself from the royal family with her antics, lying and airing private business. How does a women, who grew up with and The royal family, and had a sister who dated Charles be so clueless about the life she would lead?

Also, the Queen, princess Margaret, and in the very beginning the Queen Mother were very supportive.Members of royal family insisted that they would continue a relationship with her even after the separation. They gave her the benefit of the doubt when she lied and about providing information to Bashir. She lost whatever support, rightly, after doing that cring-worty panorama interview.

She was very critical about Camilla ruining her marriage, while ruining SEVERAL marriages herself. She was always on the out's with friends or her own family.

reply

If you did research and read things that weren't pandering to the saint Diana image,you might have different opinions.
Yes, might have different opinions. So much as been written by those supporting Diana and those supporting Charles it's hard to find the truth. It will not come to light during Charles' lifetime, if ever.

"A .22 caliber mind in a .45 caliber world"

reply

Yes, of course I have. History has always been my favorite subject, especially the history of the United States and the United Kingdom (which includes all of the kingdom, England, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Commonwealth w/ Canada and Australia). I have read at least 40 books on the Royal family, a large majority regarding Queen Elizabeth II, a few about Prince Charles and general history of the Royal family dated back to the 1400’s. The only thing I read about Princess Diana was a cover story on a magazine such as People. I’ve never read any book regarding Princess Diana and really don’t want to because I don’t believe them. Those that wrote negative books on her (pro prince Charles) and those that wrote negative books on Prince Charles (pro Princess Diana). I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Both were at fault for the deterioration of their marriage.

But, no one knows what actually happened in their marriage. And, truthfully, I don’t care anymore, she’s dead and he married the love of his life. My aunt did research on our family’s history and genealogy, she found out that we are distant cousins to the Windsor family. If fact, both sides of my family are both Irish and Scottish and were Nobles going as far back as the 1300’s. We once owned a castle in Scotland, because they were nobles and King Edward I gave them that land. The castle still stands and stayed within the family until 1983. It has since been purchased privately and at one point was used for weddings by one of the owners.

Clearly, Charles should never have married Diana if he didn’t love her, which I am fairly sure he didn’t. He has loved Camilla from the day he met her and because he kept delaying marrying and proposing, she got pissed and started dating other men. She met and married Andrew Parker Bowles and had two children. Basically, giving him the finger. You had your chance and you blew it buddy.

Unfortunately, your knowledge of the Windsor family is lacking. Both Queen Elizabeth I and her sister, Princess Margaret (since she was going through her own drama, she probably didn't care either way) never like Diana (or for that matter Sarah Ferguson) and in all my research (and my aunts) it was only the Queen Mother who actually met with Diana every day showing her how to one day be Queen, and how she should be “presented” to the World. I still believe the Queen Mother truly liked and cared for Diana, up until some of the nonsense, the tabloids and etc. Diana was originally afraid of the press and then she eventually learned how to control and manipulate them and make the Queen, Prince Phillip and Prince Charles look bad. That put a rift between her and Prince Phillip and somewhat the Queen. They threw her into the deep end of the Ocean and only taught her how to dog paddle. That was unfair of them to do to a very naive 20 year old girl. Half the time she looked like she would drown.

Diana should never have married him, she also was not in love with him (probably liked the idea of marrying a Prince, who, come on, was just a unlimited gold card with ears) when they married and I think she had the hope that she would eventually love him and naively thought that he would grow to love her. In the beginning I felt sorry for her, she was way in over her head and didn’t know the Windsor family at all. And for that, I do blame them. The history of the monarchy is a King and/or future King in the tradition, always marries a virgin. Clearly, that wasn’t Camilla and why the Queen and Prince Phillip pushed their eldest son towards a 20 year old virgin. So, their children would be pure.

She craved attention throughout their marriage from Charles and Charles generally ignored her. So, she knew the press would follow her everywhere and she used them. She was no longer that naive 20 year old girl/young woman. She was very angry, hurt, disgusted at the Royal family. When Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillips discovered that Charles had been having an affair with Camilla and she was still married to her husband, Andrew. They were angry and appalled by his behavior and they demanded that he end it but he didn’t. I believe that’s when Diana resented the whole family and reached her point of any tolerance for them. So, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. He called Camilla on their wedding night. (And that has been confirmed by Charles himself).

The royal family is enriched with scandals, giving birth out of wedlock, controversies since the Kingdom started. We, know about King Henry VIII, King Edward I (Longshanks), his son King Edward II, Queen Elizabeth I, her cousin Queen Mary (Mary Queen of Scots), King Charles II, King James I and other Kings and Queens...the men and women they loved, the mistresses they kept, the murders they committed for power and control, incest and the children they hated. I’ll admit the family and their rich history I find intriguing, from the Windsor, Tutors and the Stuarts, etc.

What I remember the most about Princess Diana was her compassion for those in need, sick children, and dying men with AIDS/HIV. I remember the good things she did for others while swimming in that small fishbowl of the royal family and how out of touch they were with the reality of those the Queen reigns over. Queen Elizabeth learned from her father King George that the Windsor’s don’t air their dirty laundry in public and the more she tried to control that in her own family, the more it collapsed around her.

I still believe it took the Queen far too long to speak with “her people.” They had to have seen the coverage of those who mourned her death (outside the view of her grandchildren), who were weeping in the streets and seemed to love Diana and why she was called "The People's Princess" they loved her unconditionally. The Queen knew from speaking with the Prime Minister Tony Blair what was happening and she ignored his advice. I had no sympathy for her and the predicament she placed squarely on her own shoulders.

Diana was no angel and I never said she was. She learned pretty fast on how to played the victim and she did it extremely well, she had most of the support from the public in the UK and outside the UK with regard to the end of their marriage.

reply

I will extend a courtesy that I wasn't given and not write a nearly 10 paragraph reply filled with superfluous, bragging information that nobody asked for.

Unfortunately, your knowledge of the Windsor family is lacking. Both Queen Elizabeth I and her sister, Princess Margaret (since she was going through her own drama, she probably didn't care either way) never like Diana (or for that matter Sarah Ferguson) and in all my research (and my aunts) it was only the Queen Mother who actually met with Diana every day showing her how to one day be Queen, and how she should be “presented” to the World. I still believe the Queen Mother truly liked and cared for Diana, up until some of the nonsense, the tabloids and etc. Diana was originally afraid of the press and then she eventually learned how to control and manipulate them and make the Queen, Prince Phillip and Prince Charles look bad. That put a rift between her and Prince Phillip and somewhat the Queen. They threw her into the deep end of the Ocean and only taught her how to dog paddle. That was unfair of them to do to a very naive 20 year old girl. Half the time she looked like she would drown.


No, not really. Princess Margaret and Diana were actually very good friends almost up to the very end. When the Prince of Whales and Diana were separated, she made it clear to Charles that she was going to continue socializing with Diana. Due to the fact that she went through her own troubles and affairs, she had a somewhat vicarious thrill seeing Diana sneaking in her lovers into Kensington Palace. They occasionally would go to certain engagements and parties together.What ruined that relationship was Diana's cringe-worthy Panorama interview in which Diana questioned Charles fitness for the throne and declared she wanted to be the Queen of peoples Hearts, a slight to Margaret's sister, The Queen.The Queen, while not intervening into Charles affair with Camilla, she did indeed sympathize. She was not one to interfere in the personal lives of her children. Diana was extended a lot of special privileges to try and make her life easier. But, then again the Panorama interview ended Diana's place in the Royal family and her marriage to Charles. You take on the situation is tainted with your false view of Diana and the particularly juvenile ideas you have about how Diana should have been and how the Royal Family treated her. The Queen mother tried to help her in the very beginning but Diana immaturity and silliness ruined that. I am not absolving Charles any blame but Diana brought a lot of misery on herself. As I said, she was with several different married men, and ruined those marriages.

I still believe it took the Queen far too long to speak with “her people.” They had to have seen the coverage of those who mourned her death (outside the view of her grandchildren), who were weeping in the streets and seemed to love Diana and why she was called "The People's Princess" they loved her unconditionally. The Queen knew from speaking with the Prime Minister Tony Blair what was happening and she ignored his advice. I had no sympathy for her and the predicament she placed squarely on her own shoulders.

The thing is, she should not have had to speak to the people at all. Diana was an ex-daughter in law who caused a lot off issues even up to the day she died.She was not obligated to say anything for a group of people balling there eyes out for a false image of a women.I say f%ck the peoples feelings, they did not know Diana personally or at all, it was an embarrassing image for the U.k and many people believe that in hindsight. It was a personal matter that had nothing to do with "the people"

reply

No, not really. Princess Margaret and Diana were actually very good friends almost up to the very end. When the Prince of Whales and Diana were separated, she made it clear to Charles that she was going to continue socializing with Diana. Due to the fact that she went through her own troubles and affairs, she had a somewhat vicarious thrill seeing Diana sneaking in her lovers into Kensington Palace. They occasionally would go to certain engagements and parties together.What ruined that relationship was Diana's cringe-worthy Panorama interview in which Diana questioned Charles fitness for the throne and declared she wanted to be the Queen of peoples Hearts, a slight to Margaret's sister, The Queen.The Queen, while not intervening into Charles affair with Camilla, she did indeed sympathize. She was not one to interfere in the personal lives of her children. Diana was extended a lot of special privileges to try and make her life easier. But, then again the Panorama interview ended Diana's place in the Royal family and her marriage to Charles. You take on the situation is tainted with your false view of Diana and the particularly juvenile ideas you have about how Diana should have been and how the Royal Family treated her. The Queen mother tried to help her in the very beginning but Diana immaturity and silliness ruined that. I am not absolving Charles any blame but Diana brought a lot of misery on herself. As I said, she was with several different married men, and ruined those marriages.


Do you know anything about Margaret at all? Have you read a book on any member of the royal family? Because I think she had a particularly, unhappy life. I read two books on her that contained numerous things that upset the Queen Mother, the Queen and Princess Margaret. Margaret had had a bitter feud with the Princess of Wales that went on for years, until Diana's death and I don't think that they ever resolve those hurtful things they both said about each other. Margaret was close to her father King George VI and when he died suddenly her whole world was destroyed. She found comfort in a man named Peter Townsend. They fell in love and he eventually proposed. She wanted to marry him, but needed to get permission from the Queen and Queen Mother but unfortunately Parliament has a say as does the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill who told her it was impossible, because Townsend was divorced and had children. So, as a dutiful daughter of the former King she obeyed her orders and broke up the engagement and Townsend, who was still active in the military and was sent some place far away (I don’t remember where) Churchill demanded it. The feud between Diana and Margaret started when Diana came across love letters that Townsend wrote to Margaret, and made fun of them, which sent Margaret into an angry state. I don’t know why Diana felt the need to do that, but it most likely came from Charles ignoring her, the Queen disregarding her and wanted them to hurt as much as they hurt her, they couldn’t put up with her hurt her. On both women it was childish behavior. She had hurt feeling about the royal family and I just think she wanted to hurt someone else. The more Diana said bad things in the press regarding Charles, the more PM hatred grew.

Eventually, Diana towards the end of her marriage to Charles, she had for months gone through her personal correspondences from the Queen, the Queen Mother, Charles (and she did find love letters from Charles to Camilla and Camilla to him) and Margaret and burnt them all. That upset the whole family and why their relationship deteriorated fairly fast. I am just assuming that those correspondences would be or might be historical documents. The two books never said why they were so mad and/or if they would eventually become important to the Queen and the Queen Mother. Princess Margaret in retaliation burnt letters Diana had written to the Queen and other members of the royal family. I think they all were being very childish.

There was no thaw between the two women even in death with the full extent of the schism demonstrated on the day of Diana’s funeral. As her flower coffin passed the Royal Family, the Queen, Prince Phillip, Prince Charles and other senior members bowed their heads in respect. However, Margaret, in contrast, had “just looked up straight ahead” and remained upright, upstanding and refused to give any respect towards Diana in death. I believe she wished she didn’t have to go. I’m sure she disliked Diana brother, Charles Spencer comments he made in his eulogy to his sister, specifically the line “who proved in the last year that she needed no royal title to continue to generate her particular brand of magic.” Diana was forced to give up the title "Her Royal Highness" after she divorced Prince Charles last year. He continued… "There is no doubt that she was looking for a new direction in her life at this time. She talked endlessly of getting away from England, mainly because of the treatment that she received at the hands of the newspapers. I don't think she ever understood why her genuinely good intentions were sneered at by the media, why there appeared to be a permanent quest on their behalf to bring her down. It is baffling."

"My own and only explanation is that genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum. It is a point to remember that of all the ironies about Diana, perhaps the greatest was this - a girl given the name of the ancient goddess of hunting was, in the end, the most hunted person of the modern age.

Princess Margaret was a chain smoker and eventually had an operation to remove a portion of her left lung. At the time when Diana became a member of the royal family, Margaret was a full out alcoholic, coming close to having a nervous breakdown and ill. She went to her private retreat in the Caribbean returning occasionally for her duty to her family obligations. Margaret was a mess, her private life was out of control so there was no way that Margaret would have ever helped Diana adjust to this new world for her. Which is why I continue to believe they threw her into the deep end of the Ocean where she threaded water and didn’t provided her with a life preserver or raft. This wasn’t her world, it seemed she hadn’t a clue on what her responsibilities and obligation were to the royal family [And, it appears that they continue this trend with Williams’s wife Kate. She also seemed out of sorts with her obligation. But SHE has a husband who was very supportive, willing and cared enough to show her, whereas Charles couldn’t be bothered.] I’m glad that Prince William learned from the mistakes that both parents made.

There is no need to respond to this post since we both have different opinions on the royal family, particularly Diana. I know yours and now you know mine.

Good Bye 

reply

Do you know anything about Margaret at all? Have you read a book on any member of the royal family? Because I think she had a particularly, unhappy life. I read two books on her that contained numerous things that upset the Queen Mother, the Queen and Princess Margaret. Margaret had had a bitter feud with the Princess of Wales that went on for years, until Diana's death and I don't think that they ever resolve those hurtful things they both said about each other. Margaret was close to her father King George VI and when he died suddenly her whole world was destroyed. She found comfort in a man named Peter Townsend. They fell in love and he eventually proposed. She wanted to marry him, but needed to get permission from the Queen and Queen Mother but unfortunately Parliament has a say as does the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill who told her it was impossible, because Townsend was divorced and had children. So, as a dutiful daughter of the former King she obeyed her orders and broke up the engagement and Townsend, who was still active in the military and was sent some place far away (I don’t remember where) Churchill demanded it. The feud between Diana and Margaret started when Diana came across love letters that Townsend wrote to Margaret, and made fun of them, which sent Margaret into an angry state. I don’t know why Diana felt the need to do that, but it most likely came from Charles ignoring her, the Queen disregarding her and wanted them to hurt as much as they hurt her, they couldn’t put up with her hurt her. On both women it was childish behavior. She had hurt feeling about the royal family and I just think she wanted to hurt someone else. The more Diana said bad things in the press regarding Charles, the more PM hatred grew.


I know more than you do because it is known that Margaret and Diana were friends. If you really knew about her then you would know that 1.She could have indeed married Townsend, she would have to give up her place in the line of succession. Margaret didn't want loose her lifestyle, that is the real reason she didn't marry him.

Eventually, Diana towards the end of her marriage to Charles, she had for months gone through her personal correspondences from the Queen, the Queen Mother, Charles (and she did find love letters from Charles to Camilla and Camilla to him) and Margaret and burnt them all. That upset the whole family and why their relationship deteriorated fairly fast. I am just assuming that those correspondences would be or might be historical documents. The two books never said why they were so mad and/or if they would eventually become important to the Queen and the Queen Mother. Princess Margaret in retaliation burnt letters Diana had written to the Queen and other members of the royal family. I think they all were being very childish.

You are so full of shlt, Princess Margaret was the only one doing the burning of letters. She burned a lot of her mothers letters and not just the one's between Diana and the Queen Mother.

here is no need to respond to this post since we both have different opinions on the royal family, particularly Diana. I know yours and now you know mine.

The problem with your opinions, is that they are not based off correct facts. There is so much wrong with your information and that is probably why you do not want me to respond back. Take the cowards way out.
Good bye

reply

I always thought it was a dig at him. "Not us, dear, YOU".

reply