i know so many people who watched this movie and had there views of the queen and princess di completely reversed. from di being the hero and the monarchy being the bad guys to the reverse. im not saying i view either of them as good or bad guys but people viewed di as a hero because the media told them to, and now they view the queen as a hero because this movie told them to. people depress me.
shareI hardly think this movie portrayed the Queen as a hero. Quite the opposite in fact. The best thing I can say this film did for the Queen was make her more sympathetic. They shed light on how the other side dealt with the situation (whether it was exaggerated or completely fabricated, it is entirely plausible). She's a product of her upbringing. As was mentioned in the film, some of the actions taken by the Royal Family was not out of disrespect but out of convention. For example, they didn't fly a flag at half-mast because they never do that, it wasn't because they refused to pay respect for Diana. And as mentioned in the film, there wasn't an immediate response by the Queen because she was consoling her two young grandchildren while they struggled with the death of their mother. She made a decision to be a grandmother before a queen. Was it the right decision? That's up to the individual.
However, the film made it clear that every action she took after the fact were done because of the pressure she felt from Tony Blair and the British people as well as wanting to repair any damage she have caused. To me at least, all those actions resonated as hollow. The film didn't portray the Queen as meaning any of them. It wasn't like some revelation she had that she needed to respect Diana, she did it because she felt pressure and after much convincing she finally (begrudgingly) conceded. Had she been left to her own devices, there would have been a private funeral, no speech, no flag flying at half mast, etc.
The film also shed some light on Diana. The media may have skewed the situation to portray Diana as the eternal victim and Charles as the horrible villain. In no way do I condone what Charles did, but it is apparent that both were at fault. Not to mention, the marriage was set up to fail. Good for Diana for getting out of a marriage that wasn't making her happy, however she went and aired the family's dirty laundry to the public. I know I wouldn't be happy about that. As "Tony" mentioned in the film, it did seem like she went out of her way to cause trouble/embarrass the Royal Family.
Really what I think the film showed was that there was mistakes and faults on every end of the spectrum.
I think Tony Blair expressed it quite well in the film when he stated that he saw no reason why the Queen should publicly mourn a woman that for the past several years seemed dedicated to destroying everything the Queen held dear -- the dignity of the royal family, and the monarchy.
This movie is... interesting in the sense that it shows both sides of the story; the audience finds the Queen and the rest of the monarchy quite cold in the first half, going on about what a nuisance Diana is, talking about stalking stags, and so forth, but all the same, it brings humanity to the Queen. I think that is what I find most remarkable about it.
---------------------------
www.charitysplace.com
As a person of course she had no reason to like Diana, but as the symbolic figure she is,(Even if Di had behaved badly towards the monarchy) the fact was that many of the British people were sad at Di's death, they were mourning and it was her job as queen to show some solidarity with that. And I think she didn't largely because she had grown fed up wtih Di by then and while she probably had SOME feeling of grief that she had died so young, it wasn't up to much.
I am not so sure that it made the queen seem more human..I think it did portray her as giving way on things becuase of pressure from outside, and at the end of the film, she's shown as brisk and cool and "back to normal" again.. thus showing Blair that she hasn't changed in essentials.
at the end of the film, she's shown as brisk and cool and "back to normal" again.. thus showing Blair that she hasn't changed in essentials.
Regardless of whether she "understood it", she should have realised that it was her job to show some solidarity with it and to understand that her people were grieved over Di's death.. and while I can understand her irritation with Diana, it struck me that however much you might dislike someone, the death of a young woman, the mother of your grandchildren, is a sad event, and she shoudl have felt soemthing for the woman's death. Eliz showed very little other than an irritation that her Balmoral holiday was being interrupted. From all I've read of the Queen, she's not all that close/affectionate with her own family either.
Its some time since I saw this film, but my feeling was that at the end, Blair thought that he had reached a rapport with her, and found that she was NOT any different and wanted to go on as before adn that she didn't feel any gratitude towards him for saving the situation over Di's death.
I don't disagree that she acted wrongly in the situation. It would have been more prudent to show more remorse, even if she had to fake it, particularly since it was such a big deal to the press. I'm sure she did feel something for Diana's death -- she just didn't show it the way the weeping masses wanted her to. We should never assume just because she (or anyone) is withdrawn and stoic that she doesn't feel things deeply.
You're not wrong about the ending. Blair went in expecting them to be friends. He assumed too much. She started out not being all that impressed with him ("as in, just call me 'Tony'?"), he then "managed" her, and she resented it. But the fact that she opens up to him as they are leaving the palace, and admits that she made the wrong choice, shows me that they do "become friends" of sorts.
---------------------------
www.charitysplace.com
I think that she made a bad mistake on a human level (because I dont think she DID feel very much for Di's death, and while D had her faults, she was also a young woman who had had a lot of unhappiness and was the mother of EII's grandsons.) and on a political level.. becauase she DID lose popularity a good deal over teh issue.
And I think that if she had made a short statement earlier in the week, she could have made it a "cool" one, without the sort of emotionality she clearly doesn't like..But if she'd just made a statement a day or 2 after Di's death saying tath she was very sorry to hear of it, and that there would be a state funeral etc. I think that people would have been satisifed with that...
It was because she waited till she was forced, that she then had to make the sort of statement she was clearly uncomfortable with.
From all I've ever read of her, she's not at all an emotional person. I dont mean that she feels NOTHING but I think that her affections are for very few people and even with them, she's not obviously affectionate and finds it hard to show closeness.
I agree, in an ideal world she would have acted sooner.
But if she had, she wouldn't be Elizabeth II. I've been reading an excellent biography about her ("Elizabeth the Queen") and the more I read, the more I see that her behavior in the events of "The Queen" is spot on to her personality, right down to her inability to fake things she doesn't feel. I love the fact that in her speech she used "has made some people very, very happy," implying "NOT EVERYONE LOVED HER." Brilliant.
---------------------------
www.charitysplace.com
From all I've ever read of her, she's not at all an emotional person. I dont mean that she feels NOTHING but I think that her affections are for very few people and even with them, she's not obviously affectionate and finds it hard to show closeness.
"I think Tony Blair expressed it quite well in the film when he stated that he saw no reason why the Queen should publicly mourn a woman that for the past several years seemed dedicated to destroying everything the Queen held dear -- the dignity of the royal family, and the monarchy."
That was a ludicrous statement: Diana never wanted to destroy anything but her own chains, and her sincere mistakes would not keep the queen from being very saddened by her end. All the queen hated doing was expressing any of her feelings, good or bad, to the public, because she shouldn't have had to.
[deleted]
I disagree. I've read lots of books on Diana, from her biography and the sugar stories that paint her as a suffering saint, to those (few) that admit she had flaws. I haven't read any books on Charles. It seems to me that Diana made big, dramatic statements when she was emotional, which was often, but didn't anticipate the consequences. She didn't think things through. She would win the battle at risk of losing the war. She said herself that after the Morton book came out, she thought it would be an eye opener for Charles, and that he would realize how much he loved her and fix their relationship. How stupid! What man would read that book [which blames him for her eating disorder (wrong, she learned it from her sister Sarah), admits she pushed her step-mother down the stairs (admits to attempted murder), exaggerates suicide attempts, and says derogatory things about his family] and come running back to love his wife? And the TV interview where she said Charles wasn't up to the "top job". What was that if not a hatchet job to the monarchy? The monarchy exists because of laws of succession. If Charles isn't up to the job then.......what? Skip him? Abolish the monarchy? I don't think Diana intended to hurt the monarchy, but by airing all her dirty laundry for sympathy, she certainly did.
shareShe wasn't very bright in the consequence area. The thing is any sympathy she had from other members of the Royal Family, especially the Queen, disappeared. They believed her when she denied giving information for the Morton book that mostly aimed at Charles. The panorama interview was taking a shot at the Queen and that is were the few understanding senior members totally cut her out.While most looked at her as a innocent victim, to me she was somewhat pathetic.
share[deleted]
True Saram, but I think you're incorrect about the queen not being sincere; she hated to express any of it publically, but that doesn't mean she wasn't sincerely sad or moved by Diana's death.
shareI was 17 yrs old when Di passed away I actually remember the day it happened and what I was doing when I learned of it here in the US. I of course was like many when it came to my views on Diana and the Queen like many during that time. I watched the funeral, felt bad for her 2 sons, and hated the Queen and couldn't understand why the family was so cold toward her and such. Of course I'm an American and I was 17 and didn't understand the protocals(sp?) of the English monarch and believed what I read in the media.
Fast forward to when I saw this movie, but my eyes opened up a little bit more, but instead of having hatred for the Queen and the royalty I understood it more. Especially being a mother myself I understood why the Queen did what she did and didn't fault her for it. I didn't see the Queen as a hero, but as a woman trying to protect her grandchildren and follow the rules that she had followed all her life. My views on Diana are still the same and haven't changed. Do I think this movie changed my views: yes but more for understanding POV then a complete 180.
People are stupid with random moments of brillance!
My views on Diana are still the same and haven't changed.
My views on Diana was that she married into a marriage that was doom for failure from the beginning. She married a man who didn't really love her like she wanted to be loved. She had two sons who she worshiped and proceed to raise them outside how the royals saw future monarchs to be raised. She wanted to be loved and didn't get that so she found it elsewhere just like her husband was doing for many years with Camilla, so she had affair/affairs (can't remember). She used her status as Princess and with the press to help with her charities and did many great things to help those in need. She was someone who broke royal protocol on many things which upset the crown and it was probably some just b/c she was a free spirit and another was to give it to the Queen and the monarch on how they treated her. She was just a woman in a loveless marriage that ended in a public divorce, and she used her popularity for good, until the popularity ended up killing her in the end.
I think her charities and humane works where admiral and I give her that, but as a woman I can see that she had flaws, but she was human.
People are stupid with random moments of brillance!
Ok, I see, the romanticized in her favor view based little off of the real person but the false image, got it.
share"Based off the real person?" Were you there? Did you witness the troubled marriage first hand? I'll assume not. In that case, you are as vulnerable as the rest of us to the attitudes of authors who wrote the books. My beliefs may be your propaganda and vice versa. Read as many of the books as possible and make up your own mind. I did and, I assume, you did as well.
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Did anyone ask you? Also, I can tell when someone's opinion is heavily influenced by biased information the. I have read a whole lot on the subject as a neutral person and facts and facts are what influence my opinion. From some of those facts I use fair judgement on other information that produces a more logical opinion. I can tell when someone has a slanted opinion based off of shallow, biased information.
shareDid anyone ask you?Did anyone ask me what? You posted a message on an open discussion forum and I replied. That's what forums are for.
I can tell when someone's opinion is heavily influenced by biased information . . .How do you know the source information is biased?
I have read a whole lot on the subject as a neutral person and facts and facts are what influence my opinion.Yes, "your opinion." You have yours, others have theirs. I suggest no one on this forum was privy to first hand knowledge to what transpired between Charles and Diana.
I can tell when someone has a slanted opinion based off of shallow, biased information.You can? Then you must have a crystal ball, mine's in the shop. <joke>
It was a question posed to a specific poster, not you. It wasn't an open question for anyone to answer. So, again, who asked for your 2 cents
How do you know the sourced information is biased
Uh, I can tell who's favor the information is siding with.I dare say everyone here has an opinion favoring one side or the other.
I see your posts and I KNOW your agenda when it comes to this subject.I could respectively say the same about you. We both have our opinions.
When information that is negative toward Diana is stated you are quick to discredit it.I am quick to wonder as to the objectivity of any author.
So do not come off to me like your so neutral and only stating your opinion when history of your posts suggests otherwise.Certainly my posts reflect my support for Diana rather than Charles, but, again that's my opinion.
So you admit to only questioning posts that have negative information of Diana because you have a slanted opinion. I don't have a slanted opinion in the sense that I don't question negative information and doubt positive.
Look, where getting nowhere with these silly arguments.