Today marks the paperback release of “Spare” – the tell all biography written by the Duke of Sussex.
It’s now been some years since the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced their decision to step back as working members of the Royal family. Now that the dust – to at least some extent – has settled – it’s possible to review that decision, and the controversies that followed with an open mind and a level head. In this two-part podcast, this is what we have tried to do.
In part 1, Royal commentator James Taylor and history writer Gareth Streeter discuss:
Harry and Meghan’s engagement and initial clash with the media
The Royal wedding and the huge optimism that surrounded it
The couple’s early married life as working Royals
Their decision to step back
The “Sandringham summit” and the Royal family’s response
The controversial Oprah Winfrey interview
How Royal titles work and the reason that the couple’s children were not initially a Prince and Princess
In part 2 we discuss:
The Netflix series and the background (as far as we understand it) of the deal
The treatment of the Duchess of Sussex in aspects of the UK media and how this compares with the way the Princess of Wales is discussed
The importance of source criticism in dealing with any media
The book Spare, and why Gareth got too angry to finish it
Harry’s bravery and honesty in being vulnerable about his mental health
The book’s strengths and weaknesses
These episodes are also available from wherever you get your podcasts.
New podcast episode: did the Princes in the Tower...
Why was Elizabeth Woodville banished from court?
Leaps of logic and forced conclusions: my take on...
The singular wit of the Queen Mother: Gareth Russe...
RHG creator releases new book on Arthur, the forgo...
I’m not gonna lie. The Crown is one of the best things to hit screens in a generation.
I was hooked within minutes of it “dropping” in 2016. Season one was almost flawless. Its successor gave a Royal history geek almost everything they could wish for. And, following a shaky third series, season four saw the show rebound with a right-royal gusto.
But there are big problems.
With historical fiction, the clue is in the name. It does not need to follow all the facts. Those that know a great deal about the period must turn a blind eye to poetic license and dramatic liberties.
But there must be some boundaries. When scriptwriters entirely distort the character or reputation of a real human being, they have gone beyond what is acceptable. This applies to dramatizations of the medieval era. But it has a special importance when the people in question are still alive.
Here are just four of the occasions where the Crown season four crossed the line.
Did the Royals really subject visitors to the ‘Balmoral tests’?
The Balmoral tests
In the second episode, the newly elected Margaret Thatcher and her husband Dennis travel to Balmoral to spend time as the guests of the Queen. Here they are subjected to the “Balmoral tests”. This series of secret challenges allows the Royal family to judge whether a newcomer fits in with their way of life.
In the episode, the Thatchers fail spectacularly. Being from more humble stock, Margaret is ignorant of upper-class country life. She turns up in the wrong kit, over-dresses for pre-dinner drinks and is unfamiliar with the parlour games the Royals revel in. Rather than help Margaret address her “shortcomings” the Royal family delight at her ignorance. The deer hunt, it would seem, is not the only blood sport they excel at.
What rot.
There’s no doubt that the two women were from radically different backgrounds. The show’s creators had every right to draw attention to that. And that’s hard to do visually. Both spoke with a posh voice and wore expensive clothes. Stressing the difference in custom and etiquette was, in some ways, a clever device for emphasising the difference in upbringing.
But it was exaggerated almost to the point of caricature. Thatcher did not just step out of her father’s humble shop in Grantham and walk into Downing Street. She had studied at Oxford, sat as an MP for twenty years and served as a cabinet minister. She was not totally ignorant of the upper classes.
Yes, Thatcher probably didn’t look forward to her trips to Balmoral. Her authorised biographer, Charles Moore, wrote that she ‘endured’ rather than ‘enjoyed’ the visits. And she may, on one occasion, have brought the wrong shoes. But to suggest that her entire first trip was an act of sabotage by the Royal family flies in the face of the widespread testimony that they go to some length to ensure people are comfortable in their presence.
After leaving office, Margaret Thatcher spoke lavishly about the Queen’s humanity. And what, specifically, did the former Prime Minister praise in interview after interview? The Queen’s ability to “put people at their ease.”
Why is the Queen Mother portrayed as cold and callous?
2. The callous Queen Mother and her hidden nieces
I haven’t enjoyed the portrayal of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother in any of the Crown’s four seasons. The former Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is well attested to have been warm, bubbly and fun loving. That’s yet to come across.
But in episode seven, her portrayal goes from cold to outright cruel. Princess Margaret discovers that her maternal cousins, long thought dead, were secretly living in a mental institution. Margaret later confronts her mother. Under duress, the dowager Queen reveals that her nieces were hidden from view upon George VI and Elizabeth ascending the throne. It could never be known that there was mental instability within her family. Such knowledge would have threatened the security of the monarchy.
Seriously?
Fortunately, historian Gareth Russell has stepped up to the plate. In a compelling facebook post he points out that the dates simply don’t add up. The Queen Mother became Queen in 1936. Her nieces were not placed into an institution until 1941.
Russell also points out that Elizabeth was from a large family. Her brother was much older. She probably believed that her nieces had died and had no idea they were still alive until she was in her 80s. Once it was brought to her attention, she sent money to the home where they lived.
Changing facts can be acceptable in fiction. Sometimes it’s necessary to make the narrative flow. But maligning a real person in the process can never be acceptable.
3.Thatcher asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament in 1990
Before the season aired, I was worried about the portrayal of Thatcher’s relationship with the Queen. But, barring the Balmoral tests, it was much better presented than I expected.
The two women were the same age, but from different walks of life. They didn’t particularly understand one another. But there was mutual respect.
But I was taken aback when, during her conflict with her own MPs, Margaret Thatcher asked the Queen to dissolve Parliament. In the UK, dissolving Parliament (which prior to 2010 was something that happened under the Royal prerogative but at the request of the Prime Minister) means calling a general election. In a general election, all MPs, and therefore the Prime Minister, is up for re-election.
However, I think the series writers were confusing this with “proroguing Parliament.” This is when Parliament ceases to sit until the beginning of its new session but the government remains in place. It is implied in the series, that without trouble from her pesky MPs, Thatcher could survive.
It is not credible that Thatcher would try and drag the Queen into an internal party dispute. Besides, Thatcher was facing an election for leadership of the Conservative Party. Getting rid of Parliament would have been no help to her. It was not a Parliamentary process.
In the context of fiction this is probably acceptable. It shouldn’t really be on my list. But it irked me. So it’s staying put.
The series failed to show balance in the “wars of the Waleses”
4.The relationship between Charles and Diana
As someone that grew up in the 80s and 90s, I have heard every rumour about the relationship of the Prince and Princess of Wales that there is to tell. In reality, only a handful of people ever knew the truth of it.
The Crown made the creative decision to base the series on the often-rumoured premise that Charles never really ended his relationship with Camilla. This may be true. Or it might be, as others have claimed, that he did not reignite the affair until Diana had already started committing adultery. We just don’t know.
Fiction does not have footnotes. I understand that they had to go one way or another. And some of the portrayal is clearly based on the legendary tapes that Diana indirectly supplied to Andrew Morton.
But at the very least, it’s still only one side of the story. Much more effort should have been made to show balance. Diana’s own family have been uneasy with the portrayal of her in the series.
Throughout season four Charles comes across as petulant and unlikeable. Yet, no one is a two-dimensional character. The writers of the Crown cannot know the truth. Greater care, balance and generosity should have been shown.
*
“Oh come on,” I hear you cry. “The Crown is fiction. It’s not their fault if people believe it.”
Yes. And no. The Crown includes encyclopaedic-style facts at the end of episodes. This suggests it is grounded in fact. They refuse to include a disclaimer (which, by the way, are common when shows depict the lives of real people).
And regardless of whether people should believe it, it is clear that people do believe it. Many (including those who are well educated) simply believe that “if it wasn’t true, they wouldn’t be allowed to put it on TV”). Producers know this. The fact it’s “based on truth” is something that adds to the appeal and bolsters viewing figures.
The Crown is brilliant TV. The attention to detail is outstanding. It deserves every award it receives and more besides. But adding a tiny disclaimer would do nothing to diminish its success. And it might do everything to protect real people from a distorted reputation.
Royal History Geeks caught up with Dr Owen Emmerson, residents historian and castle supervisor at Hever Castle.
The magnificent Hever Castle was the home of Anne Boleyn. We spoke to Owen about the huge role it has played in history and its importance in the lives of legendary figures.
We also talked about Hever’s vast collection of portraiture and explored the elusive question of what Anne Boleyn may have actually looked like.
Lady Margaret Beaufort was the mother of Henry VII. She played a vital role in establishing the Tudor dynasty on the throne of England. In recent years, she has been much maligned in popular fiction.
I am joined by two authors and experts to discuss the real Margaret Beaufort. How accurate are the depictions we see in fiction? What were her real qualities? What is her legacy?
Nicola Tallis is the author of ‘Uncrowned Queen’, a recent full-length biography on Margaret. Buy Nicola’s wonderful book.
The portrait of Anne helped Henry make up his mind to marry her
Ever get that feeling that people are making fun of your appearance behind your back? If so, spare a thought for poor Anne of Cleves. She’s been trying to shake off that feeling for almost 500 years.
Anne and Henry VIII’s non-love story is well known to most Royal History Geeks. After the death of his beloved Jane Seymour, Henry allowed his ministers to open international negotiations for a new bride. Each minister had their own political and religious agenda. Cromwell eventually triumphed by convincing Henry of the virtues of an alliance with the almost-protestant province of Cleves. The beauty of its princess was a major draw. Hans Holbein, the great artist of the Tudor court, was dispatched to Cleves to paint Anne’s portrait. The result did not disappoint. Henry fell instantly in love.
But his delusions were quickly shattered.
Upon meeting his new bride, Henry expressed dismay. “I like her not,” he is supposed to have proclaimed. While it was too late to postpone the nuptials, he quickly informed his doctor that the union remained unconsummated. He complained that Anne had been unable to arouse him and that her body was undesirable. Even her personal hygiene, Henry suggested, left much to be desired. He never actually used the term ‘Flanders mare’ to describe her. But it’s easy to see why it stuck.
Anne’s side of the story remains a mystery. It’s possible that she was no great beauty. Most people aren’t. But there are several reasons to think that she was far from ugly. Here’s just a few of them.
When Henry met her, he kissed her
Upon arriving in England, Anne believed she had several days to prepare herself for meeting the King. But an infatuated Henry couldn’t wait. Accompanied by five of his councillors, he went to Anne disguised as a messenger, bearing a gift from the King.
The cultivated Katherine of Aragon or the sophisticated Anne Boleyn would have recognised straight away that this was a courtly game. The messenger was clearly her knight in disguise and her heart should recognise him at once. Sadly, no one had prepared Anne of Cleves for the courtly culture of England. When the ‘messenger’ grabbed and kissed her, she was reportedly ‘abashed’. She proceeded to treat him as a servant and largely ignored him.
This is the moment it all went wrong for Henry and Anne. She had demonstrated her cultural ignorance. He had been publicly humiliated. What is less often remarked upon, is Henry’s initial reaction to Anne. He had fallen in love with her portrait and was said to be disappointed with the real thing. Yet, his first action upon meeting her was to grab her and kiss her. Was he just swept up in the moment? Or, when he first set eyes on the Princess, did he conclude that she was eminently grabbable and kissable?
2. Anne seemed to think she was more attractive than Katherine Parr
While Anne was surely happy to escape certain aspects of her marriage, there are signs that she felt slighted when Henry did not take her back after the fall of Katheryn Howard. When it was announced that the King was to marry Lady Latimer (better known to us as ‘Katherine Parr’) Anne was heard to remark that she was a good deal more attractive than the Queen to be.
Obviously, the fact Anne thought positively about her appearance doesn’t mean that others agreed. We can all delude ourselves. But it should be noted that the imperial ambassador Chapuys, who reported these remarks, was quite capable of adding his own opinions to his observations. If he had felt that Anne was deluded, he might well have mentioned it.
Other depictions of Anne suggest the Holbein portrait was flattering, but not outlandishly so
3. Holbein was never punished for the portrait of Anne
As we know, Henry fell in love with a portrait. Given his reaction to Anne once they met, it is often assumed the painting must have been deliberately distorted. Yet, Hans Holbein, the artist behind the miniature that captivated Henry’s heart, remained in favour. He stayed on the King’s payroll and went on to paint another portrait of Henry.
Holbein may have embellished a little. That was to be expected. Alison Weir has also noted that, when compared to some of Anne’s other portraits, it’s clear that Holbein chose to paint Anne at her most flattering angle. But there’s a difference between a flattering picture and a fake one.
*
Ultimately Henry and Anne lacked one crucial ingredient: chemistry. That concept which is so hard to define yet so essential for the blossoming of romance. Though he would never have used the word, it was an important concept to the King. He had built up such an impression of Anne in his head. He had fallen in love with a woman that didn’t exist. She had failed her first courtly challenge. They were doomed from the start.
In later years, a friendship emerged. They ate together and talked. Henry seems to have enjoyed her company. She may have felt the same. Perhaps if the circumstances had been different and Henry had been allowed to fall for her freely as he had all the other loves of his life, history would have taken a different turn.
