The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Wednesday 14 July 2004

The Royal Mail - Reader's Comments, Addenda and Errata

Hello again! Here's what you said about some of my recent columns. As always, I love hearing from you! I deeply appreciate all feedback and gentle corrections of mistakes and omissions, and I answer each and every post. If you do not wish your comments used in a column, just let me know.

Correction: in THE ROYAL MAIL column on 5/19/04 I called Mount Athos (the orthodox religious retreat where Prince Charles frequently goes) an island. It is of course located on a peninsula.

Now, to your letters:

A ROYAL DUTY 5/5/04
From Jean Sanders: Thank you for writing an insightful commentary on the Paul Burrell book. It was one of the few pieces that I have read that is actually unbiased and truthful rather than slinging mud back at someone who chose to highlight his career and dealings with a perfect but imperfect woman and you are so right on when you say at the end that in history's time Paul Burrell may very well be one of Diana, Princess of Wales' champions.

From Carolyn Mcdonough: Thanks for your review of Paul Burrell's book. At first I was not going to buy it because I read the excerpts in  The Mirror and decided there probably wasn't any more in the book. I didn't expect any shocking details. However, once people started speaking out against him I decided to buy the book. I don't know what the fuss was about. I read The Little Princesses when it first came out and have a copy of The Housekeeper's Diary. I can see why Wendy [Berry]'s book was banned in Britain. Knowing how unwanted items are routinely burned was probably the most upsetting thing I read. You would think they would give some to charities. That Maria and Paul had many items that had once belonged to Diana wasn't surprising to me. I am sorry that the princes have turned on him. There was nothing bad in his book. I hope maybe they have been in touch privately or will when they mature a bit. Enjoy your columns.

MW: Yes, I have Berry's book too, and I thought it far more damaging and derogatory than Burrell's. His was much more loving, actually. He didn't say anything bad about either the Queen or Diana. If he spoke true, and I think he did, William and Harry loved and trusted him. It shouldn't have changed so much in just seven years!

From Allison Luce: I read your article today and found it interesting until I read the line, "You can't imagine a 20-something, or an American, behaving so loyally." What exactly was the point of that? As an American, I take great offense to that....I am saddened that you felt the need to make a snide comment about my country that had absolutely nothing to do with the article whatsoever. You are trying to say that Americans are unlike Burrell who "seemed during his tenure to identify with an older tradition of service, the seen-but-not-heard, loyal-unto-death fealty...." Have you ever heard of American military servicemen & women? How about the people that work for the president?
I am married to one of America's best...from the US Air Force, so the loyalty issue got to me. While he didn't have to literally "bow and scrape and kneel, you would be surprised at some of the things he did have to do, so I have to respectfully disagree with your argument there. He guarded the US Ambassador to Kenya after the 1998 bombing in Nairobi. Believe me, there was PLENTY of service rendered there! I now understand why you wrote what you did...(and basically agree with you)....(The problem with anything written such as email or an online column is you cannot hear the tone of voice the person is "speaking" with.) I believe that you are correct regarding the vast majority of Americans; I must admit that sometimes I am ashamed of the way we act, or the way the world believes we act. I suppose that is why it offended me; I want the world to know that we aren't all like the idiots you see on the news.

MW: I'm an American too. It wasn't meant offensively. Sorry that you felt offended. I will try to express my pride as an American more clearly in future. What I meant was that most Americans, having a strong streak of independence, a sense of equality for all, and not being used to a master-servant relationship in their homes, nor the notion of nobility and royalty being "superior," probably wouldn't stand for jobs as menials in which they would be required to wear livery, powder their hair, bow and scrape, be seen but not heard, live in cramped quarters on low pay, and with all of that, swear loyalty to their employers and sign confidentiality agreements that in Britain seem to cover them years and years after they leave the royal service.

Nothing wrong with it if you agree with it, of course. As Burrell did, and liked it. White House butlers and such probably do the same. And with military personnel, their loyalty is to their country, not to a specific "superior" personage. In short, I was saying that loyalty wouldn't mean, to an American, catering to some royal person's whims.

AL: If you think Burrell was so loyal, why is he cashing in on Diana? He's not finished telling her secrets, everyone knows that. Loyal? I think not. If he was so loyal, he wouldn't want to hurt her children.

MW: He made the case that he felt betrayed by the royal family when he was arrested and put on trial. Also he needed the money, of course. But I think he felt more discarded than vindictive. And being as fond of her as he obviously was, he saw a way to help himself and her too, as it were.

AL: Ironically, many Americans aren't talking about the Diana shows and books. I heard about the CBS photos [of Diana's fatal crash] the next day on this Web site. Did you notice how small the reported viewing audience of that show was? We are growing disinterested and realizing that the British royal family is (and was) ridiculous, with or without Diana.

MW: Yes, the show with the photos did not get good ratings. I think you're right that maybe American interest in the royals is waning. We have other matters to think about these days. Sometimes I just shake my head in disbelief at the royal goings-on. I certainly did while reading Burrell's book. To me, some of what he revealed badly needed airing.

THE ROYAL MAIL 5/19/04
From Thomas Rex Campbell: How dare you make a comment about a religious institution about which you know nothing (or only what you read in the papers)? As an Orthodox Christian I find it very offensive. If HRH The Prince of Wales is welcomed on the Holy Mountain for a PRIVATE religious retreat, that is NONE of your - or anybody else's - business. And please, get over the Diana thing...she's dead, gone...her own sons have requested that she be allowed to rest in peace. Little chance of that with the so-called royals watchers chattering on and on....What you don't see is that it is slowly but surely undermining the institution...and makes it less and less likely that [William] (or his father) will ever become monarch....

The Prince of Wales's future title of Supreme Governor (not "Head") of the C of E is jurisdictional, not ecclesiastical/sacramental. In any case the Establishment of the C of E might not be on by the time HRH comes to the throne (it's up to Parliament in any case). What I objected to was your swipe at a religious practice....Ordinarily, women visit female monasteries, men visit male monasteries (we don't use the word convent), that is to stay on retreat. The chapels might be open for worship (at least in the US and UK) to all...but you cannot just bed down because you think you have a right to. Mt. Athos is an area with dozens of monasteries, sketes, hermitages (all male)....visitors are vetted and the numbers allowed are very small. That is just the way it is. I've been to monasteries and churches in Greece where tourists show up in shorts, tiny halter tops etc....they aren't admitted. The lack of respect and knowledge is appalling.

There ARE Anglicans who don't like The Prince of Wales swanning about other religious edifices....I'd say they should be grateful he's even admitted to one of the strictest, most conservative places in the religious world....I hope it's done him some good! But that is between him and his Higher Power, TOTALLY no-one else's "business" (unless perhaps if he goes on an official trip, visits a bunch of temples, synagogues, mosques etc. then sleeps in on Sunday morning and misses matins at the local Anglican cathedral...then if I were C of E I'd complain!). It's too bad the Orthodox clerics talked about [Charles' visit], bad form, they should've kept their mouths shut....I understand the Prince's office was angry about it.

MW: Are all men welcome to go there only if they live as monks, sharing the humility and simple lives of the inhabitants, eating, dressing, and living ascetically and piously, etc.? Or do some just come to look in, and not participate religiously? Maybe Charles, to give him the benefit of the doubt, is one of those. My point was that he can�t have it both ways. He is too much a denizen of the non-orthodox world (future C of E duties, lavish lifestyle, not celibate, has a responsible public role in leading his future subjects, etc.) to fit in there, unless he commits himself totally to being a monk. In which case he must get down off the fence he's sitting on, and give up crown, Anglican church, and Camilla. If that is anyone's business, it is his mother's more than any other's. But thanks for your input.

A ROYAL FILMOGRAPHY 6/02
From Gioff Godenzi: Great stuff Mel! You're a superb writer. I'm looking forward to the Tudors and Stewarts. This must have taken a heap of research but it has certainly proved worthwhile! You should get some much pleasanter fan mail after this!

From Jonathan Bevan: I've enjoyed reading your features on royals in films, and have read an article in a almanac of film trivia which came with the magazine [italics] Empire, [close italics] which gives many details of actors and actresses who have played royals on television. Being a [italics] Doctor Who [close italics] fan, "Players" was a novel based on the BBC-TV series, not part of the series. However, in a 1965 story called "The Crusade," Julian Glover (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade/For Your Eyes Only) played Richard I, with Jean Marsh Willow/Upstairs, Downstairs) playing his sister Princess Joanna. Vivienne Bennet played Queen Elizabeth I in another 1965 story, "The Chase." Gerald Flood played a shape-shifting android who portrayed King John in 1983's "The King's Demons," whilst a brief snippet is seen of Queen Elizabeth II in 1988's "Silver Nemesis," although I cannot remember the name of the actress who played her. PS: Don't forget Sid James in Carry On Henry.

From Marti: Hi Mel! I read your article about British Kings and Queens in movies. Very interesting. I always thought it was doubly interesting that Catherine Oxenberg, who played Diana, was a fairly close relative of Charles in royal genealogy terms, being the daughter of Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, whom I met in San Diego....She autographed her book about her father, the late Prince Regent of Yugoslavia, to me. Elizabeth, who also heads the line of perfumes in her name, signed the book "Elizabeth Karageorgevic" (the family name they have). Here is my photo with Paul Burrell.

From Denise Montgomery: Great list and I shall have fun trying to track down the films I have missed. However, you did miss a few:
The Duchess of Duke Street, Series One (1976): Roger Hammond starred as The Prince of Wales (Bertie) in the second episode, "Honour and Obey"....The Prince was Louisa's lover for a brief period before becoming King, and she later sold the house he bought her to buy the hotel which is the focus of this series.

Bertie and Elizabeth (2002). Made-for-TV movie about George VI and Elizabeth, starring James Wilby as George VI, Juliet Aubry as Elizabeth, Alan Bates as George V, Eileen Atkins as Queen Mary, Charles Edwards as Edward VIII, Amber Rose Sealey as Wallis Simpson, Elisabeth Dermot-Walsh as Princess Elizabeth, and Hannah Wiltshire as Princess Margaret. This aired on PBS Masterpiece Theatre in the US, as well as undoubtedly airing in the UK.

The Lost Prince (2003). Made-for-TV movie about the family of George V, as seen through the eyes of his youngest son, Prince John. Hasn't been released in the US, but hopefully it will play on PBS or one of the cable channels one day. It is available on DVD in PAL format. Tom Hollander is George V, Miranda Richardson is Queen Mary, Michael Gambon is Edward VII, Bibi is Queen Alexandra, David Barass is Kaiser Wilhelm, and the cast also includes the Russian imperial family.

There is also Diana: Her True Story (1992), the miniseries adaptation of Andrew Morton's book. It stars Serena Scott Thomas as Diana, David Threlfall as Prince Charles, Elizabeth Garvie as Camilla, Anne Stallybrass as Queen Elizabeth II (note: she also played Jane Seymour in the Keith Michell mini-series, The Six Wives of Henry VIII ), Donald Douglas as Prince Philip and Gabrielle Blunt as the Queen Mother.

MW: Thanks again, Denise, for resending your post. Your additions to the Royal Filmography columns are most excellent and timely! I will now write 100 times in SimpleText, Do Not Expunge Etoile E-Mails Even If You Are Sure You Have Forwarded All Originals and Replies, and Copied Them in Sent Messages.

Until next time, keep those posts coming!
 

- Mel Whitney