| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:46 pm Post subject: The Queen did NOT throw a tantrum after all... |
 |
|
Haha, I find this soooo funny. It seems someone was mucking about having a laugh and editting film to make it look like the Queen had walked out in a huff - but it got mistaken for the real thing and was made public. Hilarious.
| Quote: |
BBC apologises to Queen over claim she threw a tantrum during photo-shoot
� Corporation seeks to repair damaged relations
� Clips misrepresented sequence of events
It had seemed like an unprecedented royal temper tantrum, but by the time it was splashed across the papers on the Queen's breakfast table it had become the subject of what tabloid editors would call a classic "reverse ferret".
The BBC was yesterday forced to issue a grovelling apology to the Queen after admitting it had "misrepresented" a sequence in which she appeared to lose her temper with the American photographer Annie Leibovitz.
The footage, a trailer for a fly-on-the-wall documentary, made headline news around the world after it showed Leibovitz apparently asking the Queen to remove her crown because it was too "dressy".
The Queen was shown saying: "Less dressy? What do you think this is?"
In the next shot, the Queen was shown apparently storming out of the room, with a footman following behind, as she complained: "I'm not changing anything. I've done enough dressing like this, thank you very much."
But the BBC yesterday issued an apology over the sequence, shown to journalists as part of a preview of the new BBC autumn season, as it desperately sought to repair the damage with Buckingham Palace and the photographer, who is known for her celebrity portraits.
It later admitted that the footage, put together by producer RDF for internal use, was not intended to be seen by the public or the press and was shown in error. |
For full article click here |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know. Could just be backtracking. From the looks of it, it could very well be her leaving in a huff.
Ahh...you Brits and your royals. I can't believe you still DO that. And the BBC was so apologetic.
The relationship with UK and The Queen is very interesting...it is like most people are detached from the nonsense of royalty...but the inexplicable respect is still there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
I don't know. Could just be backtracking. From the looks of it, it could very well be her leaving in a huff.
Ahh...you Brits and your royals. I can't believe you still DO that. And the BBC was so apologetic.
The relationship with UK and The Queen is very interesting...it is like most people are detached from the nonsense of royalty...but the inexplicable respect is still there. |
She's earned her respect after a very long life fulfilling her role with dignity and hard toil.
I dabbled in republicanism for a shortwhile, but the more I thought about the alternatives, the more I realised I would hate to see the demise of this ancient institution. Every few years or so, The Guardian spends about a week running a big campaign to rid us of the monarchy. Interestingly, it was their campaign for it that persuaded me against it.
The relationship you Americans have with your president (up until very recent times perhaps) is very interesting too. We don't make sychophantic dramas and films about primeministers they way you do. I was very amused to see the President of the United States saving the world from aliens in Independence Day. We would never make a film about a Prime Minister jumping into his spaceship and shooting down space craft. So cute.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anger as scale of corporation's blunder unfolds
| Quote: |
How joy turned to anger as scale of corporation's blunder unfolded
As media reporters filed out of the basement screening room of a smart London boutique hotel on Wednesday morning, the BBC1 controller, Peter Fincham, wore an air of quiet satisfaction.
Buoyed by two years of hits and relatively positive reaction, he had deflected with easy charm the usual dumbing down charges, talked up his big autumn dramas and tossed out a tasty line or two about a staggering exchange between the Queen and A-list photographer Annie Leibovitz which had been captured by a behind-the-scenes documentary team following a year in the life of the monarch.
But by the following evening Mr Fincham was looking haggard and struggled uneasily to deflect the questions of Newsnight's Gavin Esler before being paraded around a seemingly never-ending series of BBC studios in sackcloth and ashes to apologise for the way the corporation "misrepresented" the clip.
Throughout the afternoon following the screening, the BBC press office had been in good spirits as it took a steady stream of calls on the apparent row between the photographer and the Queen that had apparently led the monarch to, in Mr Fincham's words, "walk out in a huff" after being asked to take off her crown.
In the increasingly competitive digital media world, the marketing and publicity departments of terrestrial broadcasters have become ever more important in bringing audiences to new programmes and the story was moving successfully on to front pages at home and websites around the world. While season launches have long been employed as a means of previewing shows, in recent years the focus has been on providing "a line" or a news hook to guarantee coverage.
But by 7pm, furious Buckingham Palace press officers had been alerted by calls from journalists seeking reaction, and were on the phone to their counterparts at the BBC. It was then that the mood at the corporation darkened.
As Mr Fincham was roused it became clear that the tape provided by the programme's independent producer, RDF, had been edited in the wrong order and should never have been supplied to the BBC. In fact, the Queen had actually been caught on film storming into the shoot, complaining about feeling overdressed. The magnitude of the mistake began to sink in. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The queen has not "earned" her right to be queen, she got it from her blood. This birthright idea is totally outmoded and against all principles of progress and modernity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| The queen has not "earned" her right to be queen, she got it from her blood. This birthright idea is totally outmoded and against all principles of progress and modernity. |
Go back and read what I said.
I said she had earned respect. Most Brits would agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
I dabbled in republicanism for a shortwhile, |
I dabbled in pacifism myself. Not in Nam of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
She's earned her respect after a very long life fulfilling her role with dignity and hard toil. |
And, what is her "role" again?
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| The relationship you Americans have with your president (up until very recent times perhaps) is very interesting too. We don't make sychophantic dramas and films about primeministers they way you do. I was very amused to see the President of the United States saving the world from aliens in Independence Day. We would never make a film about a Prime Minister jumping into his spaceship and shooting down space craft. So cute. |
Yes, it is cute. Maybe the reason the Brits don't make those movies is because their Prime Ministers have all been pansies and that's how Brits expect their PMs to be? Except Churchill and Maggie Thatcher, of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Its hard to criticise the British royals temper tantrums anymore, after Nepals crown prince dipendra shot 13 close family members because they didn't like his girlfriend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Its hard to criticise the British royals temper tantrums anymore, after Nepals crown prince dipendra shot 13 close family members because they didn't like his girlfriend. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
She's earned her respect after a very long life fulfilling her role with dignity and hard toil. |
And, what is her "role" again?
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| The relationship you Americans have with your president (up until very recent times perhaps) is very interesting too. We don't make sychophantic dramas and films about primeministers they way you do. I was very amused to see the President of the United States saving the world from aliens in Independence Day. We would never make a film about a Prime Minister jumping into his spaceship and shooting down space craft. So cute. :D |
Yes, it is cute. Maybe the reason the Brits don't make those movies is because their Prime Ministers have all been pansies and that's how Brits expect their PMs to be? Except Churchill and Maggie Thatcher, of course. |
Plus, who watches British movies? I don't think you can add the PM in a jet fighter saving the world when you're making yet another Jane Austen period piece.
Plus. WILL SMITH saves us from the aliens. Not the prez. Although yes, Americans in general do have a hard on for Big Government coming to the rescue. Not I.
As far as the Queen goes, I agree that perhaps her being a mechanic during The War and the way she handled the Diane crisis and etc etc earned her respect among her subjects. But i still think that the thought that someone ruling through lineage and divine intervention is a bit silly- but I guess not any sillier than the rest of us, choosing those in power over who has the best haircut or didn't slip with Yee-Haw.
Ugh. I hate governments. All of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| The queen has not "earned" her right to be queen, she got it from her blood. This birthright idea is totally outmoded and against all principles of progress and modernity. |
Go back and read what I said.
I said she had earned respect. Most Brits would agree. |
I didn't suggest otherwise, I said she has not earned her right to be queen, and if the entire foundation upon which she exists is questionable I don't really think talk of what she has done is relevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| I said she has not earned her right to be queen, and if the entire foundation upon which she exists is questionable I don't really think talk of what she has done is relevant. |
She was born.
Thats her right , right there.
Europe don't function like new zealand mate. Its called 'culture'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| The queen has not "earned" her right to be queen, she got it from her blood. This birthright idea is totally outmoded and against all principles of progress and modernity. |
Go back and read what I said.
I said she had earned respect. Most Brits would agree. |
I didn't suggest otherwise, I said she has not earned her right to be queen, and if the entire foundation upon which she exists is questionable I don't really think talk of what she has done is relevant. |
You were making a reference to my earlier post, and doing so in such a way as to appear to be misrepresenting what I'd said. If that was not your intention then fair enough, however I have every right to put the matter straight.
My post was in answer to Chimpum's comment on 'inexplicable respect' and so it was in fact very relevant. Context mate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
Plus. WILL SMITH saves us from the aliens. Not the prez. |
The awe with which Americans regard the office of the President is quite astonishing. You've not been paying enough attention to your own popular culture. Perhaps because you are so used to it, it doesn't strike you as strange, they way it would an outsider peering in.
| Quote: |
But i still think that the thought that someone ruling through lineage and divine intervention is a bit silly- but I guess not any sillier than the rest of us, choosing those in power over who has the best haircut or didn't slip with Yee-Haw.
|
It's amusing to hear these kinds of comments from a people who still fawn in vomit inducing sycophancy over the Kennedys and their bloodline - and elected the mediocre son of a recent President for their latest leader. Lastly, whenever The Queen or someone like Princess Diana visits, you lot go potty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
