Queen to sue RDF possibly BBC
The Queen’s lawyers are starting the process of suing RDF, the media company that made the BBC documentary, A Year With The Queen, and reassembled it in the wrong order. The impression was given that the Queen had stormed out of a photoshoot with Annie Leibovitz after she was asked to take off her “crown” — in reality a tiara.
The lawyers have concluded that the film trailer was defamatory, as Royal Anecdotes suggested at the time, and the way is now clear for action against RDF Media.
It’s believed the Queen’s lawyers will wait for the BBC’s report into the incident, currently being prepared by Will Wyatt, before deciding what action to take against the Corporation.
The Palace has been involved in “heated” discussions with the BBC to force it to scrap the documentary altogether. So far the BBC has resisted the pressure, but all now hangs on Wyatt’s report.
The legal action is a shrewd move by courtiers. Public organizations like the BBC often use investigations of this kind to push decisions into the future when the public will have forgotten what all the fuss was about.
How could the BBC win against the Queen’s lawyers? They are rabid doberman pinschers. It is too stupid. Im one of those who were interested to see the documentary.
By Lilyfromfrance on August 12th, 2007 at 11:12 am
As I am as well Lily. While I don’t think the BBC did the right thing by assembling the documentary in the wrong order, I don’t think it’s right either to outright ban it either - it’s censorship - period. You can’t help but notice that other documentaries that are complimentary are allowed in but anything that shows anything bad or embarrassing are banned. (and yes, I am aware that the BBC screwed this one up - but let them correct it instead of outright banning it).
I guess I am just plain jaded from 7 years of erosion of the American Constitution that just riles me up so much.
By On The Outside on August 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
But it’s not censorship to demand the pulling of a film that defames the character of the Head of State. How many other lapses are there in there?
If the Palace allowed it to go ahead it would be open season to anyone who wanted to lie about the Monarchy for political or commercial reasons.
Censorship is when you object to a point of view, not to a breach of the law and an outright lie.
By John on August 12th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
“But it’s not censorship to demand the pulling of a film that defames the character of the Head of State. How many other lapses are there in there?”
In this case, we know that the documentary was set up in the wrong order, but in the next documentary if they happen to mention that the Queen is, *gasp* human and bleeds red blood like the rest of us and she doesn’t like it - she can ban it?
It’s a darned good thing that Bushie doesn’t (yet) have the power to squelch all bad opinion of him, but I fear that day may well be coming. After all, if the Queen can do it, what’s to stop him?
This is just my opinion.
By On The Outside on August 12th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I hope (as I said before) that the Queen will sue the BBC. The problem with journalism is that, in the last twenty years or so, unscrupulous persons with deep pockets have taken control of the media and have used their publications as bully pulpits to slander anyone who doesn’t further their own agenda. The most salacious, vicious lies are being shrieked from the headlines of newspapers, television news programs, magazines and tabloids, and it simply has to stop now. In Britain there have been monarchs and other members of the Royal Family who have had serious character and behavior flaws abd who deserved being exposed to public scrutiny and scorn. Queen Elizabeth II is not one of those persons and the BBC should not be allowed to get away with claiming that she behaved in an unseemly way when, in fact, she did no such thing.
By Gigi on August 12th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
… but in the next documentary if they happen to mention that the Queen is, *gasp* human and bleeds red blood like the rest of us and she doesn’t like it - she can ban it? It’s a darned good thing that Bushie doesn’t (yet) have the power to squelch all bad opinion of him, but I fear that day may well be coming. After all, if the Queen can do it, what’s to stop him? On The Outside.
But that’s a point of view not a lie and breach of the law. There really is a difference, you know. The film has also broken the contract with the Palace.
By John on August 13th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Things sound like last February. Am I the only one who has detected a sudden change of the mood or someone else has detected too? Or am I crazy?
By Lilyfromfrance on August 13th, 2007 at 9:23 am
In what way, Lily?
By John on August 13th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Wow!!!!
LINK
Who knows if this is true!
By Lilyfromfrance on August 13th, 2007 at 9:46 am
I dont know John! If I knew then I would have explained!
I will wait and see if I was right. Otherwise then it would mean that Im crazy.
By Lilyfromfrance on August 13th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Well Im sorry to put that link, after reading the article carrefully it seems to be idle gossip. You can delete my comment, John. Another journalist who is payed just for guessing.
By Lilyfromfrance on August 13th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Yes, it’s just speculation. However, Royal Anecdotes’ position is that a wedding is likely when William finishes his Army/Navy/ Airforce stint in 2009. So the article is right on the money.
By John on August 13th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I believe it is beneath the Queen’s dignity to be suing anyone. A Royal personage should not stoop to such tabloid-trash levels.
Thanks for a very interesting site here, I’m enjoying the writings.
Colleen, South Africa
By Colleen Figg on August 28th, 2007 at 9:35 am