RANDOM JOTTINGS


A blog about music, sports, theatre and rants





I made a decision a few weeks ago not to watch any more historical documentaries on TV.  You know my feelings about Fiona Bruce and her ubiquitous presence and since watching her, I have seen Amanda Vickery talking about Jane Austen and Colin Firth and behaving in a painfully girly way, Lucy Worsley (she of the hair slides and sensible shoes who was gambolling about on Blackpool Beach in a programme prior to this one) who I have christened the Irritating Elf, and it all got too much to bear. Then Channel 4, who are far worse at the Stating the Bleedin' Obvious school of documentary than BBC, produced one shown recently called Queen Victoria's Last Love, obviously hoping that by naming it thus salivating viewers eager to hear some scandal would watch.

Well, it was about the Munshi – one of QV's Indian servants who hugely influenced her in her later years.  Once Albert had gone the Queen lamented that there was nobody 'to call her Victoria any more'. She really must have been incredibly lonely and isolated and tended to be in thrall to strong men, John Brown who bossed her about and then the Munshi who stuck by her and declared his undying devotion – just what she needed.   I know a fair bit about the Munshi and was rather dubious about the slant this doco was obviously going to take but thought I would give it a whirl.  I actually mentioned on Facebook or somewhere on line that I was pretty sure the fact that the Munshi used to cook curries would be brought up pretty quickly and be illustrated with a soft focus pic of an unnamed Indian in a turban brewing up a vindaloo. I was hoping that this would prove to be a feeble joke but we lasted all of five minutes before this duly arrived so reached for the remote and off went the TV and I then took my vow of eschewing all further progs.

However, I had to give in pretty quick because this week there was a feature about the abdication and one of the prime movers in the whole thing, Cosmo Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury who sounds a prime bit of nastiness.   Unseen letters have been unearthed in which it is clear that the CosmoArchbish put pressure on Stanley Baldwin to get rid of the King and even hinted that he was mentally ill.  We were also treated to excerpts from the diaries of one of the Archbishop's chaplains, full of gossip and chat from one who had a ringside seat to all his master's Machiavellian dealings.  

Nothing wrong with all this and it was fascinating BUT here we go again with the illustrations just in case the pig ignorant and stupid viewer doesn't know what is going on:  shots of actor playing Cosmo wandering through a sinister darkened church, hands reaching out and lighting candles in the darkness, hints of secret meetings illustrated with a shot of a Victorian building at night with the lights burning indoors, shot after shot of the Obadiah Slope type chaplin watching and eavesdropping on all that was going on and slotting a piece of paper in his authentic 1930's typewriter and taking it all down.  The fact that all the diaries we saw were handwritten is beside the point.

A really interesting programme with lots of chat from a biographer of the Archbishop (Mem: must get hold of a copy of his book) who was stunned to find this, previously embargoed, correspondence and fascinating excerpts from the Chaplain's diaries which surely would make a wonderful book if somebody would edit and publish them but trivialised by the presentation.  I ended up watching a lot of it with my eyes closed, just listening to the discussion and the commentatary and by so doing really enjoyed it.   An hour long TV documentary would have made an excellent half hour radio programme….

It was clear that Edward VIII and the Archbishop loathed each other and also a hint that the Duke and Duchess of York, by inviting the Archbishop to stay with them after being rebuffed by the new King, had set up a rival court thus infuriating Edward.   Once Edward had gone, Cosmo Lang received a letter of thanks from the new Queen.   I have always found it odd that the Queen Mother has long been portrayed by biographers (with the exception of Penelope Mortimer) as a sweet smiling gentle lady when really one gets the impression that she was as tough as they come and was going to take no truck from anyone, least of all Edward and Mrs Simpson.

The slant of the documentary seemed to be that poor old Eddie didn't stand a chance against Cosmo and was hounded off the throne and rather begged for our sympathy.  Well, none forthcoming from this writer.  Edward was selfish, lazy and ignorant and thank goodness he abdicated when he did.  The Archbishop probably did us all a favour but one can hardly applaud the way he did it.

The Abdication seems to be one of those historical moments that continue to fascinate and as the years go by more and more documents come to light which reveal even more intriguing facets to the drama.  Wonder what else is lurking in some dark corner somewhere in the Royal Archives?

Just wish somebody somewhere would come up with a different way of producing such programmes and stop reducing the fascinating to the trivial.

Posted in

14 responses to “Edward VIII: the plot to Topple a King (TV)”

  1. Elaine Avatar

    Rest assured Margaret the Rants will keep on coming…..

  2. Elaine Avatar

    Thank you for taking the trouble to leave that comment dark Puss. I do try to be even handed and fair, particularly when reviewing books, but I do have my bete noires!!

  3. Dark Puss Avatar

    Please don’t worry overmuch about “upsetting people”. Your comments are absolutely yours and made in good spirit and not out of spite or a desire to hurt or wound. I don’t really like weblogs (of this type) which have no obvious personality and show neither enthusiasm nor approbation of anything. Lack of emotion is what we need in reporting results in science journals and you are not publishing one of those.

  4. Jane Avatar
    Jane

    Great post, thanks. I did laugh at the curry prediction!

  5. Carole Avatar
    Carole

    I also dislike the ‘sexing up’ of history – indeed of anything really – like the ‘sexing up’ of dodgy dossiers. The next historical series with Harlots in the title – clearly hoping that the Harlot will hook people in. Actually, that proves it works as I can only remember that particular part of the title!
    However, I would rather have a bit of drama in a documentary than whizzy camerawork.

  6. Susan D Avatar
    Susan D

    Well, there’s always a delay between BBC and TVOntario, so I’m just now enjoying Dr. Vickery being at home with the Georgians. And yes, there’s a bit of wink wink nudge nudgery there and using the example of One to represent All, but still, I’m a big fan of historical documentaries, flights of fancy and all. They entertain me. Because there’s precious little to entertain me in the vast world of non-reality shows and their ilk.
    However, Elaine, I’m afraid I can’t watch anything with Fiona Bruce, having been warned that her bum dominates. And oh how it does. So no Queen’s Palaces for me.
    What about Ruth and Peter and Alex down on the farm/pharmacy? I love love love these series(es?), and can’t wait to see what they do next. They consult the experts and then get right down and dirty with it all, feet in, hands on.

  7. Margaret Powling Avatar
    Margaret Powling

    No, you are not over reacting. “Making history sexy” is silly. It (history) happened, tell it how it was. I think she really means that she wants people to enjoy history as much as she does. The good thing from all this is that history is being shown on TV even if there are banal instances, such as you mention about her getting her ticket. But it happens on all the progs. There was something on our local West Country news, and I’ve forgotten the content as I was totally distracted by seeing footage of a woman in an office, as if we didn’t know what an office with a computer and filing cabinets looked like. A consequence of this is that I can’t remember what the item was about, only it showed an office! This is what will happen. Maybe in months to come we will remember Lucy and her ticket, but not that it had anything to do with Thomas Cook!
    I have to feel some sympahy though for the programme makers. How do they bring history to life? To recreate or not to recreate? To show presenters walking around or sitting behind a desk staring at the camera and just telling us something? I think we do prefer just to be told, we are of the radio generation (as you have clearly said about the Light and the Home, as I used to listen to these, too) and don’t need constant visual imageary to fire our imaginations.
    But whatever you do, Elaine, keep on ranting! There’s nothing like a good rant! I do this all the time to my friends in my emails!

  8. Elaine Avatar

    David – you are very tolerant of my rantings and one thing I told myself in the very early days of Random was that I must be careful what I say unless I can back it up, or at least try not to upset people. Having a blog gives one a platform for one’s views which are no better or worse than anybody else and if one is not careful this sense of pontificating can get hold of you. I know of a blogger or poster or two who have fallen into this trap….
    Lucy Worsley was fairly low on my irritation radar until I read in last week’s radio times that she wanted to ‘make history sexy’. WHY? WHY? WHY? this is the sort of statement that makes me doubt that any of these history presenters are serious historians. History is a fascinating subject (I am very proud that my daughter and my son in law are both historians) and does not need this sort of dumbing down attitude. Last night Dr, must remember to call her Dr, was mugging when having her picture taken by an old antique camera on Blackpool Beach. Her co-presenter was eccentrically dressed and loving every moment of it. There was a sense of ‘Oh look at us aren’t we witty and amusing and won’t the plebs love us’ which really stuck in my throat.
    I daresay I am over reacting
    In fact I know I am

  9. David Nolan (dsc73277) Avatar

    No Elaine, you musn’t “shut up”. This is your blog so, when the mood takes you, you should use it to unburden yourself of these minor (in the grand scheme of things) irritations. Thank you for extending a courteous welcome to those of us who might wish, from time to time, to express a slightly different view about some of the issues you raise. I’m afraid I’m with Margaret in liking LW’s enthusiasm, though I’ve not been watching the latest series that you and Margaret refer to.

  10. Elaine Avatar

    Oh and the Trollope thing – thoughts of Slope, Mrs Proudie et al kept intruding!

  11. Elaine Avatar

    Yes Margaret I can see that some people might need the acting to bring the story to life (and thank you for your kind compliment re my intelligence!!) but it is the assumption that we are pretty dim which irritates. Without wishing to sound like a crashing snob, though I probably do, viewers who watch this kind of prog, both on C4 and the BBC are likely to be intelligent anyway and not need this constant illustration. I don’t know what the answer is I really don’t.
    Lucy W does get on my nerves I am afraid and the banal back chat between her and her co-presenter is painful to listen to. She was on her way to speak to an archivist about Thomas Cook so we have a shot of her walking through a ticket barrier and using her ticket. WHY? She ended up sitting with him at a table in St Pancras Station for heaven’s sake.
    Oh dear must shut up

  12. Elaine Avatar

    David – thank you for your very perceptive and interesting comment. As I said last week I decided to eschew watching all historical documentaries as they irritate me so much but watched this one because it promised to be so interesting, which it was. As I said, I just listened to it most of the time and did not watch and found it much better that way.
    I don’t think I have higher expectations of the medium David, certainly not when it comes to this kind of programme. I have high expectations of classic plays and adaptations on the BBC in particular, their music programming on BBC4 and certain other programmes that I particularly like. I know what kind of presentation drives me to distraction and avoid them – history programmes are my particular bete noir as you will have seen by my rantings here on Random. I feel I either have to give up watching them which I can’t seem to manage as I do love history, or if I do, just have to accept the way they are done and put up with it. Writing to the BBC, which I have done, brings a dismissive response.
    Since my retirement and more time at home I have listened to much more radio and simply love it. As a teenager we did not have TV in our house and I spent hours listening to plays and dramatisations on the old Light Programme and Home (now R2 and R4) and loved them.
    Once again, thanks for your views and taking the time to put them here on Random

  13. Margaret Powling Avatar
    Margaret Powling

    I agree both with you, Elaine, and also with you, David! While I find a lot of the play acting a bit irritating (acting the bleedin’ obvious!) we mustn’t overlook the fact that not all viewers are as intelligent as Elaine, writer of Random, and those of us who read Random. They might need that bit of acting to bring the ‘story’ to life, and even keep them watching! And while I share your view of Ms Bruce, looking all coy at the camera, Dr Lucy Worsley is a breath of fresh air. I’ve not (yet) learned anything from her latest series with Mark Hill (I always understood carriage clocks were so name not because they were taken with one on carriages, but simply because they could be carried, whether this was from room to room or further afield made no difference)and she is pixie-like, but what she has is enthusiasm! Also, she doesn’t wiggle her derriere but strides around in boots and coat. I warm to anyone with enthusiasm for his or her subject, it’s infectious.
    And while we’re on the subject of presentation, of history of any other subject, on TV, why do we need to have two people reading the news, and always breaking off to have little conversations with each other? Also, this one or two sentences each, as if they’re playing verbal tennis? Your sentence, my sentence, your sentence … classrooms don’t have two teachers, do they, to give children information? We don’t read two books at the same time, do we? Why can’t we simply have one Newsreader for, say, half an hour at a time. On News 24 I don’t expect the same person to sit there all day. Next we’ll be having two Weather presenters, one will tell us that it’s going to rain, the next will say, “Oh, I don’t think so, do you really think it will rain, perhaps the viewers should take their umbrellass to work tomorrow …”

  14. David Nolan (dsc73277) Avatar

    I tend to be a bit more forgiving about the fads of television producers than you are, Elaine. Maybe I just have lower expectations of the medium? This may be connected with the fact that I only tend to watch television as late evening entertainment. I tend to be satisfied if it keeps me amused for an hour or so, telling me a few things I did not already know, but neither disturbing me or forcing me to think too hard.
    The trouble is television, as its name implies, is primarily a visual medium. That poses a real problem for anyone making TV documentaries on historical subjects prior to, and even well into, the twentieth century. I would rather have actors illustrating history documentaries than shots of modern crowds in shopping malls, presenters driving around, or presenters sat on trains – other current leitmotifs of the genre. (I’m amazed they nearly always seem to get a seat on trains.)
    Whatever images are used can be distracting – even if it’s just A J P Taylor talking to a camera. Whenever I see talking heads on TV I inevitably end up musing about what the individuals are wearing or how much of a double-chin they have. To adapt an old phrase, it’s not so much that the pictures are better on radio, as radio being better precisely because it doesn’t have pictures. (That’s one reason I’m not a fan of the Today webcam – leave pictures for television.)
    Reservations aside, the Edward VIII documentary told a very interesting tale. I knew that he was plotted against, but until I saw this programme I was unaware just how central a role the Archbishop of Canterbury played in the machinations. Trollope sprang to my mind too.

Leave a Reply to David Nolan (dsc73277)Cancel reply

Discover more from RANDOM JOTTINGS

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading