{"id":608400,"date":"2025-12-02T23:47:29","date_gmt":"2025-12-02T23:47:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/608400\/"},"modified":"2025-12-02T23:47:29","modified_gmt":"2025-12-02T23:47:29","slug":"whats-the-monarchy-for-review-david-dimblebys-excellent-series-has-one-glaring-omission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/608400\/","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s the Monarchy For? review \u2013 David Dimbleby\u2019s excellent series has one glaring omission"},"content":{"rendered":"

Your support helps us to tell the story<\/p>\n

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.<\/p>\n

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.<\/p>\n

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.<\/p>\n

Your support makes all the difference.<\/strong>Read more<\/p>\n

David Dimbleby<\/a> is wandering around Windsor, filming some bit of royal ceremonial for his excellent BBC One miniseries What\u2019s the Monarchy For?, when a man recognises him, turns to his wife, and says: \u201cThis guy is a famous liberal lefty.\u201d Anyone who\u2019s ever made the slightest acquaintance of him will know that this is abject nonsense, but not something that Dimbleby himself is much bothered by. He takes it in good heart \u2013 he\u2019s a big chap in all respects \u2013 and reassures his interlocutor that he will of course be unbiased in his assessment of the state and the future of the British royal family<\/a>. Which he is, though one is never quite sure who Dimbleby is addressing off-screen. Is it his producer? One of his kids? A vase? It would have worked better with conventional pieces to camera. <\/p>\n

At any rate, Dimbleby\u2019s own view<\/a>, for what it\u2019s worth after many decades covering some now dimly forgotten royal and state events, is that he is neither an instinctive, sentimental, ardent royalist (as his father Richard, who commentated on the late Queen\u2019s coronation in 1953 famously was); but nor is he any kind of \u201clefty\u201d iconoclastic republican. We see archive footage of him in 1973, for example, up in the gallery at Westminster Abbey, narrating Princess Anne\u2019s ill-fated marriage to Mark Phillips. He takes a pragmatic view \u2013 in favour of monarchy insofar as it\u2019s useful and carries the support of the people. From the sounds of the former courtiers, politicians, historians and journalists he speaks to in his investigation, and fortunately enough for the House of Windsor itself, this seems to be the approach taken by the royals too.<\/p>\n

Himself something of a venerable national asset \u2013 he\u2019s a lively 87 and should have celebrated his personal diamond jubilee in broadcasting last year \u2013 it\u2019s refreshing to see him still going, still reporting, still doing vox pops rather as he did for the BBC\u2019s 1964 general election coverage, and still exercising that curious instinct that made him such an effective interviewer. He pushes former chancellor, George Osborne, for example, on why the income that the Windsors receive from the Crown Estate (on top of the money coming in from the huge duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall) enjoys a ratchet \u2013 it can go up, but never down. Similarly, Dimbleby wonders what Greg Dyke, former BBC director general, makes of the Orwellian \u201cperpetuity edits\u201d demanded by the palace regarding \u201cexcisions of reality\u201d from Elizabeth\u2019s funeral where, for example, Edward and Sophie become \u201cvisibly upset\u201d. <\/p>\n

Like Dimbleby himself, Dyke can\u2019t understand how and why such decisions are made, or even by whom. It\u2019s all a bit mysterious. So is the comparatively recent practice of \u201cmonarch\u2019s consent\u201d, whereby the royal places and personnel can be exempted from inconvenient legislation on employment or equal rights. We know it dates back to the 1970s, and was freely given by the prime minister of the day, Ted Heath, but not so much exactly why this is the only entity in the land that may choose to be above certain laws. That, of course, also includes the lack of much meaningful scrutiny of their finances and the fact there is no official public inventory of the paintings and other assets they own, either in their own right or on behalf of the nation \u2013 at least \u00a31.2bn worth of gear. <\/p>\n

There are lots of nice little stories in the programme to entrance collectors of royal gossip. The late Queen, for example, hiding in the bushes at Buckingham Palace so she didn\u2019t have to bump into the monstrous Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceau\u0219escu as he took a stroll in the gardens. But the big scandals and challenges are all explored with skill and an even-handed touch \u2013 and the major televisual milestones all properly revisited. These include rarely glimpsed footage of the 1969 documentary The Royal Family (firmly locked in a metaphorical vault by the palace), the then Prince Charles\u2019s confession of adultery to Jonathan Dimbleby in 1994, the now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor\u2019s disastrous Newsnight interview in 2019 and Harry and Meghan spilling the beans to Oprah Winfrey. <\/p>\n

We also see Dimbleby dissecting how apparently innocent exchanges between Prince William<\/a> and a visiting Canadian comedian, Eugene Levy, are subtly manipulative in their image-building \u2013 the future king arrived to meet Levy on an electric scooter, and made several references to his late grandmother. Dimbleby rightly picks up on William\u2019s apparently casual (but surely calculated) remark that \u201cchange is definitely on my agenda\u201d, asking what he means by such \u201cdangerous\u201d words \u2013 \u201cWhat\u2019s the King going to say? It\u2019s not that easy to change.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"DimblebyDimbleby interviewing David Cameron in ‘What’s the Monarchy For?’ (BBC\/The Garden TV)<\/p>\n

The one glaring omission in this otherwise majestic survey of the past, present and future is the interview that Diana, Princess of Wales, gave to Martin Bashir on the BBC 30 years ago. At the time, it was a sensation and devastating about Camilla \u2013 \u201cthere were three of us in that marriage\u201d \u2013 but its problematic origins have airbrushed it from the scene, never to be acknowledged. Yet it too happened, 200 million saw it worldwide, and it\u2019s part of our history \u2013 and somehow not even David Dimbleby can be allowed to use a clip of it. Further evidence, were it needed, of how the Windsors\u2019 influence (probably William in this case) melds into actual, if invisible, power, no doubt also exercised, as Dimbleby suggests, by the secret dealings of the King with his ministers. It seems that sway also applies within the BBC, with which the palace has been intertwined for a century.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Your support helps us to tell the story From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":608401,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7708],"tags":[5105,7710,519,448],"class_list":{"0":"post-608400","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-royals","8":"tag-royal","9":"tag-royal-families","10":"tag-royal-family","11":"tag-royals"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115652647662158544","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/608400","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=608400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/608400\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/608401"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=608400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=608400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=608400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}