DOCUMENTARY AIRING MON. 23 FEBRUARY "THE PROBLEM PRINCES"

Started by angieuk, February 23, 2009, 11:23:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

angieuk

2ND NEW DOCUMENTARY

DISPATCHES :  THE PROBLEM PRINCES

DURATION : 1 HOUR

20.00 - 21.00 TIME

CHANNEL 4

MONDAY FEBRUARY 23 2009

p.s. THE REAL CASINO ROYALE LOOKS INTERESTING TOO WHICH IS ON IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS 21.00 - 22.00 SAME CHANNEL

mediastar

Daily Mail

The programme was highly critical of both William and Harry.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)

Hale

I believe forum members will be disappointed when they watch this documentary.

First of all, it question William's lack of commitment to his royal duties.  It followed him for a week in which he performed 4/5 of his 24 engagements that year.

It brought up the helicopter landing in Kate's garden and the helicopter journey to Peter Phillips stag weekend.

The MOD at the time tried to play this down, but the anti-monarchist group 'Republic' obtained the records using the Freedom of Information Act, where it showed these trips cost a total of £87,000.  All of which is deducted through the defence budget and paid for by us tax payers.

It was critical of Williams service in the Royal Navy when he was posted to the Carribean. It felt that the 'spin' used by the palace was trying to portray William as an action hero, during the seizure of drugs.  For those who know anything about the British armed forces, would know that the people who do the seizures are in actual fact the Special Boat Service, but they're even more clandestine than the SAS, so the Royal Navy will take full credit for that.

It was critical of Williams training in the RAF.  It was shown that his initial flying course was crammed into 3 months.  Which is fine if you want an idea on how to fly a plane, but that doesn't necessarily qualify you as a pilot.  The programme felt the PR from the palace gave that impression.

The programme mentioned the video which was made public about Harry's '**** friend, and it made reference to their splurges at nightclubs, and raised the issue of the cost to the tax payer of the royal protection squad.  Approx £40 million PA.

The programme mentioned the shooting of the rare hawks at Sandringham, and implied their should have been some sort of prosecution.

It was critical about the Enduro African tour, when it showed they only raised approximately £1,500 each, but the royal protection cost £40,000.

For those looking for insights into their personal lives.  The only mention of that is when it said in 2008, William went skiing and holidayed twice in Mustique with Kate Middleton. 

The programme then moved on to Prince Edward, and his failed venture with Ardent TV and then spent the rest of the programme focusing on Prince Andrew, his selling of Sunningdale and his visits to Kazakhstan.

Oh yes, it also appears the RF or those associated with the RF have accounts in the British Virgin Islands, and they only make public their flights which cost over £10,000.

It was scornful of the palaces statement of transparency.

All in all this programme was attempting to give the impression that here was a big story.  Frankly in my opinion, its a non starter, and whats more it was boring.

What I do think gives the programme some credibility, is that it was presented by Alex Thompson, not Alex Thornton as stated in the press. 

Alex Thompson, is a respected journalist and one of the presenters at Channel 4 News.  He almost went to prison once for refusing to divulge his sources regarding his book and documentary about Bloody Sunday.  In other words, this journalist is no lightweight, and because of this the palace for once were 'openly' critical and voluble, in contrast to Jaques Perretti documentary when the palace remained distinctly silence.

This country is currently in a recession consequently the palace would do well to remember the 80's, and the criticism they incurred for there standard of living then. For when the country is suffering the public do not take kindly to those from privileged backgrounds who are seen to be living a carefree existence and running up exorbitant bar bills when others are having their homes repossessed.



sandy

Sometimes these programs should be wake up calls. Life has changed and viewpoints have changed since the recession and more people will take less kindly to the young royals spending a lot of money on booze and fun. I'm surprised Bea and Eugenie were not included in the criticism, they also seem to spend lots of time on parties and pub hopping.

Hale

Quote from: sandy on February 24, 2009, 08:27:36 PM
Sometimes these programs should be wake up calls. Life has changed and viewpoints have changed since the recession and more people will take less kindly to the young royals spending a lot of money on booze and fun. I'm surprised Bea and Eugenie were not included in the criticism, they also seem to spend lots of time on parties and pub hopping.

Bea and Eugenie were mentioned during the part of the programme when they were discussing police protection.

Mar

I hope this will lead the RF to make Will and Harry take more official engagements. Because I hate having to wait 20 - 30 days to read or hear news about them

Hale

What I forgot to add to my posting about that documentary were other opinions.

They are; I daresay Royal Protection doesn't come cheap, but they have to be protected, and when they're not on official duties they shouldn't be expected to stay in their ivory tower and not venture out.

With regards to the criticism levelled at Prince Andrew for flying to official engagements.  It actually works out cheaper in the long run than driving or taking a train because less security checks are required along the route(s).

As for the RF not being transparent.  As far as I'm concerned they are a lot more transparent than our politicians.  For when they're travelling expenses were published for the first time about two years ago, many came in for sharp criticism.  What we the public do not know is how much is spent on their protection.

Furthermore, the Queen was recently denied extra funds to make repairs to the roof of Buckingham Palace.  This building along with Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle is owned by us the public. 

Yet politicians can claim £10,000 towards a new kitchen as well as make expense claims to repairs and home improvements.  However, the difference being we are aware of what the Queen claims for and how much the monarchy costs.  We do not know just how much our politicians claim for, nor exactly how much our government costs. 

There is a group which is campaigning for more open government, and have been in the news several times when they have been forced to go to court in order to obtain this information, despite the freedom of information act.  Our government always cites security because of the terrorist threat.  However, they chose to ignore the terrorist threat when it comes to the RF's expenses, conveniently forgetting the Earl of Mountbatten was actually blown up by the IRA.

A case of one law for them and another law for everyone else.

jolina

did they mention prince harry and his ex girlfriend chelsy ?

Hale

Quote from: jolina on February 24, 2009, 11:01:23 PM
did they mention prince harry and his ex girlfriend chelsy ?

No, there was no mention of Chelsy Davy.  The programme did not discuss anything about the princes private lives.


Angelbaby

#10
 :sigh:  I've just watched the rest of the "Problem Princes" and I thought it was excellent in its constructive critisim of their lives.  WHY? Would be your next response, why would it?  BECAUSE it really was full of "constructive criticism" and it was just what anyone needs to "hone" in on the public appreciation meter.  IMO, Only when you can "listen" to your "most constructive critics" to see if there is "any merit" or "truth" to what they are saying about you, then you will be able to "use this information" to "win" over your most formidable "enemies" or "frenemies" .

Think about this for a minute, we all have "blind spots" or "defects" in our character or life but with this kind of constructive criticism, HALF THE WORK has already been done for you, so you no longer have to try to figure out what will silence these critics but "knowing" in advance as in "to be forewarned is to be forearmed" what will not only silence them but also win them over to you side. 

In my career, I have always use the "constructive criticism" to polished my character defects or deficits in life to OUT SHINE all of my critics and if this works for me then it will work for anyone.  Also, always let your critics do the "leg work" in looking for the "blind spots" for you of "your character defects" and then follow up by "addressing these issues" by acting on them ASAP and allow it to polish you in your life's pursuits.

:chill:

"disclaimer":  This has been an Angelbaby commentary and is only her opinion on the documentaries on the princes.

:curtsey:

Kate

It truly is an interesting show and thanks again Maker44... for taking the time....

MapleLeaf

#12
Quote from: maker44 on February 25, 2009, 10:35:19 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoSyq4efm7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVbWTAC5zZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxio0LSWQmE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYOgyPzE5N8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKmJoO3fJvA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOSEAtRV2iQ

:lmao3:The documentary has 6 parts and here are the links........... :hissyfit:


:thanks: Maker44, thank you very much for the links to the entire documentary.  I finally got to see what the fuss was all about, and it's total rubbish. :mad:  As Mediastar said at the beginning of this thread, the piece was highly critical of both Wills and Harry.

The documentary was awful, biased, unfair, and it sucked.  It was done by the VERY vocally republican Channel 4 TV.  To paraphrase someone else, this documentary "is one of the most virulent, nasty attacks on the Monarchy ever witnessed on TV".

It uses a Monarchist voice at the beginning and the end just to add credibility to this sorry circus of a documentary.

In between, it uses talking heads like Labour backbench MP, Ian Davidson, a man who "seems to spend his whole existence seeking sticks to beat the Royal Family with", and someone from 'Republic', which is a pressure group who wants to totally abolish the Monarchy.

James Whitaker also added his worthless two cents.  He's incredibly needy and angry since he isn't 'on the inside' with the Royal Family anymore.  I think Whitaker needs to crawl back under the rocked he crawled out from and take his fake snobbery with him.

The documentary had a total lack of balance; it focused exclusively on small things and making mountains out of small mole hills.  It even brought up the whole p**i racist controversy with Harry, and tried to belittle his efforts in Afghanistan.  It would be nice if the RF got their lawyers to sue Channel 4 TV over this crappy 'documentary'.  Dispatches deliberately left out pieces of information just so that they could shape things to suit themselves.

For instance, why mention that Wills fulfilled 14 Royal Engagements in 2007, but totally forget to mention that he was in official training with the Blues and Royals during that entire time, From January through December 2007? 

And why not mention that Wills fulfilled almost twice that amount of Royal Engagements in 2008?  It's because they wanted to skew things a certain way.  They would frequently say things and only tell half of the story.

Dispatches had a very specific republican, anti-monarchist agenda with this documentary, and it wasn't hidden at all.  It was biased and full of crap.  :thumbsdown:
:happycanada:

Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored.
~Aldous Huxley
:xmas10: