The final part of Re-inventing The Royals (BBC2) was on tonight and was monstrously tedious.
I had been looking forward to this series, hoping for some sparky controversy. It was due to be broadcast last year but the BBC were forced to pull it off the schedule because batty old Charles was apparently offended by it. I was all ears! What precious nuggets of treachery and scandal does this programme contain? I couldn't wait to see it. With Wolf Hall sadly having ended, this documentary could perhaps offer a hint of the treason and intrigue which will now be missing from TV.
No such luck. It was boring, and the only revelation it offered was that Einstein was right: time is relative, because the 60 minutes of this programme seemed to stretch out into bland eons of time, never-ending.
I see now why the scruffy tabloids are so obsessed with the Royal Family's babies, dresses and sucked toes. It's because there really is nothing else notable about these inbred, toothy galoots.
We're told the Royal Family have 'influence but no purpose'. Neither do they have any political power. This means they depend upon popularity to keep the monarchy in place. So, although the Royals may despise the media and its intrusions, they need it in order to manipulate, promote and extend their popularity, without which they could no longer go on claiming benefits.
This programme examined the fraught relationship between the Royals and the media and there was the usual moaning about the poor, darling princes and how they've never been allowed a normal childhood. You could also argue that children living in damp council houses where the wallpaper sags onto the carpet in spongy strips aren't granted a 'normal childhood' either, but who cares about the unattractive children of the poor? Let's look at the young, golden princes.
Prince Harry, although less golden than his brother, perhaps being more the shade of a humiliated satsuma, complained that he 'can't move an inch' without someone snapping his picture and judging him.
And cranky Charles is also subject to unbearable scrutiny, finding he can't call the Chinese 'appalling old waxworks' without the damn papers finding out and telling everyone. It's just not cricket! His old Dad seems to get away with it, so why not him? Life's clearly unfair when you're royal.
Get a job, then. If you want to bounce around in Las Vegas in a pool full of naked birds without it being in the papers, get a job. If you want to go on a gap year to Chile without having to take ITN along, then get a job. If you want to marry a wizened old dear without people making cruel remarks about her, get a job. Otherwise, you're doing all these frivolous things on our time, and with our money, so we have a right to comment and mock. In other words, shut up with your whining.
Whilst that was a subject to enrage me, the programme skirted round it and spent too much time talking about PR and journalism, rather than the ethics or practicalities of why the 'Royal Family' is still a thing. You can't ask why the princes are offended and bothered by the media without asking what purpose the Royals serve and why they are here.
But perhaps the BBC can't dip a toe in those waters because they're the state broadcaster and need the good favour of the Palace. So this documentary never waded into anything juicy or controversial. The only shocking thing was hearing the paparazzi sometimes shout 'Slag! Whore! Bitch!' at Kate Middleton to provoke her into turning around and looking into the lens.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article