"William & Harry: The Truth" (2009) - Channel 4 Documentary

[angieuk]

NEW TV DOCUMENTARY 22.00 PM - MONDAY 26 JANUARY 2009 .. RUNNING TIME 65 MINS
WILLIAM AND HARRY: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED... 65 MINS Monday 26 January, Channel 4

Princes William and Harry. Jacques Peretti takes a closer look at the world of the Princes, investigating the truth behind the press headlines.

 

[Jacknch]

Did anyone else watch this tv programme last night? I did, and have to say that I do not think it showed William and Harry in particularly good light. It suggested that they are both reluctant in their royal roles which is why they've signed up to the forces for so many years. Maybe the rules on succession will have to be changed quicker than we think

It also put Harry in particularly bad light on his nights out drinking!

 

[Adamari]

I haven't watched the documentary, but I got the same impression of them from other programs: that they are extremely reluctant to take on the full responsibility of their royal roles.

I remember watching one interview they gave to an American reporter and they were obviously affronted/offended as they recalled comments by people close to them that they are not ordinary people who can live ordinary lives but have a special responsibility due to their royal status. They clearly didn't like that, even though I think those people spoke the truth.

They might have the right stuff for the military but I'm beginning to question whether either of them has the right stuff to be king.

 

[Skydragon]

IMO.

I found the program to be spectacularly negative. The presenter, seemed to have his own anti view and looked for all the bad to reinforce it, without allowing anything for youthful mistakes. I have been one of their fiercest critics over some of their 'stunts' but.....

However, the moment he involved Whitaker, I expected the worst.

I don't believe they have joined the forces to avoid Royal duties. It does give them an idea of real life and saves 'us' locking them away at Clarence House and only bringing them out occasionally. Even though I feel they have both been given given favourable treatment because of their royal status, the forces is an honourable career for them to follow, while they can.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I just watched the programme - it was negative but that was the intention and only fitting into what most people in the UK think of the Princes anyway. There is not much left from the hype especially around William who was idolized for being Diana's son and was hailed as the saviour of the monarchy. It's not his fault but mainly the media's fault who build up this overrated image over the years only to for the public to realize now that William is unable to live up to this impossible expectation.

I believe that both boys are pretty average at best, not the brightest bulbs around, rather spoilt and exploiting their royal status to their advantage every now and then, hating the media not only for exposing their behaviour, not exactly down to earth or born with the "service to the country" gene. The "War of the Windsors" has probably caused more damage during their character-building years than we all want to believe.

But nothing new here, for me William and Harry are no better than most of the young royals or heirs because of their upbringing, as much as like commoners as possible what makes them act like commoners or wanting to be commoners what in fact they are not. They basically don't have what it takes and are overstrained with their future "job", just one issue leading to an eventual downfall of the institution "monarchy" in general. I can see Charles as worthy monarch but I have difficulties to imagine William in his shoes. These days the respect has gone, it's not the name "Wales" that justifies the qualification but the achievement, dedication, intelligence, just as in any other business. If Charles wasn't seen as qualified because of what he does and has been doing for years, he would already be questioned as capable heir today. If William doesn't step up several gears after his military stint he'll find himself in a tricky position - we must not forget that his father is likely to become King rather short term than long term, so William could find himself sooner in the PoW position that we all think. And from that day it will be substance that counts, nothing else.

 

[ghost_night554]

I agree although I still have alot of faith in William especially, I think he can do it, does he want to..I'll be honest here and say I'm sure he doesn't want to step into full royal duties but I think he realizes that eventually he'll have no choice. Clearly they have made mistakes used their status in the past (I cannot believe I just admitted that) but I still have a huge bit of faith in them. They're human they are not robots they will make those mistakes .They will say the wrong things do the wrong things choose wrong people to trust. I didn't see the program but I can probably imagine what it was like and it doesn't surprise me gone are the days the media held William especially in the greatest light possible as a future king. The media have never been overly kinda to Harry but that's a different story he doesn't have the responsibility William has.

 

[Menarue]

I read that when William and Harry were quite young there was a phone in poll about whether the Monarchy should be abolished in Britain. It said that Diana and the two Princes watched together and with much giggling Diana urged on her sons and the three of them, or perhaps just Diana, sent in about 200 votes in favour of abolishment. If this is true and it was meant as a bit of fun, it wasn´t really that funny and it must have had some influence on the young boys´way of thinking.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

William will eventually do the job and like some of the new heirs he's not keen to take on the position but he knows that there is no choice.
Having a reluctant attitude is not a good start because these days a King needs to be open, both with people and media, and William will be a King who loathes the media. I think that his upbringing is most unfortunate for the monarchy and caused a lot of irreparable damage, by both parents not getting it right. In the docu Charles' outburst was shown caught on microphone telling his sons that the press was awful and that he couldn't stand them, telling them to put on a show. That says it all, basically.

The programme also said the William was not a straight forward character, as eg Harry seems to be, what could well be true from what we have heard recently (eg tricking people at the RAF to his own advantage, not only once).

Overall people, especially the tabloids abroad, seem to get now that William is not the saviour of the monarchy they had hoped for, and more and more stop these silly requests that QEII and Charles should abdicate in his favour rather sooner than later. From what we have seen of him until now it should rather say Long live the Queen and then Long live the King! for the sake of the monarchy.

 

[Warren]

William will eventually do the job and like some of the new heirs he's not keen to take on the position but he knows that there is no choice.

I doubt if any of the current heirs have shown 100% enthusiasm for their future role at every stage of their lives. It is only natural that at some stage they have all said to themselves "why me?" when they realised the pressure of expectation and the prospect of intense and continual public scrutiny. The awareness that the direction of their lives was more or less laid out, whatever they may personally want, would add frustration to the sense of powerlessness over their future. It would take time to accept one's fate.

The less palatable alternative would be for an heir to have either a totally passive personality or an unhealthy sense of ambition for the top job. On the whole with young or youngish heirs, a reluctant first-in-line would be preferable to one with steely eyes on the prize.

 

[RoyalProtocol]

I read that when William and Harry were quite young there was a phone in poll about whether the Monarchy should be abolished in Britain. It said that Diana and the two Princes watched together and with much giggling Diana urged on her sons and the three of them, or perhaps just Diana, sent in about 200 votes in favour of abolishment. If this is true and it was meant as a bit of fun, it wasn´t really that funny and it must have had some influence on the young boys´way of thinking.

How irresponsible of Diana, she was effectivly doing her son out of a job: typical!

 

[MARG]

The less palatable alternative would be for an heir to have either a totally passive personality or an unhealthy sense of ambition for the top job. On the whole with young or youngish heirs, a reluctant first-in-line would be preferable to one with steely eyes on the prize.

I believe Prince Charles had some rather cutting words to say to journalists who asked him if he was looking forward to becoming King. Something along the lines of "that is contingent on the death of his Mother and, that being the case, he is more than happy to wait".

It would not be a good "look" for the Princes, William in particular, to be seen to be in a hurry to bury his Grandmother and Father!

Time enough for "Royal Duty" after their father becomes King. It is not as if either of them are "The Heir"!

 

[Warren]

How irresponsible of Diana, she was effectivly doing her son out of a job: typical!

I think we'd need to know the source of this alleged story before making any judgement.

 

[Menarue]

That is a very upsetting thing about being the monarch, your loyal subjects are all ready to bury you (figuratively) when they talk about the next King/Queen.
Like someone I know who patted her mother-in-law´s hand supposingly with affection and mouthed to her husband "this ring is for me".

 

[Lumutqueen]

I watched this program after it aired and I was very disturbed by some of the things that were said. For instance that the William when out riding plowed his horse into a journalist. I don't doubt that the boys are annoyed by the press but not to go to that great length to get rid of them!


x

 

[Jacknch]

My view on all this is probably quite simplistic and a little unrealistic, but I am a great believer that the future of any monarchy rests with its popularity, support and above all respect from the people of the country over which said monarch reigns. This requires people to have some knowledge and understanding of their monarch and the heirs to the throne and the only way in which this can be achieved effectively is through good relations between the various media and royalty. If a royal/heir is truly supportive of the institution that they are a fundamental part of, then they should be doing all they can to protect its future. As such, they should take their role seriously, present themselves well and act in a way that commands the respect and support of the people. This doesn't mean they have to act like a drone or be "boring" but being genuine would be a start. If there are doubts about the willingness of heirs to live their lives in this way, then (and this is the simplistic and probably unrealistic part!) the answer is find an heir willing and capable. Being born into a royal family is a rare opportunity for someone and if they do not like the opportunities their royal life brings them, then their place is surely wasted and should go to someone else! Another way of looking at things is to make comparisons with the way in which the various heirs amongst the royal families of this world act and carry out their duties and see who is likely to be good at their job and who is not.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I doubt if any of the current heirs have shown 100% enthusiasm for their future role at every stage of their lives. It is only natural that at some stage they have all said to themselves "why me?" when they realised the pressure of expectation and the prospect of intense and continual public scrutiny. The awareness that the direction of their lives was more or less laid out, whatever they may personally want, would add frustration to the sense of powerlessness over their future. It would take time to accept one's fate.

completely agree, none of them seems particulary enthusiastic what is perfectly fine. what i wanted to point out is that i see william on a worse level than others. his "relationship" with the media is abnormally bad, partly understandable, due to the public problems of his parents and the public death of his mother. he loathes public life and it will take a lot more maturity than today to successfully deal with it. the ironic twist of his life is that he will need the media to survive as a public figure, future king, a fact he hates but needs to eventually come to terms with. william will be aware that the house of windsor will go down if he considered abdication, a price even he won't be prepared to pay. if the consequences were any less harsh i am sure he would probably give it a serious thought.

 

[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