The Royalist - Paxman Slams BBC's "Fawning" of The Royals

Paxman Slams BBC's "Fawning" of The Royals

Written by Joanne Leyland

Tuesday, 07 October 2008

One of Britain’s foremost journalists has attacked the BBC for what he says is "fawning" coverage of the Royal Family.

Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman, who authored a book on the Windsors, makes the criticism in an upcoming Radio 4 documentary, The Palace and The Beeb.

According to the author of 'Jeremy Paxman On Royalty' – a book which saw him earn the wrath of Clarence House due to this remarkable story about Prince Charles' alleged breakfast demands – the Corporation affectionately known as 'Auntie' has "a fawning sense to the tone of voice it adopts when dealing with the heir to the throne and his family".

One person who would likely disagree with Paxman’s view is the aforementioned future king.

His notorious comment that he cannot stand that "bloody" man Nicholas Witchell is alleged to have been borne of his anger about a report the BBC’s Royal Correspondent filed when Charles embarked on a Greek cruise with the then Camilla Parker Bowles.

Witchell likened the holiday to that enjoyed by King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson just months before the abdication crisis of 1936.

The relationship between the BBC and the Palace was also tested to the limit last year when it broadcast a wrongly edited scene from a series documenting a year in the life of the Royal Family.

The Queen was wrongly depicted as having stormed out of a portrait session with American photographer Annie Liebowitz.

Meanwhile, in April 2002, the Corporation was at the centre of a huge storm when the presenter seconded with the solemn role of announcing the March 31st death of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother failed to wear a black tie.

Responding to Paxman’s criticism of its coverage of the Windsors, a BBC spokeswoman said the notoriously outspoken presenter is just "one of many voices" on the forthcoming radio documentary.

Ironically, Jeremy Paxman's comments come at a time when the BBC has followed the majority of the UK news broadcasters by giving over much less coverage to the Royal Family.

The majority of royal engagements now go widely unseen on TV news, attention now only truly falling on the Queen and her family at times of scandal, controversy or national celebration.

Comment on this article

Leave your comments (Show/Hide Form)

Other Visitors Comments

Name: valmae

Comment:
Before writing an anti-Prince Charles piece it would be a good idea to READ his website. I even cut and pasted details of his charity's international work only a few days' ago.

Regarding the hosepipe incident, it is true that a hangover the next morning often turns to regret for the antics at a stag party the previous evening. As the years role by, though, many recount their exploits wistfully. Even for royals stag parties are occasional and I don't think we should complain.

We should complain, though, about regular roistering. There is too much of it in the UK and it is turning our town and city centres into nightmare zones. It is expensive for the taxpayer. However, the Govt. is trying to do something about it. I think the young Princes shouldn't set such a bad example, and there are signs that they have been warned off.

Nobody in the UK can seriously hold the Royal Family accountable for the global meltdown. They are as powerless as we are and are probably like us pretty fearful of the outcome. They might be affected in different ways, but we are all suffering and will continue to suffer.

Another myth to explode - Some of you know from experience a business trip is not the joyride that it appears to be. Firstly, you spend many hours cooped up in a plane, you see two airports. You stay in an hotel (which isn't home) and spend the daytime meeting and working, before the journey home.

Now...... a royal visit over a few days is not a holiday. It is work. True they might be shunted around famous historical sites, but that isn't browsing as a tourist. Eating food in public must be awful. Anyone will tell you that being a chairman and being the focus of everyone in a room is one of the most tiring things you can do. These royals are doing it as a job for their working and retirement years. To have one's slightest twitch or slip reported and magnified, and repeated years later is not be envied.

Regarding the Prince of Wales' visit to Japan, Brunei and Indonesia, it was announced that the Govt. requested it. Some of us know that funding of this trip is agreed by Govt. Ergo the reason is relevant and the outcome might not be announced or tangibly felt straightaway. Govt. people will be accompanying and working. I doubt it will much of a jolly for anyone.

Also the royals are caged by the security people. Every time they go out in public they are supported by crack shots and many police. They are not able to tour the streets as they once did. Quite a lot of their "engagements" take place in the palaces.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)

Name: exploora

Comment:
I think he is right.

These so called modern princes pretend they are so normal, and at the same time if a normal person got near them the princes would be considered in danger, and the other person could possibly be seen as psychotic.And then we read stories about them, who knows how true they are, where Harry walks around with a hose or something at the pub where they were celebrating Peter's stag do, or however you word that, and if anyone talked to strange women like that could get into all kinds of trouble, but instead he was able to convince women to hang cd's on their nipples, one was able to hang 8.

If this story is true, who else would get away with behaving like that in public.

Mere mortals get into trouble even describing the story even though it was in public publication and the story is common knowledge.

There are all kinds of examples of double standards like that.

When did prince of Wales ever try to save a heritage building outside Britain, in commonwealth countries such as Canada.

Fear mongering is a big business, or it seems to be.

People don't even have to have evidence but just a bias, and if they have the power can start a war or all kinds of things.

Some people with a strong bias could accuse a country of having weapons of mass destruction, but it is ok if they have such weapons.

And we wonder why our banking system is collapsing. Who creates value anymore? We appear to be destroying value everyday, and are not allowed to even speak about in many situations.

Without dialogue between each other, how can we understand each other.

And if we don't care about others in other country, how are we expected to create value in the global economy?

And why doesn't the POW answer that question?

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.3) Gecko/2008092417 Firefox/3.0.3

Name: anyacat

Comment:
Paxo may criticize the BBC for its coverage of the Queen, but it seems more than a coincidence that in 2007 the US leg of his promotional tour for On Royalty coincided with the Queen's tour of the United States (and to ensure sales, he fills the book with plenty of salacious little tales). News about the Royal Family seems to sell newspapers or garner interest for books. Alas, the worse the news, the higher the sales. As for the BBC: it hasn't fawned over anything in decades, much less the Royal Family.

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_4_11; en) AppleWebKit/525.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Safari/525.22

Name: valmae

Comment:
There's nothing like publicising one's book is there! A bit crude really, having a go at the royals. Andrew Boulton (political commentator, Sky News) produced a quote about the D. of E. using a very rude word to Tony Blair at the time of Diana's funeral - no doubt to boost his book sales.

The dreadful thing is that Paxman's book on Royalty has enriched him somewhat (published in the UK and the US). He had enjoyed hospitality from the PoW too. Now he has popped a quote about royalty in his new book. Sorry Jeremy it is unlikely to sell as many copies as the other. A bit of turncoat really. I wouldn't have him in my humble home! I don't think we could stand the sneering.

Name: Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg

Comment:
Ah, I love to talk about this. "Fawning" is the operative word here, FAWNING :: bootlicking: attempting to win favor by flattery.

BBC does not know "the real story" of Edward VIII, nor the "real story" about the Stone of Scone, nor the "real story" about Diana's death, nor the "real story" about the Balfour Declaration and the Round Table, and how those came about as a form of Zionism that has become a British Sacred Cow.

BBC prefers to believe what they are told, in order to curry favor with whoever is reigning and/or whoever is ruling.

And BBC doesn't know the difference between "reigning" and "ruling."

BBC is run by boot-lickers, not by those who seek and cleave to what is true.

EEWC

HomePage: http://www.holyconservancy.org

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080325 Ubuntu/7.10 (gutsy) Firefox/2.0.0.13

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Main Menu

Latest Puzzles

Videos

Quick Links

More Web Links

Syndicate