No. **Prunella Scales **played ERII brilliantly in Alan Bennett’s A Question of Attribution and I read recently that the Queen specifically told her how much she enjoyed her portrayal - I don’t have a cite though, I’m afraid.
Very subtly, Mirren did not look entirely pleased either.
I loved the opening scenes. Elizabeth is sitting for a portrait and the news is on about the elections. She and the artist banter a bit about whether Blair would be ‘good for the Royals’ and she comments that she would like to vote, just once, to see what it felt like. Then as the camera slowly moves in she settles into her pose. Being in full regalia–down to the sceptres–helped, but Mirren radiated the regalness that goes with the position. I was entirely convinced for the rest of the movie.
About the handbag hooks: I didn’t notice them directly but she did carry a handbag around with her, even in the palace, which would sort of disappear rather than be placed on a tabletop or some such. I remember thinking fleetingly at one point that the Queen of England would be the last woman I’d expect to be carrying a handbag in her own house, but being 'Merkin what do I know.
I did not know the Queen was barred from voting. Every year at election time, they always show a clip of the President voting. Somehow, I assumed that the Queen would have the same rights as every citizen.
The Queen is the embodiment of the State, the fount of Honour, and the fount of Justice* (constitutionally speaking). None of which is entirely typical of Joe Bloggs on the street 
. She gets to decide who is asked to form a government if a General Election fails to be conclusive, so I guess it’s not appropriate for her to vote. The rest of the Royal Family are entitled to a vote, but I’m sure that the senior ones don’t.
- Under the common law the Monarchy can not be prosecuted in her own courts for a criminal offence, but can be sued in a civil action, but only in her public capacity (ie the State), and not personally. Neat, huh? So if Betty tooke an axe to Camilla, nothing could be done about it as the law currently stands. Of course, Parliament would assert it’s authority in short order, and we’d have tanks on The Mall in no time.
The UK Parliament consists of three parts: the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. I believe that members of the House of Lords don’t vote either, since that would be double-dipping too. So the Queen get her vote: it’s worth the same as all the votes of the commoners put together. However, it’s only exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister, so it doesn’t have that much value to the Queen.
(And she’s not a citizen, either. Indeed, she is the monarch of several other realms, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where she certainly is not a citizen either, because she wasn’t born a citizen, and hasn’t been naturalised as a citizen.)
Okay, wait a sec, here. Please explain this. I thought anyone born in a nation was automatically a citizen of that country. Does she have a “nationality”, then?
She’s
no more, no less. She, as the “the State”, can’t be a citizen of “herself”. No, I know it doesn’t make any sense.
She would have been born a British subject: her grandfather King George V was on the throne then. However, when she came to the throne, she ceased to be a subject or a citizen. If she ever abdicated (as her uncle King Edward VIII did), she would become a citizen, and a subject of her son, King Charles III. She possibly had a passport before she became Queen, but probably never used it: royal princesses tend not to line up at immigration like the rest of us.
(Note that when she was born, there wasn’t such a thing as UK citizenship: you were born a British subject. I was born a British subject too, and I was born in Australia: I didn’t become an Australian citizen until I was about 3 1/2 years old, when the first Australian Citizenship Act came into force).
Thanks, guys.
I’ve already learned something today and it’s not even 10:30 yet!
Wikipedia says that, a few years ago, the Prince of Wales gave an interview in which he said that, when/if he takes the Throne, he might do so as George VII, thus honoring his paternal grandfather. I haven’t read of this interview anywhere else, though, so it might be a Wiki error.
I just saw it tonight, and was surprised that there was a decent sized crowd, considering it was a 10pm show and the movie’s been out for a couple weeks. Maybe the movie’s got legs?
I liked it! I went into it half-heartedly, but it had great reviews and I’d seen everything else in the theater I was interested in, so I was surprised that I did for the most part enjoy it. The acting was great, and the underlying tension was very interesting.
This might deserve its own thread, but I’m wondering if people think, in retrospect, that the Queen did the right thing in bending to popular opinion? Looking back on it now, I gather that people think that the frenzy after Diana’s death was really whipped up by the tabloid media. Surely people were genuinely sad at the loss, but consider that the whole affair now seems to be forgotten. I’ve read that attendance at anniversary memorials for Diana have been far lower than expected. Maybe the queen was right and the British people were less grief-stricken than the media made it out to be…? Should she have stuck to tradition and not risen the flag, not given the speech?
Oh! I forgot – a quick, minor GQ type question for anyone who might be more in the know. Was the depiction of 10 Downing Street in this movie accurate? I knew it looked pretty humble from the outside, but I’d always assumed that inside it was pretty stately. So the scenes of “Tony” and his family lounging around in T-shirts, the kids’ drawings on the walls, a messy living room, and Cherie serving up burnt fish sticks for dinner were even more bizarrely unexpected than the depiction of the royal family.
I do remember hearing that 10 Downing street actually is a bit of a dump. I imagine that the living quarters are also very different from the rooms in which affairs of state are conducted - it wouldn’t be a stretch.
I think the Blair family’s apartment is actually next door at number 11, the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. This came about because his apartment is larger than the one at number 10. When Labour came to power Brown was unmarried so Blair and Brown came to an arrangement to swap living accommodation.
Parts of the British press are still obsessed with Princess Diane . The Daily Express is always running stories about her and it is very rare not to see a picture of her on its front page at least once a week.
That’s so weird. I imagined the PM would live similarly to the US president. I don’t know exactly how opulent that is, but I know that the pres at least has some personal chefs in the White House…
The Express is owned by Mohammed al-Fayed, the father of Dodi al-Fayed, and he is obsessed with conspiracy theories surrounding the death of the Princess and his son. Hence the coverage.
The PM isn’t the Head of State though, and the Queen does have some rather nice palaces and castles to live in. 
Wrong. The Express is owned by the Richard Desmond, who made his fortune from soft-porn magazines. The papers’ other obsessions are gypsies and illegal immigrants.
The Prime Minister also has an official country house called Chequers
You know, I actually knew that. It’s the years of reading Private Eye, which uses a caricature of al-Fayed as the voice of the Express Diana coverage. Oops.