MovieChat Forums > To Play the King (1996) Discussion > For Me The Weakest Part of the Trilogy (...

For Me The Weakest Part of the Trilogy ( Contains Spoilers I Suppose)

posted 9 years ago by Hammerfanatic46
7 replies | jump to latest

The acting and direction is as good as in the other parts , but the plot is just so unrealistic . British audiences will realise that there is just no way that a Monarch would challenge the elected Government in the manner depicted ,and what with the conspiracies and assassinations , it is just way over the top .

I suspect all the sensationalistic stuff was aimed at the US market, the series was made in association with an American production company .

Gordon P. Clarkson

[–] scott-269-715736 9 years ago

Thank you for the post, but I must ask and hope you or someone will clarify something for those of us on the west side of the pond.

I've always had some understanding of what a British monarch's powers are, along with things they could do, but won't, such as challenging the elected government.

If the rest of the stuff you mention was aimed at the US market, I doubt the challenge was part of it. There aren't enough of us over here that really understand the place of a monarch in a government that is so similar to our own in other respects.

So now I have to wonder if, however unlikely, a monarch could make such a challenge, or is it actually forbidden? If so, is it actual law or from long tradition. In the extreme, if it did happen, would the outcome be similar, where either the government or the monarch must step down?

Questions about whether it is really impossible or just so extremely unlikely as to make it seem impossible.

[–] Hammerfanatic46 9 years ago

Thank-you for a most interesting reply. My reference to the sensationalistic stuff was really about the explosions and paranoia which I felt was the stuff of a conventional Hollywood thriller, rather than the Monarchs challenge to the elected Government.

As you will be aware ,the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution , but one based on legal judgements and precedent . While there is no single written document forbidding the Monarch from commenting in an overtly political manner on the events of the day , there are laws passed over the last several hundred years which would make it unconstitutional. There have been in the current Monarchs reign only two occasions when she has come remotely close to offering a political opinion, if they could so have been interpreted, and they were met with such an intense furore across the party divide as to make an actual challenge to the Government of the day unimaginable . As to your question with regard to such an inconceivable event occurring , there is no doubt in my mind that if it did ,the result would be at the very least , the abdication of the monarch and even more likely , the replacement of the Institution with a Republic.

Gordon P. Clarkson

[–] scott-269-715736 9 years ago

I sincerely thank you for the clarification.

Having a strong preference for British television series there are times when I have to accept my ignorance and continue, but it's much better to gain some understanding when possible (again, thank you.) Some things are easy to research such as the large party cans of beer from Life on Mars, but politics is definitely more subtle, complex and in this instance, confusing - at least it was for me.

Now, with your explanation, the King seems to have been rather foolish and inept, even though nothing in the episode suggested it was true. If anything we were shown a very intelligent King who understood his duties and responsibilities. We were given his idealistic motivations, but nothing to make his actions likely (as you say, too much hollywood wasting away the available time.) A lifetime spent learning to be King yet he blunders in the actual role. Still, it is Michael Kitchen, who is always a pleasure to watch.

Also interesting was your comment about the current Monarch. I don't know what the two occasions were, but fortunately it didn't cause the collapse of anything.

[–] Hammerfanatic46 9 years ago

It so happens that Life on Mars is one of my favourite TV shows of all time.I agree ,Michael Kitchen is a wonderful actor.

The two occasions were when Scottish Devolution was first mooted in the 1970's and the Queen publicly observed that She had been crowned Queen of a United Kingdom . This seemed to be political naivity as she and her advisers were obviously not aware that the Scottish Nationalists did not oppose the Monarchy. The second time was when her concerns about the implications of the socially divisive policies of the Thatcher Government in the 1980's were leaked. Both incidents caused a political storm and were quickly explained away by the Palace.

Gordon P. Clarkson

[–] scott-269-715736 9 years ago

Once again, my sincere thanks for the information.

The problem over here is we often hear such things as you mention, but rarely with any details included, so we end up not really understanding the effects such headlines have.

Life on Mars is certainly on my favorites list. While I could understand the cultural references of the US version better, I enjoyed the British version more and thought the ending far superior.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago