The Royal House of Windsor

I found this "documentary" to be utterly biased in favor of the immediate royal family, while placing people like Princess Diana and others that married into the family as a cast of characters that were out to destroy their magical kingdom.

Princess Diana was painted as a depressed, self-obsessed, out of control child that came from a damaged home, not suited for Prince Charles; going as far to state that she was actually out to destroy the royal family. While Prince Charles was painted as the poor little royal boy that just got caught up in marrying the wrong woman; whilst having an affair with Camilla. Give us a break!

Let's remember that Princes Diana was not "unsuited", or a "commoner", as the royal family would have us think. Princess Diana came from an aristocratic and noble family, The Spencer's of Althorp, dating to the 15th century.

This documentary is a sad and clear attempt to steer the viewer into seeing the immediate royal family in a brilliant white light, while casting dark shadows on others that did not suit their own personal needs.

I feel bad for Prince William and Prince Harry, having to see their mother berated, stripped of her dignity and used as a scapegoat in such a fine royal manner.

File this "documentary" under "Mostly Royal Fiction".

The multi-part series that gave insight into the Royal House of Windsor was a well-done and engaging documentary. For those who enjoyed the Crown on Netflix, watching this series will give a bit more detail into what happened throughout the Netflix series.

My complaint about The Royal House of Windsor is the portrayal of Diana. The historians featured in the series talked about Diana as if she was a devious and conniving woman.

As a woman, I'm sick of this trope that mainstream media give to women who don't follow protocol. If Diana was a man, she'd be given the title of a trailblazer. Instead, the commentary gave viewers the notion that every single good deed she did was supposed to be a jab at her husband and the House of Windsor.

They portrayed her as a media manipulator while also decrying her as a mentally-ill uneducated oaf. Even if she was as manipulative as described in this episode, at least give her credit for what she chose to use her celebrity for. The woman went out of her way to hug AIDS victims at a time when people wouldn't even touch them. and yet there wasn't any commentary that praised this brazen move.

It may sound like I am a Diana superfan--I am not. It just seemed fishy that Prince Charles's affair with Camilla was mentioned in a mere sentence and the commentary on Diana's mental stability went on for the entire episode.

A well-done documentary would allow the viewer to make their own opinion about the events that have unfolded. While I was very engaged during the first several episodes, the Diana episode felt too editorialized and left a bad taste in my mouth. I came away thinking that this production worked very closely with the Windsors (funny how this series got hold of all these exclusive documents decades later) to send a message to the public that their former hero was really a conniving and dumb woman.

Sad that a series made in 2017 would make such a move.

They are trying to soil Diana's image.Charles always had an affair with Camilla which was not discussed more than a sentence in the episode.It is a disgrace to the legacy of Diana.Such a biased documentary!

It presents the House of Windsor as a noble establishment unfairly tarnished by association with rogue elements (i.e. the Romanoffs, Edward VIII, and Diana). The opening credits claims to show "human frailties" of the royal family. Instead, it represents a glossy picture of top family members (such as Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles). Any publicly known character flaws/scandals are excused through blathering about accomplishment and royals "finding themselves". It spends mere seconds mentioning issues such as Charles' ongoing affair with Camilla or other divorces in the family. Feuds, fire, and betrayal mentioned in the opening credits are hardly explored. When other family members make mistakes, the series fixates on these people as homewreckers and outcasts. It disproportionately represents negative aspects of Prince Philip, Princess Diana, and Edward VIII. "Outsiders" are shown as the ultimate troublemakers, instead of presenting a balanced picture of the royal family as fallible human beings. The series swings confusingly between generalizations and detailed history. The beginning uses eyewitness accounts and takes the viewer step by step through early Windsor history. After Elizabeth's accession, it makes assumptions about viewer's knowledge. One moment Prince Charles meets Diana, the next minute they are separated with two children. The retelling starts swinging back and forth through history, losing the viewer. The last episode "The Top Job" especially suffers from this issue and rambles endlessly about Prince Charles' social standing. It talks about the future, then totally skips over princes William and Harry. The visuals are the strongest point in this series. There are enough interesting graphics to keep the viewer occupied. However, some editing choices are questionable. The biggest downside is an overlay of curling smoke on the left-hand side of the screen. It is very distracting throughout the six episodes. The very first episode shows an inaccurate map of Europe, showing Belgium twice in place of the Netherlands. For those with a general interest in history, this series will be acceptable. If well-versed in history or British subjects, find another series. Otherwise you will find yourself face-palming throughout it.

I enjoyed the series very much but a major case of historical disinformation bothered me. The series highlights the visit to South Africa in 1947 of the future Queen Elizabeth II, with her sister, Princess Margaret, and her parents, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. The visit lasted three months and involved a train journey through South Africa itself, Southern Rhodesia, Swaziland, Basutoland and the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Racial division between the crowds cheering the royal family on their journey is shown in many scenes. For instance black and white well-wishers are seen to cheer the royal family from two sides of the royal train, possibly because they are standing on segregated platforms. This situation is then ascribed to Afrikaner Nationalism and apartheid. The problem with this explanation is that the National Party, representing Afrikaner Nationalism and apartheid, only came to power in 1948, the year after 1947 when the royal family visited South Africa. In 1947 and in the preceding years South Africa was ruled by general Jan Smuts of the South African Party. He was a great friend of Great Britain who acted as adviser to the British War Cabinet. It was probably partly due to the military support and advisory role of Gen Smuts in the Second World War that South Africa was chosen as the country where the royal family would spend all those sunny months. One can see Gen Smuts in many scenes in the documentary. In other words, the documentary does not show South Africa under the rule of Afrikaner Nationalism or apartheid, but under the rule of Gen Smuts, before the word apartheid became generally known in the world. A second aspect of what seems like disinformation is that exactly the same kind of racial separation and inequality existed in all of the other colonial possessions of Great Britain visited by the royal family, i.e. Southern Rhodesia, Swaziland, Basutoland and the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Britain had colonies all over Africa at the time, including for instance the present-day Ghana and Kenya. In all of these countries you would have seen similar scenes of racial separation in 1947. These scenes were explained by British colonialism, not by racial laws not yet enacted by a government not yet in power in South Africa. There is no excuse for any kind of racial domination, let alone inhumanity shown to any race, and the National Party justly disappeared from history, together with its policies. But we should not be misinformed and certainly not dis-informed by portrayals of history.