Banned Royal Documentary Has Been Leaked To The Public

Of all the great and enduring mysteries in this world, it sounds silly to count one of them as the 1969 documentary The Royal Family. But to the millions of people who watched the film when it first aired, the biggest mystery of all was this: Who in the world thought this would be a good idea? 

The least mysterious part of the documentary was why the Queen ended up banning it. Everyone knew why she put the doc under lock and key, and it’s not just because of the public's harsh reaction. Looking back, the documentary caught the family in some pretty unflattering situations.

The idea of a documentary about the British royal family may not seem very provocative in today’s uber-connected world, but in the ‘60s, the royals weren’t the smiling people we see every day on Instagram. In fact, the royals weren’t seen much at all.

Back then, the British royal family was seen at celebrity engagements, on national holidays, and in paparazzi photos. No one really knew what the inside of Buckingham palace looked like, or what the Queen ate for breakfast, or what Prince Charles and his siblings did for fun. But the documentary promised to change that.

It was a way to give the public a glimpse into royal life from the comfort of their own homes. And apart from quieting public curiosity, the documentary had another important purpose: to make the royals seem more integral to society overall.

You see, one of the most controversial topics in the ‘60s was whether or not the British royal family really needed their opulent palaces, fancy yachts, and boundless fortune in general. In a modern-day time when the monarchy no longer has political power, are they really necessary at all?

The royals argued that they were necessary, and the only way to prove it was to let a few cameras go where no camera had ever gone before. Over a period of a year and a half, cameramen followed the royal family as they worked, socialized, and tried to act natural.

But not everyone thought it was a good idea. David Attenborough, who at the time worked at the BBC, warned the film’s director that the documentary could end up “killing the monarchy.” He wasn’t alone in his fear, and as it turned out, he had reason to worry. What the documentary showed left the public reeling, then and now. 

To be fair, some of what the documentary showed succeeded in demystifying the royals to the public. For example, in one scene, the Queen is seen on an outing with young Prince Edward, who asks for ice cream. In the scene, she does something no Queen has ever been seen doing before.

She reaches into her purse, pulls out some cash, and pays for Edward’s ice cream herself. Since the Queen never pays for her own meals, this was a never-before-seen moment captured by the cameras. It was a rare, sweet moment for the stoic royals, and it wasn’t the only heartwarming part of the documentary. 

In another scene, Prince Charles is filmed teaching Edward how to play the cello. It’s all fun and games until a cello string suddenly snaps, hitting Edward right in the face. This rare moment of humor among the royals stands out as one of the few undoubtedly unscripted parts of the film.

Although the whole point of the doc was to show the family in these moments of normalcy, there was no getting around the fact that the royals simply weren’t normal. This was highlighted in many scenes, such as when an outing on the Royal Yacht Britannia quickly got extravagant.

As the film’s narrator insists that the royals are totally normal, the viewer watches as a helicopter delivers the day’s newspapers to the family onboard their yachts. “On the sea does not mean out of touch,” the narrator says, but the public watching the excessive lifestyle unfold didn’t exactly agree.

People watching the documentary also picked up on some awkward moments, especially between the royals and some of their high-ranking guests. In fact, one conversation between the Queen and President Richard Nixon became one of the most talked-about segments of the documentary. 

While making small talk with the president, the Queen says, “The world problems are so complex, aren’t they now?” Not everyone is adept at small talk, of course, but that didn’t stop the public from wondering if the odd statement was a mistake or simply the symptom of a bigger problem.

The “bigger problem” being the royals' existence themselves. Though the documentary succeeded in reminding the public of their existence, it also reminded them of how much money this unelected royal family had. The backlash was so bad that in 1977, Queen Elizabeth banned the film from being played on TV ever again…

Until it resurfaced in 2021, that is. For the first time in decades, the public got to see the royal family — before their many controversies in the '80s and beyond — in their “natural habitats.” Though the film was only available for a brief time, that didn’t stop one scene from making the headlines for the first time.

Though the scene didn’t appear to make many waves when it first aired, that wasn't the case in 2021. In a moment towards the end of the film, Queen Elizabeth is seen telling a story about an unnamed visitor whom her home secretary refers to with a rude name.

“It’s extremely difficult to keep a straight face when the home secretary said to me, ‘There’s a gorilla coming in,’” the Queen says to her family in the scene. “So I said, you know, ‘What an extraordinary remark to make — very unkind — about anybody.’” But then, the queen relates what happened when she saw the visitor herself.

“I stood in the middle of the room and pressed the bell, and the doors opened and there was a gorilla,” she said. “I had the most terrible trouble keeping — you know, he had a short body and long arms. And I had the most appalling trouble.” People had theories about who the Queen was referring to.

Some people believe that she and her home secretary were referring to a former U.S. ambassador, though obviously, no one knows this for sure. Since Buckingham Palace and the BBC both declined to comment on the scene, we may never know who, exactly, was the butt of the joke…

Not that the uncomfortable moment has shifted the public’s feelings about the Queen all that much, of course. The documentary may have failed to reinvigorate the public’s support of the monarchy as a whole, but it did revitalize their love for its most popular member.

Most people support the Queen herself, but not necessarily the institution of royal rule. With Britain's sovereign steadily approaching her 95th birthday, many experts fear that public sentiment will shift following the end of Elizabeth's reign, and for several good reasons.

After all, Prince Charles, the soon-to-be 13th King of the United Kingdom, isn't exactly universally beloved. To top it off, Charles will be nearing 80 by the time he takes the throne, likely leaving him little time to really change Britons' attitudes toward the monarchy.

That responsibility will fall to Prince William, whom experts believe appeals more to younger generations because of his age and progressive attitudes. Yet for most of these Britons, they'll likely have an even bigger question in mind: what's the point?

"All of those questions about 'What the hell do we want this kind of unelected family (for)? What does that represent in Britain today?', all these profound questions have been held in check because of the Queen," explained Dr. Anna Whitelock, a reader in early modern history at Royal Holloway in London. She continued.

"As the older generation who are generally more wedded to the monarchy die out," Dr. Whitelock said, "the question of the future of the monarchy will become even more pressing, and then potentially more critical voices will come to the fore." And they make some pretty good points, too.

For starters, the royal family really plays no vital role in the functioning of the U.K., with the Queen's duties of bestowing honours and appointing the prime minister being the only of any real significance. In a vacuum, a ceremonial leader would seem almost fun to have around — Britons, however, pay dearly for this "privilege."

The royal purse is almost entirely funded by the people of Britain, meaning that every flashy banquet, designer dress, and private jet flight is paid for by the taxpayers. Even Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's wedding was publicly funded, costing Britons a whopping $45.8 million.

"But the royals add value to the economy!" some defenders might argue, citing the family's global popularity and high tourism revenues from royal sites. Yet when placed side by side, the disparity between this income and the cost to support the Windsors is startling.

Despite official reports from Buckingham Palace claiming that annual royal expenses only amount to around $58 million — for serving purely ceremonial purposes, mind you — others have placed these costs as high as $468 million, making the Queen and her clan one of the most expensive royal families in Europe.

"I would say by 2030 there will be definite louder clamours for the eradication of the monarchy," Dr. Whitelock shared, citing the growing resentment toward the burdens of the crown. Yet the final nail in the coffin for the British monarchy might actually come from the royal family itself.

With every move they make constantly under the microscope, one small slip up on the part of a high-profile royal could topple the entire dynasty. And as it turns out, they've already made a handful of pretty glaring mistakes.

The first notes of opposition came in the '90s, with some Britons openly referring to the royals as greedy, stuffy, and woefully out of touch. It was easy for the family to ignore the talk at first, though following the death of Princess Diana, this divide between the crown and the people only grew larger.

Much of the criticism was aimed at the Queen herself, whose "cold" response to Diana's death prompted outrage from the British public. Though the royal family would go on to mostly repair its public image over the next decade, the seeds of dissent had already been sown.

For a while, however, it seemed the Windsors had gotten back into Britain's good graces, the marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton and the births of their children helping to buoy public support. Then, in 2019, the royals dropped the ball once again.

This time it was Prince Andrew, the Queen's middle child, who had been scrutinized for years for his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Though both Andrew and the crown had repeatedly denied any involvement with Epstein's illicit activities, the prince's November interview with Newsnight told a different story.

In an interview described as a "car crash" and "nuclear explosion level bad," Andrew only seemed to confirm his involvement with Epstein's sex-trafficking operation, effectively creating a PR crisis for the royal family. The prince was immediately suspended from all royal duties and pulled from the public eye, though the nightmare was hardly over.

As organizations swiftly cut ties with the prince and Britons began calling for his titles to be stripped, Andrew permanently resigned from his official duties. He's currently a person of interest in the ongoing Epstein investigation, with the FBI now attempting to extradite him to the United States for questioning.

But perhaps the biggest blow to the teetering monarchy came in early 2020, when Prince Harry and Meghan Markle shocked the world by announcing their exit from the royal family. This posed the million-dollar question: if not even the Duke and Duchess of Sussex wanted to support to crown, then why should the British people?

Buckingham Palace continues to grow notably worried about its growing irrelevance, though Prince Charles may have a plan in mind to restore public faith. He has a reputation for stepping over boundaries set by his mother, especially when it comes to doing the right thing.

He believes that the monarchy should be pared back and that royal expenses should be paid for privately, not out of public coffers. He's lobbied against genetically modified foods, and has called for climate change action, so there's reason to believe Charles might act on other tough topics.