Quite a reflection on the leftie middle class metropolitan elite arts lover types that get jobs as tv reviewers.
It's the only way for them to infiltrate the Telegraph, I hear. Oh for a day when every TV reviewer had the ideological purity of Garry Bushell, eh?
Anyroad, all this talk about it made me want to have a look. Watched the first half via iPlayer. I struggled at first with Harry being played by (I think) the same actor who played him in "The Windsors" (I was rather expecting him to exclaim "Oh Pippa!" every time he appeared). However, it's interesting - in the first part at least, Charles is portrayed as principled, frustrated by the lack of sway he has over the actions of his government, but politically naive. It seems rather sympathetic, at least so far, and sets up some interesting tensions around what is right (the actions of a democratically elected parliament, in the process of enacting a "bad" law, vs an hereditary monarch acting in what appear to be the best interests of the country).
There were also hints of the unfeeling "machine" of the monarchy in the Harry subplot "You are not part of the family", the press officer tells someone whose life is about to be ruined by the papers following a dalliance with the Prince, but other strands show the Royals caught up in it as much as the unfortunate commoners that cross their paths. It's all far more conflicted and nuanced than I'd expected, and the praise for the performances (Tim Piggott-Smith in particular) seems fair.
