I'm a UK republican (not to be confused with a US republican of course) and I don't believe in the institution of Royalty. I acknowledge that this might discolour my appreciation of the film.
If you have a fondness for the institution of 'our' Royal family you might enjoy this film more than I did.
It's a completely fictional story about something that never happened at a peak point of flag waving nationalism. You can probably track the decline of British image of empire and royalty and traditionalism from there ironically.
Of course the (now) Queen never went out with Princess Margaret in the fashion that has been portrayed and I'm sure that the truth would offer no form of cinematic fascination at all. So instead they play the 'what if' game of allowing the two princesses to slip their chaperons and made off into the London night.
The whole thing is a bit pantomime though to be fair.
It is difficult to explain the different contrasting portrayals of the (in this) idiot Margaret and the sensible and instinctively capable Elizabeth. Other than for comic purposes of course. Margaret is also (for dramatic purposes) the more 'plain' of the two in appearance - which suits the narrative of 'the chosen one' being Elizabeth.
In truth I'd punt on Margaret being the sharper and more worldly of the two - she seemed that way in her life - and to be frank she was always the more beautiful too.
The Royal family are also portrayed in the comic realm of being quite 'normal' except of course for the fact that dad can call the army in to look after his girls when they go out. The footmen etc the 'we don't carry money' gag (used more than once) - all used without a sense of shame.
The whole of London society is portrayed as high or low born with either 'cock-er-ney' good charm but either inside a pub or a brothel, or snobbish officership inside the Ritz etc. It's quite two dimensional. Of course everyone is united in their love of the King and his family and there is a picture of them propped on every mantel piece - no matter who owns the mantel.
This is misty-eyed revisionism for a purpose. It can't possibly be true - no more than it is now. Hardened Soho gangster and pimp puts a protective wing around the young Margaret - neither with sexual motives nor anything more cynical in mind than getting his prostitutes into a secret party at the Chelsea barracks.
To be fair the film does allow the main male 'low born' character to reflect on the bitterness that more than just himself in isolation must have felt (and still do) about the concept of Royalty. Regardless you do get the impression that, in the end, he saw the error of his ways and learned to love the Royal family too (because after all, aren't they smashing?).
It's predictable. It's soft. It's modestly entertaining (or at least will pass the time). It's also instantly forgettable without any outstanding performances or messages.
If you have a fondness for the institution of 'our' Royal family you might enjoy this film more than I did.
It's a completely fictional story about something that never happened at a peak point of flag waving nationalism. You can probably track the decline of British image of empire and royalty and traditionalism from there ironically.
Of course the (now) Queen never went out with Princess Margaret in the fashion that has been portrayed and I'm sure that the truth would offer no form of cinematic fascination at all. So instead they play the 'what if' game of allowing the two princesses to slip their chaperons and made off into the London night.
The whole thing is a bit pantomime though to be fair.
It is difficult to explain the different contrasting portrayals of the (in this) idiot Margaret and the sensible and instinctively capable Elizabeth. Other than for comic purposes of course. Margaret is also (for dramatic purposes) the more 'plain' of the two in appearance - which suits the narrative of 'the chosen one' being Elizabeth.
In truth I'd punt on Margaret being the sharper and more worldly of the two - she seemed that way in her life - and to be frank she was always the more beautiful too.
The Royal family are also portrayed in the comic realm of being quite 'normal' except of course for the fact that dad can call the army in to look after his girls when they go out. The footmen etc the 'we don't carry money' gag (used more than once) - all used without a sense of shame.
The whole of London society is portrayed as high or low born with either 'cock-er-ney' good charm but either inside a pub or a brothel, or snobbish officership inside the Ritz etc. It's quite two dimensional. Of course everyone is united in their love of the King and his family and there is a picture of them propped on every mantel piece - no matter who owns the mantel.
This is misty-eyed revisionism for a purpose. It can't possibly be true - no more than it is now. Hardened Soho gangster and pimp puts a protective wing around the young Margaret - neither with sexual motives nor anything more cynical in mind than getting his prostitutes into a secret party at the Chelsea barracks.
To be fair the film does allow the main male 'low born' character to reflect on the bitterness that more than just himself in isolation must have felt (and still do) about the concept of Royalty. Regardless you do get the impression that, in the end, he saw the error of his ways and learned to love the Royal family too (because after all, aren't they smashing?).
It's predictable. It's soft. It's modestly entertaining (or at least will pass the time). It's also instantly forgettable without any outstanding performances or messages.