Inside the Palace Playbook: How the Monarchy Manages Its Portrayal on Screen

Enterprise teams are automating more calls than ever — but without a consistent framework, deployments become unpredictable, costly, and slow to scale.

The BELL Framework introduces a structured way to design, test, launch, and improve Voice AI agents with reliability.

Get the guide enterprises are now using to de-risk voice automation and accelerate deployment.

Download The Free Guide

Forget about films for a moment. Let’s talk about actual legislative veto power that most British citizens don’t know exists.

According to documents uncovered by The Guardian in 2021, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles used a secretive parliamentary procedure called “Queen’s Consent” to review over 1,000 bills before elected representatives ever debated them.

Not 10 bills. Not 100 bills. One thousand sixty-two pieces of legislation.

The Official Story:

Queen’s Consent is “a parliamentary formality” where the monarch rubber-stamps bills affecting royal interests. The Palace claims consent is granted “automatically” and refused only “on ministerial advice.”

The Actual Reality:

The process of seeking consent triggers private negotiations between the Palace and government ministers. During these consultations, royal lawyers can request changes to legislation and those changes get made before Parliament even sees the bill.

Thomas Adams, constitutional law specialist at Oxford University, reviewed the declassified documents and concluded the consent procedure gave the monarch “substantial influence” over draft laws, the kind of influence “lobbyists would only dream of.”

The range is staggering:

Private Financial Interests:

- Companies Bill (1973): The Queen’s lawyers lobbied to prevent a law that would reveal where she invested her money

- Road Traffic Bill (1975): Royal estates got exempted from rules requiring landlords to lease through local councils

- Ancient Monuments Bill (1982): The Queen blocked her royal commission from being absorbed into English Heritage

Government Powers:

- Military Actions Against Iraq Bill (1999): The Queen vetoed entirely a bill that would have transferred war powers from the monarch to Parliament

- Civil Partnership Act (2004): Required consent because it could theoretically “bind Her Majesty”

- Reform of the House of Lords Bill (1990): Consent withheld, bill couldn’t even be debated

The Pattern:

When legislation might reduce royal power, increase financial transparency, or diminish royal privilege, the Palace lawyers get involved before the public debate begins.

-----

Netflix’s The Crown didn’t need Royal Family approval to exist. No law requires it. No formal veto power prevents it.

So how does the monarchy shape its portrayal?

According to Tina Brown (former Vanity Fair editor, author of ‘The Palace Papers’):

“Whenever they can, they stop The Crown filming in locations where they have an influence.”

The royal family:

- Owns/controls Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Balmoral Castle

- Has “influence” over numerous historic estates and locations

- Can simply decline location requests with no explanation needed

The Result:

The Crown filmed 25% at Elstree Studios, building expensive replicas. The remaining 75% used location doubles:

- Lancaster House, Wrotham Park, Wilton House → doubled as Buckingham Palace

- Ely Cathedral and Winchester Cathedral → stood in for Westminster Abbey

- Locations in South Africa → doubled as Kenya

Cost Impact:

Building period-accurate palace interiors at studio cost is estimated at £500,000-1 million per major set. Netflix spent millions recreating locations they could have filmed for £50,000 location fees.

The Royal Family didn’t veto The Crown’s production. They just made it exponentially more expensive.

When Queen Elizabeth II died in September 2022, broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Sky News) covered the funeral and procession. An estimated 28 million people in Britain and 11 million in the US watched.

Two weeks later, Buckingham Palace made a demand:

“Produce a 60-minute compilation of clips you’d like to keep from the 10 days of mourning. The royal household will review and potentially veto any proposed inclusions. After that, the vast majority of other footage will be taken out of circulation.”

Translation: The Palace would decide which moments of a publicly broadcast event could be used in future documentaries, news packages, or historical programming.

Any outlet wanting to use “unapproved” footage would need to “apply to the royal family on a case-by-case basis.”

What They Wanted to Control:

Unflattering moments. King Charles getting frustrated with an inkpot when signing documents. Awkward interactions. Anything that might diminish the carefully choreographed image of royal dignity.

Washington Post Response:

“It’s hard to think of a less 21st-century approach than a hereditary monarchy dictating what clips of public proceedings are ever seen again.”

In 1969, Buckingham Palace commissioned the BBC and ITV to create ‘Royal Family’, a fly-on-the-wall documentary showing intimate moments of royal life.

The documentary was revolutionary:

- Cameras followed the family for a year

- Showed family mealtimes, casual conversations

- Featured a family barbecue

- Made Queen Elizabeth II seem… human

The BBC estimates 350 million people worldwide watched it.

Then Queen Elizabeth II changed her mind. The documentary was deemed “too intimate” and showed too much of the real monarchy.

The Palace banned it.

Not banned from being made, it was already broadcast. Banned from ever being shown again. The BBC agreed. The documentary was pulled from circulation and forbidden from re-airing.

It stayed buried for 52 years until someone leaked it on YouTube in 2021. The Palace immediately had it taken down for copyright violation.

The Message:

We decide what the public sees. Even if 350 million people already saw it.

When The Crown became a global phenomenon, former Prime Ministers John Major and Tony Blair publicly criticized it as “fiction” and “malicious nonsense.”

Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden suggested Netflix should add a disclaimer warning viewers it’s dramatized fiction.

Dame Judi Dench wrote an open letter arguing The Crown could “mislead” audiences with its dramatic license.

Netflix’s Response:

Added a disclaimer… to the website description and YouTube trailers. Not to the actual show.

Why This Matters:

The Royal Family couldn’t force Netflix to add disclaimers. But they could mobilize:

- Former government officials to criticize publicly

- Respected actors to write open letters

- Media coverage questioning the show’s accuracy

- Pressure campaign creating “controversy”

The monarchy doesn’t need a veto. They have something better: the ability to shape public discourse around content they don’t like.

The British monarchy has survived 1,000 years not through legal authority, but through mastering soft power.

Media Executives:

British media executives know that access to royal events, royal interviews, and royal scoops depends on maintaining good relationships with the Palace.

Piss off the Palace? Your organization gets frozen out of:

- Royal wedding coverage pools

- Exclusive interview opportunities

- Behind-the-scenes access to royal tours

- Future cooperation on documentaries

Politicians:

Members of Parliament know the monarchy is popular. Attacking it publicly is political suicide.

When documents revealed the Queen’s use of consent to veto the Iraq war powers bill, the government’s response? “It’s a long-established convention.”

No investigation. No reform. Just… acceptance.

Producers:

Film and TV producers working on royal content know that cooperation from royal historians, access to royal archives, and smooth production depends on not making the Palace angry.

Peter Morgan (creator of The Crown) described the royal family as being “very, very aware” of the show and “both nervous and excited” about it. He was careful to maintain relationships even while creating content the Palace disliked.

The Royal Collection Trust owns copyright to:

- Historical photographs of royals

- Archival footage of royal events

- Certain royal portraits and artwork

- Documentation and papers

Want to make a documentary about Queen Victoria? You’ll need to license images from the Royal Collection Trust. At rates they set. With usage restrictions they determine.

They can’t stop you from making the documentary. But they can make it very expensive—or visually incomplete.

The most powerful control mechanism? Never officially responding.

When The Crown depicted Prince Philip as having affairs, Prince Charles as plotting against his mother, or Princess Diana’s bulimia in graphic detail, the Palace said… nothing official.

No lawsuits. No cease and desist letters. No public statements.

Why? Because acknowledging the content gives it credibility. Responding suggests there’s something to respond to. Silence implies the content is beneath notice—or so fictional it requires no rebuttal.

Meanwhile, “palace sources” leak to friendly journalists that “the family is deeply hurt” or “the Queen is disappointed”, without official attribution.

The British monarchy thinks in centuries, not quarters.

They know that:

- Legal battles create publicity and look defensive

- Formal censorship looks authoritarian

- Public opposition makes them seem powerful but fragile

Instead, they:

- Control what they can (locations, footage, documents)

- Influence what they can’t control (through relationships and soft pressure)

- Ignore what they can’t influence (The Crown still exists, but without royal cooperation)

- Wait for cultural memory to fade (The 1969 documentary stayed buried for 52 years)

The result: They maintain an image of being “above politics” while actively shaping political and cultural narratives.

The British Royal Family doesn’t have a veto over films depicting them.

They have something far more effective: a system of informal controls that makes a veto unnecessary.

The result?

Netflix spent approximately £130 million on The Crown and still couldn’t film at actual Buckingham Palace. The BBC buried a documentary for 52 years on royal request. Parliament never debated transferring war powers because the Queen withheld consent.

And most British citizens have no idea any of this happens, because unlike a veto, these mechanisms are invisible until someone goes looking for them.

The lesson for content creators:

You don’t need the Royal Family’s permission to make content about them. But you’ll need permission to:

- Film where they lived

- Use footage of their events

- Access their archives

- Avoid their “disappointment” being leaked to the press

You’re free to make whatever you want. You just might not be able to afford it, or the Palace will make sure you can’t see what you need.

That’s not a veto. That’s control without fingerprints.

And it’s far more effective than any legal power could ever be.

This week’s spotlight: When copyright becomes thought control

Published: September 1986  

Creators: Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons  

Publisher: DC Comics

The Story:

Alan Moore created Watchmen intending to use Charlton Comics characters DC had acquired. DC said no, use original characters instead.

Why? Because DC wanted to own these characters completely for future exploitation. Moore agreed, created original characters, and DC got one of the most valuable comic properties ever made.

But here’s where it gets interesting: Moore’s contract gave him rights reversion when Watchmen went out of print. DC’s response was never to let it go out of print. Keep it perpetually available so the rights never revert.

Moore hasn’t earned a penny from Watchmen adaptations (the 2009 film, the 2019 HBO series) because DC owns the copyright and Moore refuses to participate.

The parallel to the Royal Family:

Copyright law gave DC control without needing to tell Moore “no” directly. They just… keep publishing. Keep exploiting. Keep Moore from ever regaining control.

Similarly, the Royal Family doesn’t veto content—they just control locations, footage, and archives. You’re “free” to make what you want… as long as you don’t need what they own.

Current Market Value:

- CGC 9.8 (NM/MT): $3,000-4,000

- CGC 9.6 (NM+): $1,500-2,000

- CGC 9.4 (NM): $800-1,200

- CGC 9.0 (VF/NM): $400-600

First appearances of Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, Silk Spectre, Nite Owl, Ozymandias, and The Comedian. Key issue for understanding how copyright becomes control.

‘Watchmen’ proves that the most effective form of power isn’t prohibition, it’s ownership. DC doesn’t need to stop people from making Watchmen content. They own it, so they control everything.

The Royal Family understood this centuries before comic books existed.