To be fair, they aren't adapting just one book - they're incorporating elements from the Lord of the Rings books, and extrapolating things from there as a way to sidestep not being allowed to adapt something from another of Tolkien's writings (three movies is still more than what should have been needed, of course!).Well, although I've not seen them, I really must say that's to be expected - The Hobbit was just one book, after all, which they're stretching into three movies (the same number as the entire Lord of the Rings saga!) for purely avaricious reasons. You and I are definitely simpatico on this one, though - when Thande made that suggestion, my first thought was somebody editing the three Hobbit films into a single, three-hour movie. I imagine it would knock all our socks off
That Wacky Redhead
- Thread starter Brainbin
- Start date
When my girlfriend and I went to see the first hobbit movie, there was a woman there with her kids. When the credits rolled, and it went all "To be continued in..," she just sat gaping at the screen. "Where's....the rest of the story?" Apparently no one had told her. I felt about the same way, though my gf...is more excited about the concept for about two film's worth of padding and a film worth of plot stretched over the runtime of 4 normal films.
An intriguing update. I look forward to seeing how the "new" United Artists affects the movie and TV industries.
On a side-note, I can see the "rated U" confusing or amusing UK visitors, since the British Board of Film Classification's U-certificate (for "universal") is equvalent to a G-rating!
On a side-note, I can see the "rated U" confusing or amusing UK visitors, since the British Board of Film Classification's U-certificate (for "universal") is equvalent to a G-rating!
The decision to split The Hobbit over three movies in an overinflated statement of avarice is precisely the reason why I haven't seen the movies. Inventing characters wholesale just makes it worse - and hell, I found The Lord of the Rings to be too long, even considering that they lopped out Tom Bombadil in one of the best decisions ever made in an adaptation.
Then again, we live in a society where executives in the film industry judge Sex and the City 2 to be worthy of a running time longer than 2001: A Space Odyssey. If anybody wonders why I've gone off going to the cinema, you have a good reason right there.
Hands off Tom Bombadil! He was just the hangover from the hobbit sequel as opposed to what became LOTR. However anything that keeps films to under 2 hours is fine by me! (My 10 year old son loved both the hobbit films- I just kept wondering where that Elf maiden came from!)
Who gets the Bond Franchise now in TTL?
Who gets the Bond Franchise now in TTL?
Another incredible update. Even if you did probably kill Francis Ford Coppola's career in the process.
Another incredible update. Even if you did probably kill Francis Ford Coppola's career in the process.
Kill is a mild word. A more accurate discription of Coppola's career after Tucker would be leveled like Dresden in WWII.
Last edited:
Orville_third
Banned
I do remember MGM-UA. I can recall seeing the old UA logo/intro before a number of old movies. (So I found it odd that some called this "rare".)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5tqnBXd89I
I also remember the MGM/UA logo from only one movie-The vhs of "The Living Daylights".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IkjzxbW8Dg
Here's a UA logo montage!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYEZgvisncE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5tqnBXd89I
I also remember the MGM/UA logo from only one movie-The vhs of "The Living Daylights".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IkjzxbW8Dg
Here's a UA logo montage!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYEZgvisncE
That will be interesting for the British Board of Film Censors.
(Remember that at this point that is still the official name.)
Thande
Donor
Don't get me started on how Tom Bombadil is an integral aspect to the story arc of LOTR foreseen from the beginning and how anyone who thinks differently hasn't read the book properly [/Intolerant Puritan]
The fact that he's my favourite character in the book is of course of no relevance to this critical position
As for the Hobbit films, I've only seen the first one--I tend to view them as being an adaptation of someone reading alternate chapters of The Hobbit and the LOTR appendices I thought the first one was all right on balance, though too slow paced, but I've avoided the second because of too much in the way of 'fanficcy' elements and missing the point. Which is a neat parallel considering the film of The Two Towers had much the same problems.
Not to derail Brainbin's thread!
The fact that he's my favourite character in the book is of course of no relevance to this critical position
As for the Hobbit films, I've only seen the first one--I tend to view them as being an adaptation of someone reading alternate chapters of The Hobbit and the LOTR appendices
I thought the first one was all right on balance, though too slow paced, but I've avoided the second because of too much in the way of 'fanficcy' elements and missing the point. Which is a neat parallel considering the film of The Two Towers had much the same problems. Not to derail Brainbin's thread!
If anyone has any more thoughts about the Hobbit movies, please direct them to the thread dedicated to that topic.
(I'm one to talk, though - I'm the one who started this whole tangent.)
(I'm one to talk, though - I'm the one who started this whole tangent.)
Again, having not seen The Hobbit, I won't chime in on the particulars of the adaptation, though I certainly appreciate everyone's input on the subject.
I've always loved logo cards - they always seem to evoke such a strong nostalgic reaction.
I've been working very hard on the next update, which (barring catastrophe) should be ready tomorrow! So, until then!
Thank you, Daibhid! We'll definitely be following up on UA in future updates.
Excellent - that's just the kind of transatlantic "unit confusion" which makes things even more delightfulDaibhid C said:
This sentence is a thing of beauty, and I feel the need to quote it for posterity
United Artists retains the distribution rights; EON continues to produce the films.
We'll hear more about the Walt Disney Company in future updates.
Thank you! But as for Coppola, you underestimate his ability to bounce back. It's that ego of his... he's like one of those inflatable punching bagsAnother incredible update. Even if you did probably kill Francis Ford Coppola's career in the process.
Thanks for the links, Orville
I've always loved logo cards - they always seem to evoke such a strong nostalgic reaction.The more I read you guys referring to it, the more I really want "Puritan" to become a thingDon't get me started on how Tom Bombadil is an integral aspect to the story arc of LOTR foreseen from the beginning and how anyone who thinks differently hasn't read the book properly [/Intolerant Puritan]
Worry not; I'm always here to bring it back on course!Thande said:
Well, now, where would this thread be without all the tangents?(I'm one to talk, though - I'm the one who started this whole tangent.)
I've been working very hard on the next update, which (barring catastrophe) should be ready tomorrow! So, until then!
This sentence is a thing of beauty, and I feel the need to quote it for posterity
If you do, don’t forget to say Hello to Jason Isaacs
A comparison of modern over-long films with the running time of 2001 is a recurring theme on Kermode and Mayo’s Film Review show/podcast, with Sex and the City 2 getting a particularly memorable roasting from Mark Kermode.
On Which the Sun Never Sets
On Which the Sun Never Sets
The British Empire no longer existed in any meaningful sense of the word; more romantic historians would claim that the Empire had nobly sacrificed itself in World War II, to save the Earth from tyranny. Others were more likely to assign blame for its collapse to one of any number of more mundane, less honourable causes: the anti-colonial foreign policy of the United States under Presidents Roosevelt and Truman; the decolonization process commenced by Prime Minister Attlee as part of his overall focus on creating “a land fit for heroes” returning from overseas through the establishment of the British welfare state; or the disaster at Suez, which obliterated Britain’s influence and aspirations to superpower status. Most likely, it was a combination of all the above factors. The British Commonwealth of Nations, which promoted peace, co-operation, and unity through diversity, could claim to be a successor organization to the Empire but was primarily a ceremonial fellowship, with aspirations to continued economic and cultural integration, but no remaining political ties. In fact, many members of the Commonwealth had become republics and no longer recognized the British monarch as Sovereign, though Queen Elizabeth II remained the symbolic head of the organization, and made sure to mention it and the work it was doing in every annual televised Christmas broadcast she gave.
Her grandson, His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales was born on February 15, 1981, and was second-in-line to the thrones of all the Commonwealth Realms (which recognized Elizabeth II as Queen, as opposed to mere members, which did not) from that time forward, in the direct line of inheritance behind his father, Charles, the Prince of Wales. [1] His mother, the Princess of Wales, was 23 years old when she delivered their son; Prince Charles was 32. Prince William was given a lavish christening in the spring, celebrating his induction into the Church of England, of which all English (and later British) monarchs since Elizabeth I had been Supreme Governor – the event was steeped in rite and ritual, with the Prince William (said to be a quiet, well-behaved infant) dressed in the ancestral coronation robes which had been tailored for his great-great-great-great-aunt, Princess Victoria, the German Empress, in 1840, and bathed in water brought in from the River Jordan. That Prince Charles had provided a Y-chromosome in the conception of his first child served to ebb a raging debate in the run-up to the birth (the parents had declined to find out the sex ahead of time) – spurred in part by the removal of Princess Anne from the line of succession nearly a decade earlier: whether male-preference primogeniture was “fair” in a society where women sought full equality to men, and had been making major strides in that direction. [2] The subject had even been raised during the 1973 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Ottawa, and had helped to capsize the planned Ottawa Accord – as was so often the case with fundamental constitutional changes, consensus could not emerge with regards to making just one modification and leaving everything else alone. Absolute primogeniture became a topic of discussion again at the 1981 meeting in Melbourne, but William being a boy meant that any such changes would likely not come into effect for another half-century or more – his hypothetical daughter might not be born for another 30 years. Or he might only have daughters, as George VI did, postponing the issue until the next generation. Perhaps most significantly, all of the other European monarchies continued to use male-preference primogeniture – by its very nature, the United Kingdom was not the sort of monarchy to pioneer such a drastic change to an ancient custom. [3]
Despite the robustness of the line of succession and the continuing popularity of the British monarchy, the vestiges of what had once been the most extensive empire the world had ever seen were continuing to unravel. Their last remaining colonial possession on the mainland of the Americas, British Honduras, had sought to follow the lead of many other former colonies in the region and secure independence for some time, though its efforts to do so had been hampered by the active interference of a hostile, irredentist neighbour – Guatemala. The United Kingdom knew better than to withdraw from the territory without any guarantees, which were not forthcoming from the military junta. Being one of the Great Powers, Britain eventually sought to isolate Guatemala in the UN, gradually bringing all of the other countries into the region onside, against Guatemala’s claims to British Honduran territory; this was, nevertheless, a process which took many years.
Meanwhile, Canada, a proposal tabled by NDP MP Max Saltsman, which also received early support from Dan McKenzie, a (backbench) Government MP, sought to fulfill a long-time national dream: the acquisition of territory in the Caribbean. [4] Sir Robert Borden, the Prime Minister during World War I, had sought to integrate much of the British Caribbean into Confederation, much as Australia was doing with many island territories in Oceania, but was rebuffed by Westminster. In the years since, the “snowbird” phenomenon, referring to Canadians who wintered in warmer climes, typically the Southern United States (and especially Florida) had made itself known, and providing the Dominion with her own territory in the Caribbean would help to retain tourist dollars in the Canadian economy [5] – it would also furnish part of the greatly impoverished region with the benefits of the robust Canadian welfare state. Saltsman and McKenzie – in a charmingly bipartisan move, and one which highlighted the compatibility between the PCs and the NDP over the party ostensibly “between” them ideologically, the Liberals – favoured the Turks and Caicos Islands, a small crown colony which had until 1959 been a dependency of Jamaica – the Governors of Jamaica and then the Bahamas had overseen the affairs of the small territory until each colony gained independence. The Turks and Caicos were small, and sparsely populated – extending the “security net” over it would not prove overly taxing on Canadian infrastructure. [6] It also received many Canadian tourists already; they would not need to be lured over to their new territory. Saltsman tabled his bill shortly into the term of the majority government which Stanfield’s Tories won in 1974, and – though the legislation was watered down from his proposal (favouring only “creating a dialogue with the United Kingdom in regards to the future disposition of that crown colony called the Turks and Caicos Islands”), Stanfield followed through, communicating with the new PM at Westminster, Willie Whitelaw. The United States was quietly (and secretly) informed of continuing negotiations as well; a handover of British territory to an effectively sovereign state in the Americas was not perceived as being in violation of the Monroe Doctrine, but the USA was a close ally of both Canada and the UK and it was deemed unseemly to not inform the White House of their intentions. President Humphrey, who was still in office when negotiations commenced, offered them his full support, and this carried on clandestinely, amidst the backdrop of the more transparent situation regarding British Honduras. Indeed, the fates of the two were eventually intertwined.
It was decided that the Turks and Caicos Islands would be admitted to Canada as a third territory – a very different one from the two that already existed (the Northwest Territories, established in 1870 with its acquisition from the British Crown, and the Yukon Territory, established in 1898 after the Klondike Gold Rush – both of which were mostly within the Arctic). [7] This territory would enjoy responsible government as the other two did, and would elect one MP to the House of Commons; this MP would enjoy the smallest constituency (an estimated 6,000 people – less than one-third the size of the next-smallest constituency, the 22,000 people of the Yukon) in Canada, and would have one appointed representative in the Senate. [8] The United States suggested – and both Canada and the United Kingdom accepted – that the terms of the agreement be submitted to the people of the colony in a referendum. Most polls showed the referendum passing in a landslide, which it did, with 90% in favour of joining Canada – independence was not included as an option in the referendum, despite minor agitation on the part of local residents. [9] (The US President at the time of the referendum, Ronald Reagan, was said to have been “disappointed” by the lack of this option, but did not challenge the results). British Honduras (renamed “Belize”) gained independence and the Turks and Caicos joined Canada as its third territory (the first enlargement of the Dominion since Newfoundland was admitted in 1949) on the same day: July 1, 1981 – Dominion Day in Canada, and now in Belize as well (which retained Elizabeth II as Sovereign and Head of State). [10]
One of the reasons that the Turks and Caicos Islands had been transferred so readily to Canadian sovereignty (notwithstanding that Canada and the UK were in personal union) was that it had been considered as the host site for a spaceport which would be jointly operated and funded by both countries, inspired by the Guiana Space Centre in Kourou, French Guiana, which had been the base of operations for the French National Centre for Space Studies since 1968, and then the European Space Agency, or ESA, once it had been formed in the mid-1970s from the merger of several precursor organizations (some of which, such as the European Space Research Organization, had counted the United Kingdom as a member, but Britain voluntarily “withdrew” her membership as it became clear that she would not be joining the EEC). Britain did not have the resources to launch rockets into space alone; partnership with France had been sought in the 1960s to that very end, but joint efforts had proven disastrous. The Commonwealth Trade Agreement which had emerged as a “temporary placeholder” for British (and, by extension, Irish) designs to join the EEC evolved to include a space exploration component, starting with tentative proposals at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in (appropriately enough) Kingston, Jamaica in 1975. [11] This would allow the other founding nations of what would become known as the Commonwealth Space Agency (CSA), Canada and Australia – and, potentially, additional Commonwealth countries further down the line – to co-ordinate their own space programs with the existing foundation of British efforts to develop a workable launcher; this joint effort would provide assured launch capabilities and the prestige of a more expansive program which none of the member nations would be able to achieve individually.
In light of this, the Turks and Caicos were strategically located: rockets launched into the East, necessitating that no inhabited land be underneath their flight path, and had an easier time launching closer to the Equator – East Caicos, the proposed launch site, was within the Tropic of Cancer, and there was nothing east of the Lucayan Archipelago until the Sahara. However, plans to base CSA launches there were soon abandoned as impractical – although it would create many jobs for Canada’s newest territory, the islands were too remote to be effectively supplied and too small for effective infrastructure to be maintained. Instead, Australia would host the launch site, continuing their historic connection with the development of British rocketry. However, instead of using the traditional launch site at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Woomera, in South Australia, a new one was to be built in Far North Queensland, near to the city of Cairns, which was much closer to the Equator (even when compared to East Caicos), and better-connected to existing transportation links, which made it a better prospect for a long-term, intensive space program. [12] The Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, notoriously crowed over this coup by claiming that “Nuclear missiles may have detonated over South Australia, but space-borne rockets will launch from Queensland”, referring (rather callously) to the increasingly controversial legacy of British nuclear testing in Maralinga. [13] The first order of business for the “Big Three” contributors to the CSA enterprise was to determine a means for launching their payload into space…
The disparate reaches of the Commonwealth (and even beyond, including those countries that had fought for and won independence from the British Empire) were united by far more mundane and accessible means than grand political ambitions: they were bound together by the common airwaves. One exemplar of how television helped to shorten distances was Are You Being Served?, which entered the 1980s as one of the longest-running and most popular sitcoms in British history, though it had evolved a great deal from how it had originally been conceived. Trevor Bannister, who played original male lead Mr Lucas, remained with Are You Being Served? despite his vocal displeasure at what had originally been his star vehicle having been stolen from him by the exceptionally talented supporting players, largely because his role was expanded following the departure of Arthur Brough as Mr Grainger, the original department head in menswear. [14] John Inman’s character Mr Humphries, the associate in menswear, was promoted to the new senior, though Mr Lucas remained as the junior (with his lack of promotion frequently mined for comedy). Mr Rumbold, the floor manager, was very pleased with this result, famously expounding upon his reasoning in a discussion with Captain Peacock, the floorwalker:
“Mr Grainger did half the work we’d expect of a salesman at Grace Bros., and so did Mr Lucas. That’s three sets of salaries and benefits paid for the work of two salesmen.”
“But now you’ve eliminated Mr Grainger’s position and are still half a salesman short.”
“Yes, but we’re now at one-and-a-half out of two, instead of two out of three – our efficiency ratings have improved from sixty-seven to seventy-five percent!”
“But surely you could hire a third man who could operate at optimal efficiency?”
“With our luck we’d just as likely find a fellow who’s even worse than Mr Lucas. Then we’d be worse off than where we started. No, it’s much better off this way.”
“I’m not sure I quite agree with your calculations, Mr Rumbold.”
“That’s why you’re just the floorwalker and I’m the executive, Captain Peacock.”
Are You Being Served? suffered the loss of another cast member, Harold Bennett (as “Young Mr Grace”), who (like Arthur Brough before him) had retired at the end of the season prior to his death. The joke of the character, as his name implied, was that this senile, enfeebled mogul was the younger of the two brothers who had founded and owned the department store – “Old Mr Grace doesn’t get about much these days”, came the constant rejoinder to anyone who asked after him. There was some discussion to casting the role of Old Mr Grace, but the problem of finding the right actor – too old, and he might not last, as had been the case for Brough and Bennett; too young, and he might be unconvincing as an older gentleman – stymied the producers. [15] In addition, Bannister had requested – and received – a rather weighty pay raise in order to continue playing the thankless role of Mr Lucas, and this went through largely due to Bennett’s retirement freeing up the resources in the show’s budget to do so. It was therefore decided to make Young Mr Grace an unseen character, further changing the dynamic of the program and reducing it to the core septet: Mr Rumbold, Captain Peacock, Mrs Slocombe, Mr Humphries, Mr Lucas, Miss Brahms, and Mr Mash, the custodian. [16] These would remain for the remainder of the show’s run, which showed no signs of slowing even after a decade on the air, an impressively long run for a sitcom on either side of the Atlantic. And speaking of, Are You Being Served? had by this time emerged as a staple series on the American PBS, given its (relatively) large number of episodes. The CBC, in Canada, aired the episodes “first-run” (one of several BBC programs which had a regular berth of the network), though in practice with a delay of several months. [17] Indeed, Are You Being Served? could be said to have united the Commonwealth – it was so popular in Australia (no doubt inspired by there actually being a department store chain in New South Wales called Grace Bros.) that a remake was produced there; all the names were changed, and an all-new cast of actors were hired. Scripts were recycled from the original series; this was the fatal flaw, as the original series was not only still running, but was very widely televised. The Australian remake lasted only one season, and would go down as one of the worst series in the history of the Commonwealth. In fact, it did so poorly that it made the equally inevitable (and short-lived) American remake, Beane’s of Boston (which ran for one season, from 1980-81) seem simply mediocre by comparison. [18]
One of the biggest and most acclaimed programs on the BBC in the late-1970s, Fawlty Towers, had been in limbo since the conclusion of the second season in 1977; a third season had remained a possibility, though not a contractually-obligated certainty. John Cleese had said as much in an interview that year on Parkinson, famously claiming that “There won’t be any more Monty Python films, but there may yet be another series of Fawlty Towers”. In the years since, Cleese and his wife, former Doctor Who companion Connie Booth (creative as well as life partners) had divorced, though amicably. Both were concerned that the creative possibilities for their sitcom had been exhausted… after only 16 episodes (a relatively modest run, even by British standards). [19] In the end, Fawlty Towers would not see a third season until four years had passed since the second; it aired in late 1981 (alongside the final season of To the Manor Born, in fact – the two programs even aired back-to-back). The entire core cast returned for the eight additional episodes that were filmed, though a new director was chosen as the previous one was elsewhere engaged. Critical reactions to the third season widely regarded it as a slightly disappointing follow-up to the previous two – but viewer reaction was extremely positive; ratings were higher for the third season than for the first two, partly because of the pairing with To the Manor Born (which prompted the BBC Director-General to describe 1981 as “a banner year in light entertainment”). [20] On November 29, 1981, which came to be known as the “Double Event”, both programs concluded – To the Manor Born with a lavish wedding, and Fawlty Towers with Basil Fawlty being run out of Torquay – fortunately, the latter program aired first, so as to prevent the good feelings brought about by the wedding; Fawlty Towers had ended in such a definitive manner so as to prevent the possibility of a fourth season; Cleese and Booth both felt that they had completely exhausted the narrative potential of the show, and knew that they had no interest in coming back to it. However, they did sell the idea to a pair of American writers (brothers, in fact) who had previously worked on Taxi Drivers…
The “Double Event”, for its part, became the highest-rated regular, scheduled broadcast in British history, with both programs attracting over 25 million viewers (To the Manor Born slightly outperformed Fawlty Towers); the previous record-holder had been the Royal Variety Performance of 1965. [21] This was certainly the pinnacle of success that could be expected for the BBC: both shows, of course, aired on their flagship network, BBC-1, opposite only two other channels: sister station BBC-2, and commercial rival ITV. But a second commercial network would begin airing on January 1, 1982, the result of legislation passed in 1979, though years in the making before that – many remote controls sold as early as the 1960s were labelled “ITV-2” in anticipation of the fourth channel. Their anticipatory actions were eventually vindicated when the name of the service was indeed announced as ITV-2, thus leading ITV to follow in the path of the original BBC service and rename itself “ITV-1”. [22] Notably, ITV-1 was actually tuned to channel three, and ITV-2 was tuned to channel four, as BBC-1 and BBC-2 occupied channels one and two, respectively. Nevertheless, the delayed creation of the fourth television service was enough to fulfill a dream long held by many. Observers in the United States wondered when they would acquire their own fourth network.
And then there was Doctor Who. Despite the Yank Years being well and truly behind it, the show continued to maintain a cult audience in the United States, many of whom (to their credit, at least in the eyes of certain British fans) preferred the exploits of the Fourth Doctor to the Third; perhaps this might have been willful contrarianism, given that Pertwee’s Doctor perpetually topped the popularity polls on both sides of the Pond. Jane Seymour, on the other hand, enjoyed a far more unambiguously positive reception as the Doctor’s primary companion, considered either the best since Connie Booth, or simply the best. Aware of the cachet that the role had given her, Seymour departed from Doctor Who after three seasons to appear as the lead Bond girl in The Spy Who Loved Me, the Soviet spy Anya Amasova. [23] She was convinced to remain as long as she had – departing after the 1978 season – purely so that she would remain with the program as long as her predecessor, the reviled Angela Bowie, did; the producers had sought to cleanse the palate of Bowie and found that such a task required an enormous amount of proverbial after-dinner mints. The Fourth Doctor himself, Jim Dale, continued past Seymour’s tenure; indeed, he had a hand in choosing the next companion, Joanna Lumley. Lumley portrayed a character more prim and proper than Seymour, and was also older, considerably over the age of thirty. [24] She remained as the principal companion for three seasons, helping to cement the tradition of companions lasting for precisely that long. Dale himself followed in the footsteps of his predecessor in departing after his sixth season on the program, in 1981; he was replaced by Richard Griffiths, who was twelve years younger than he (and also a year younger than Lumley, one of the reasons why she left the show at that juncture). [25] Griffiths was the youngest Doctor thus far, aged 34 when he assumed the role, and the first born after World War II; however, he looked a good deal older than his age would suggest (and, indeed, perhaps even older than Jim Dale did at the conclusion of his tenure). The question of what Griffiths would bring to the role intrigued many Who fans worldwide. For while the show no longer ruled the roost in the international market, it was one of the many British programs whose influence extended throughout the borders of the former Empire, and further beyond…
---
[1] Yes, he has the same name as his OTL half-brother. The “William” comes from Prince William of Gloucester (who, ITTL, survived and became the Duke of Gloucester); “Arthur” from the mythical King in the Matter of Britain; “Philip” from his paternal grandfather, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh; and “Louis” from his (TTL) maternal great-grandfather, the Earl Mountbatten of Burma. (The father of the Princess of Wales is named “John”, a name which by this time has come to be regarded as bad luck by the Royal Family).
[2] Prince Charles had two sons IOTL; Lady Amanda Ellingworth had three sons. He didn’t seem predisposed to providing X-chromosomes and she didn’t seem predisposed to accepting them, so it only seems fair that their first child be a son.
[3] The first European monarchy to switch from male-preference to absolute primogeniture IOTL was, unsurprisingly, Sweden, doing so in 1980 – after the birth of Prince Carl Philip displaced his elder sister, Princess Victoria. Legislation stripped him of his title as Heir Apparent at the age of seven months, granting it to Victoria – the Netherlands were next, in 1983, followed by Norway in 1990, Belgium in 1993, Denmark in 2009, Luxembourg in 2011, and (though the law has not gone into effect) the United Kingdom in 2013 (under the Statute of Westminster 1931, each of the Commonwealth Realms determines the succession individually). Notably, only in the pioneering Swedish instance did this apply retroactively, making Carl Philip the first Heir Apparent in a continuing monarchy to have that status revoked since another Swedish Crown Prince, Gustav (son of Gustav IV Adolf) in 1809. But ITTL, a son was indeed the first-born of Carl XVI Gustav, which delays any movement to push absolute primogeniture succession through.
[4] Saltsman made his proposal to annex the Turks and Caicos in 1974, at which time the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau was in power IOTL, and it died before being tabled. Dan McKenzie, though he was in office at the time, sat as an Opposition MP with the PC caucus, and made his own (separate) proposal in 1986 (by which time Saltsman had retired), when his party was in government under Brian Mulroney (who was more of a Reaganite/Thatcherite “Blue Tory” in contrast to Stanfield’s Rockefeller/One Nation “Red Tory”) – however, it died in committee. Stanfield, unlike either Trudeau or Mulroney, is more the type to be amenable to such a proposal.
[5] This was part of Saltsman’s argument for making his proposal IOTL (very much in keeping with the economic philosophy of his party at the time). Canada did (and does) provide a disproportionately large share of tourists to the islands relative to its population.
[6] The population of the Turks and Caicos in 1980 was 7,413; at present it is approximately 31,458, a more than fourfold increase. This gives it a comparable population to all the other Canadian territories, though it also means that it would cost much more to accommodate supporting their population.
[7] The Northwest Territories originally encompassed virtually all of Canada between the Great Lakes watershed and the Rocky Mountains, from the 49th Parallel to the North Pole, before various sections (first Manitoba, then the Yukon Territory, and finally Saskatchewan and Alberta) were separated from it. (IOTL, the eastern two-thirds of the remaining territory was reconstituted as the effectively Inuit-governed territory of Nunavut in 1999.)
[8] Although the apportionment of electoral districts (which are always assigned by province or territory) is subject to a convoluted formula which has been revised several times, the rule of thumb in recent decades is that there are about 100,000 electors for each MP, nationwide. However, each province and territory must have at least one MP, and no province may lose MPs in reapportionment (or rather, fall below a grandfathered threshold), meaning that older, smaller provinces (and the territories, with their low populations) are better-represented than newer, more populous ones. The Senate is a whole other can of worms that will not be elaborated upon at this time.
[9] Polling showed support for joining Canada at 90% in the 1990s, which is notable because the Canadian economy underwent a significant downturn in that decade IOTL, worse than the American and other world economies. ITTL, the Canadian economy is performing slightly better, relatively speaking, than the American economy in the early 1980s (because of the “Reagan shock”), which is partly reflected in the tourist presence in the Turks and Caicos, and this ensures strong support for the notion ITTL when it is formally put before the electorate (which never happened IOTL). The question put to the electors ITTL is a simple “yes” or “no” question, with no elaboration.
[10] Belize won independence a few months later IOTL – on September 21, 1981. As noted, it was the last continental holding of the United Kingdom in the Americas – leaving France as the only remaining European power with a physical presence on the American continent (in French Guiana).
[11] You will recall that Kingston is also the place where the CTA first emerges as something other than the ultimate placeholder.
[12] The CSA supplants the Canadian Space Agency as well as the British contributions to the ESA. Australia had earlier collaborated on missile designs with the United Kingdom, but did not have a dedicated space exploration agency until the 1990s IOTL; you can consider their earlier leap into the arena ITTL a beneficiary of their stronger economy (because of the earlier disengagement from the overseas quagmire) alongside the golden opportunity to get in on the ground floor.
[13] Petersen became the Premier of Queensland in 1968, and remained in that position until 1987 IOTL – his rise was too early for me to realistically butterfly, and considering all he went through in his nearly two decades in office prior to his ultimate downfall (and how that downfall came about) it would be difficult for me to unseat him. But on the plus side, at least it gave me a prominent figure into whose mouth I could insert those incredibly tactless words.
[14] When Brough left the role IOTL, he was replaced by a succession of department heads, none of whom lasted for more than a season (the last two, before the producers threw up their hands and promoted John Inman – though only de facto, as he had understandably grown superstitious of the position – each lasted only a few episodes). ITTL, with the circumstances of Brough’s departure changed, they decided not to replace him. The advantages of not replacing a character is that above-the-line costs go down, and the opportunity exists to focus more strongly on the remaining characters – which is how Mr Lucas is able to gain a second wind despite petering out IOTL – it’s a rather unfortunate coincidence that Bannister left just as the producers finally gave up on attempting to cast a permanent replacement for Mr Grainger.
[15] They went with the second option IOTL, choosing Kenneth Waller – who was 28 years younger than Bennett, young enough to be his son – to play the role of Old Mr Grace, caked in unconvincing old-age makeup. He lasted just one season before they reached the obvious conclusion of depicting Young Mr Grace as an unseen character; ITTL, I’m bestowing them with a fair deal more insight than they had IOTL, but the producers were experienced sitcom writers, so it isn’t too much of a stretch.
[16] Mr Mash left after the third season when the actor, Larry Martyn, made another commitment which he could not break; he was replaced by Mr Harman, played by Arthur English (the only replacement character on Are You Being Served? to outlast the original, and be better-remembered).
[17] Par for the course with the CBC – they failed to air the first season of Doctor Who until 1965, and lagged nine months behind on broadcasts of Coronation Street (despite airing it five times a week as opposed to the three times it aired on ITV) for many years, though they’ve finally caught up more recently, and are apparently “only” a few weeks behind now. IOTL, the CBC did not air Are You Being Served?, and Canadians became familiar with the show the same way that Americans did: by watching it on PBS.
[18] The Australian version of Are You Being Served? ran for two seasons IOTL, having scored a singular coup in getting John Inman to reprise his role as Mr Humphries, dispatched to the unnamed Australian city (the program was shot in Melbourne) by Mr Grace himself (his cousin owned the Australian store). However, the show suffered the same revolving-door casting as its English parent (the Mr Rumbold and Miss Brahms actors, who were ironically never recast back at Grace Bros., were swapped out between seasons). Meanwhile, the American version, Beane’s of Boston, never got past the pilot stage IOTL; as you might imagine, ITTL it was watered down considerably (with the solitary exception of the Mr Humphries analogue being made unambiguously gay – which, as in the UK, raised the ire of many gay rights groups for stereotyping).
[19] Fawlty Towers only ran for 12 episodes IOTL, of course, in two seasons which aired, yes, four years apart.
[20] An apt comparison for the third season of Fawlty Towers is Let It Be by the Beatles, popularly judged to be inferior to the rest of the Beatles catalogue but still superior to the overwhelming majority of pop music. Certainly, Cleese and Booth are deeply dissatisfied with the third season, and Cleese in particular will spend the rest of his life talking it down. (By contrast, IOTL, his favourite episode is “Basil the Rat”, the very last.)
[21] The Royal Variety Performance 1965 aired on November 14th of that year, on ITV. Every regular, scheduled broadcast since that has since outperformed it IOTL (five broadcasts have done so, starting with the divorce of Den and Angie on EastEnders at Christmas Day 1986) did so as a result of aggregated viewing figures (initial broadcast plus repeats). ITTL, the 25 million viewers figure refers only to those watching the “Double Event” the night of, on November 29. 1981.
[22] IOTL, the fourth television service, unimaginatively entitled “Channel Four”, started transmission on November 2, 1982, almost a year later.
[23] Amasova was played IOTL by American Barbara Bach, with The Spy Who Loved Me released in 1977, the third of the Roger Moore-era Bond films. Seymour instead portrayed the Bond girl in the earlier Live and Let Die, Moore’s first outing as Bond, in 1973 (at the age of 22). But fear not – despite being several years older ITTL, Seymour is still a full decade younger than Michael Billington. Actresses leaving television series in their prime to appear as Bond girls are a time-honoured tradition in the UK – famously, Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg both did so after their stints on The Avengers. (In an odd coincidence, both actresses were the only Bond girls to be older than the actors playing 007).
[24] Lumley had also appeared in a Bond film, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, IOTL (and ITTL), after which point she appeared in The New Avengers.
[25] Griffiths was twice considered for the role of the Doctor IOTL: in 1981 (for the Fifth), and in 1989 (for the Eighth, had the show not been cancelled). As was the case with Michael Billington as James Bond, I felt obliged to take all those near-misses and turn them into a hit.
---
Thanks to e of pi for his advice in the creation of and assistance in the editing for this update!
Here we have a look at the “modern Commonwealth” ITTL, and what it is trying to achieve as an organization – where it stands relative to British culture, and what British culture has been producing. Receptive markets within and beyond the Commonwealth will always welcoming programming that strikes a chord with audiences, and one thing to consider as the CSA forges on ahead is that the telecommunications satellites it will someday launch should only strengthen these bonds further…
The British Empire no longer existed in any meaningful sense of the word; more romantic historians would claim that the Empire had nobly sacrificed itself in World War II, to save the Earth from tyranny. Others were more likely to assign blame for its collapse to one of any number of more mundane, less honourable causes: the anti-colonial foreign policy of the United States under Presidents Roosevelt and Truman; the decolonization process commenced by Prime Minister Attlee as part of his overall focus on creating “a land fit for heroes” returning from overseas through the establishment of the British welfare state; or the disaster at Suez, which obliterated Britain’s influence and aspirations to superpower status. Most likely, it was a combination of all the above factors. The British Commonwealth of Nations, which promoted peace, co-operation, and unity through diversity, could claim to be a successor organization to the Empire but was primarily a ceremonial fellowship, with aspirations to continued economic and cultural integration, but no remaining political ties. In fact, many members of the Commonwealth had become republics and no longer recognized the British monarch as Sovereign, though Queen Elizabeth II remained the symbolic head of the organization, and made sure to mention it and the work it was doing in every annual televised Christmas broadcast she gave.
Her grandson, His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales was born on February 15, 1981, and was second-in-line to the thrones of all the Commonwealth Realms (which recognized Elizabeth II as Queen, as opposed to mere members, which did not) from that time forward, in the direct line of inheritance behind his father, Charles, the Prince of Wales. [1] His mother, the Princess of Wales, was 23 years old when she delivered their son; Prince Charles was 32. Prince William was given a lavish christening in the spring, celebrating his induction into the Church of England, of which all English (and later British) monarchs since Elizabeth I had been Supreme Governor – the event was steeped in rite and ritual, with the Prince William (said to be a quiet, well-behaved infant) dressed in the ancestral coronation robes which had been tailored for his great-great-great-great-aunt, Princess Victoria, the German Empress, in 1840, and bathed in water brought in from the River Jordan. That Prince Charles had provided a Y-chromosome in the conception of his first child served to ebb a raging debate in the run-up to the birth (the parents had declined to find out the sex ahead of time) – spurred in part by the removal of Princess Anne from the line of succession nearly a decade earlier: whether male-preference primogeniture was “fair” in a society where women sought full equality to men, and had been making major strides in that direction. [2] The subject had even been raised during the 1973 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Ottawa, and had helped to capsize the planned Ottawa Accord – as was so often the case with fundamental constitutional changes, consensus could not emerge with regards to making just one modification and leaving everything else alone. Absolute primogeniture became a topic of discussion again at the 1981 meeting in Melbourne, but William being a boy meant that any such changes would likely not come into effect for another half-century or more – his hypothetical daughter might not be born for another 30 years. Or he might only have daughters, as George VI did, postponing the issue until the next generation. Perhaps most significantly, all of the other European monarchies continued to use male-preference primogeniture – by its very nature, the United Kingdom was not the sort of monarchy to pioneer such a drastic change to an ancient custom. [3]
Despite the robustness of the line of succession and the continuing popularity of the British monarchy, the vestiges of what had once been the most extensive empire the world had ever seen were continuing to unravel. Their last remaining colonial possession on the mainland of the Americas, British Honduras, had sought to follow the lead of many other former colonies in the region and secure independence for some time, though its efforts to do so had been hampered by the active interference of a hostile, irredentist neighbour – Guatemala. The United Kingdom knew better than to withdraw from the territory without any guarantees, which were not forthcoming from the military junta. Being one of the Great Powers, Britain eventually sought to isolate Guatemala in the UN, gradually bringing all of the other countries into the region onside, against Guatemala’s claims to British Honduran territory; this was, nevertheless, a process which took many years.
Meanwhile, Canada, a proposal tabled by NDP MP Max Saltsman, which also received early support from Dan McKenzie, a (backbench) Government MP, sought to fulfill a long-time national dream: the acquisition of territory in the Caribbean. [4] Sir Robert Borden, the Prime Minister during World War I, had sought to integrate much of the British Caribbean into Confederation, much as Australia was doing with many island territories in Oceania, but was rebuffed by Westminster. In the years since, the “snowbird” phenomenon, referring to Canadians who wintered in warmer climes, typically the Southern United States (and especially Florida) had made itself known, and providing the Dominion with her own territory in the Caribbean would help to retain tourist dollars in the Canadian economy [5] – it would also furnish part of the greatly impoverished region with the benefits of the robust Canadian welfare state. Saltsman and McKenzie – in a charmingly bipartisan move, and one which highlighted the compatibility between the PCs and the NDP over the party ostensibly “between” them ideologically, the Liberals – favoured the Turks and Caicos Islands, a small crown colony which had until 1959 been a dependency of Jamaica – the Governors of Jamaica and then the Bahamas had overseen the affairs of the small territory until each colony gained independence. The Turks and Caicos were small, and sparsely populated – extending the “security net” over it would not prove overly taxing on Canadian infrastructure. [6] It also received many Canadian tourists already; they would not need to be lured over to their new territory. Saltsman tabled his bill shortly into the term of the majority government which Stanfield’s Tories won in 1974, and – though the legislation was watered down from his proposal (favouring only “creating a dialogue with the United Kingdom in regards to the future disposition of that crown colony called the Turks and Caicos Islands”), Stanfield followed through, communicating with the new PM at Westminster, Willie Whitelaw. The United States was quietly (and secretly) informed of continuing negotiations as well; a handover of British territory to an effectively sovereign state in the Americas was not perceived as being in violation of the Monroe Doctrine, but the USA was a close ally of both Canada and the UK and it was deemed unseemly to not inform the White House of their intentions. President Humphrey, who was still in office when negotiations commenced, offered them his full support, and this carried on clandestinely, amidst the backdrop of the more transparent situation regarding British Honduras. Indeed, the fates of the two were eventually intertwined.
It was decided that the Turks and Caicos Islands would be admitted to Canada as a third territory – a very different one from the two that already existed (the Northwest Territories, established in 1870 with its acquisition from the British Crown, and the Yukon Territory, established in 1898 after the Klondike Gold Rush – both of which were mostly within the Arctic). [7] This territory would enjoy responsible government as the other two did, and would elect one MP to the House of Commons; this MP would enjoy the smallest constituency (an estimated 6,000 people – less than one-third the size of the next-smallest constituency, the 22,000 people of the Yukon) in Canada, and would have one appointed representative in the Senate. [8] The United States suggested – and both Canada and the United Kingdom accepted – that the terms of the agreement be submitted to the people of the colony in a referendum. Most polls showed the referendum passing in a landslide, which it did, with 90% in favour of joining Canada – independence was not included as an option in the referendum, despite minor agitation on the part of local residents. [9] (The US President at the time of the referendum, Ronald Reagan, was said to have been “disappointed” by the lack of this option, but did not challenge the results). British Honduras (renamed “Belize”) gained independence and the Turks and Caicos joined Canada as its third territory (the first enlargement of the Dominion since Newfoundland was admitted in 1949) on the same day: July 1, 1981 – Dominion Day in Canada, and now in Belize as well (which retained Elizabeth II as Sovereign and Head of State). [10]
One of the reasons that the Turks and Caicos Islands had been transferred so readily to Canadian sovereignty (notwithstanding that Canada and the UK were in personal union) was that it had been considered as the host site for a spaceport which would be jointly operated and funded by both countries, inspired by the Guiana Space Centre in Kourou, French Guiana, which had been the base of operations for the French National Centre for Space Studies since 1968, and then the European Space Agency, or ESA, once it had been formed in the mid-1970s from the merger of several precursor organizations (some of which, such as the European Space Research Organization, had counted the United Kingdom as a member, but Britain voluntarily “withdrew” her membership as it became clear that she would not be joining the EEC). Britain did not have the resources to launch rockets into space alone; partnership with France had been sought in the 1960s to that very end, but joint efforts had proven disastrous. The Commonwealth Trade Agreement which had emerged as a “temporary placeholder” for British (and, by extension, Irish) designs to join the EEC evolved to include a space exploration component, starting with tentative proposals at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in (appropriately enough) Kingston, Jamaica in 1975. [11] This would allow the other founding nations of what would become known as the Commonwealth Space Agency (CSA), Canada and Australia – and, potentially, additional Commonwealth countries further down the line – to co-ordinate their own space programs with the existing foundation of British efforts to develop a workable launcher; this joint effort would provide assured launch capabilities and the prestige of a more expansive program which none of the member nations would be able to achieve individually.
In light of this, the Turks and Caicos were strategically located: rockets launched into the East, necessitating that no inhabited land be underneath their flight path, and had an easier time launching closer to the Equator – East Caicos, the proposed launch site, was within the Tropic of Cancer, and there was nothing east of the Lucayan Archipelago until the Sahara. However, plans to base CSA launches there were soon abandoned as impractical – although it would create many jobs for Canada’s newest territory, the islands were too remote to be effectively supplied and too small for effective infrastructure to be maintained. Instead, Australia would host the launch site, continuing their historic connection with the development of British rocketry. However, instead of using the traditional launch site at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Woomera, in South Australia, a new one was to be built in Far North Queensland, near to the city of Cairns, which was much closer to the Equator (even when compared to East Caicos), and better-connected to existing transportation links, which made it a better prospect for a long-term, intensive space program. [12] The Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, notoriously crowed over this coup by claiming that “Nuclear missiles may have detonated over South Australia, but space-borne rockets will launch from Queensland”, referring (rather callously) to the increasingly controversial legacy of British nuclear testing in Maralinga. [13] The first order of business for the “Big Three” contributors to the CSA enterprise was to determine a means for launching their payload into space…
The disparate reaches of the Commonwealth (and even beyond, including those countries that had fought for and won independence from the British Empire) were united by far more mundane and accessible means than grand political ambitions: they were bound together by the common airwaves. One exemplar of how television helped to shorten distances was Are You Being Served?, which entered the 1980s as one of the longest-running and most popular sitcoms in British history, though it had evolved a great deal from how it had originally been conceived. Trevor Bannister, who played original male lead Mr Lucas, remained with Are You Being Served? despite his vocal displeasure at what had originally been his star vehicle having been stolen from him by the exceptionally talented supporting players, largely because his role was expanded following the departure of Arthur Brough as Mr Grainger, the original department head in menswear. [14] John Inman’s character Mr Humphries, the associate in menswear, was promoted to the new senior, though Mr Lucas remained as the junior (with his lack of promotion frequently mined for comedy). Mr Rumbold, the floor manager, was very pleased with this result, famously expounding upon his reasoning in a discussion with Captain Peacock, the floorwalker:
“Mr Grainger did half the work we’d expect of a salesman at Grace Bros., and so did Mr Lucas. That’s three sets of salaries and benefits paid for the work of two salesmen.”
“But now you’ve eliminated Mr Grainger’s position and are still half a salesman short.”
“Yes, but we’re now at one-and-a-half out of two, instead of two out of three – our efficiency ratings have improved from sixty-seven to seventy-five percent!”
“But surely you could hire a third man who could operate at optimal efficiency?”
“With our luck we’d just as likely find a fellow who’s even worse than Mr Lucas. Then we’d be worse off than where we started. No, it’s much better off this way.”
“I’m not sure I quite agree with your calculations, Mr Rumbold.”
“That’s why you’re just the floorwalker and I’m the executive, Captain Peacock.”
Are You Being Served? suffered the loss of another cast member, Harold Bennett (as “Young Mr Grace”), who (like Arthur Brough before him) had retired at the end of the season prior to his death. The joke of the character, as his name implied, was that this senile, enfeebled mogul was the younger of the two brothers who had founded and owned the department store – “Old Mr Grace doesn’t get about much these days”, came the constant rejoinder to anyone who asked after him. There was some discussion to casting the role of Old Mr Grace, but the problem of finding the right actor – too old, and he might not last, as had been the case for Brough and Bennett; too young, and he might be unconvincing as an older gentleman – stymied the producers. [15] In addition, Bannister had requested – and received – a rather weighty pay raise in order to continue playing the thankless role of Mr Lucas, and this went through largely due to Bennett’s retirement freeing up the resources in the show’s budget to do so. It was therefore decided to make Young Mr Grace an unseen character, further changing the dynamic of the program and reducing it to the core septet: Mr Rumbold, Captain Peacock, Mrs Slocombe, Mr Humphries, Mr Lucas, Miss Brahms, and Mr Mash, the custodian. [16] These would remain for the remainder of the show’s run, which showed no signs of slowing even after a decade on the air, an impressively long run for a sitcom on either side of the Atlantic. And speaking of, Are You Being Served? had by this time emerged as a staple series on the American PBS, given its (relatively) large number of episodes. The CBC, in Canada, aired the episodes “first-run” (one of several BBC programs which had a regular berth of the network), though in practice with a delay of several months. [17] Indeed, Are You Being Served? could be said to have united the Commonwealth – it was so popular in Australia (no doubt inspired by there actually being a department store chain in New South Wales called Grace Bros.) that a remake was produced there; all the names were changed, and an all-new cast of actors were hired. Scripts were recycled from the original series; this was the fatal flaw, as the original series was not only still running, but was very widely televised. The Australian remake lasted only one season, and would go down as one of the worst series in the history of the Commonwealth. In fact, it did so poorly that it made the equally inevitable (and short-lived) American remake, Beane’s of Boston (which ran for one season, from 1980-81) seem simply mediocre by comparison. [18]
One of the biggest and most acclaimed programs on the BBC in the late-1970s, Fawlty Towers, had been in limbo since the conclusion of the second season in 1977; a third season had remained a possibility, though not a contractually-obligated certainty. John Cleese had said as much in an interview that year on Parkinson, famously claiming that “There won’t be any more Monty Python films, but there may yet be another series of Fawlty Towers”. In the years since, Cleese and his wife, former Doctor Who companion Connie Booth (creative as well as life partners) had divorced, though amicably. Both were concerned that the creative possibilities for their sitcom had been exhausted… after only 16 episodes (a relatively modest run, even by British standards). [19] In the end, Fawlty Towers would not see a third season until four years had passed since the second; it aired in late 1981 (alongside the final season of To the Manor Born, in fact – the two programs even aired back-to-back). The entire core cast returned for the eight additional episodes that were filmed, though a new director was chosen as the previous one was elsewhere engaged. Critical reactions to the third season widely regarded it as a slightly disappointing follow-up to the previous two – but viewer reaction was extremely positive; ratings were higher for the third season than for the first two, partly because of the pairing with To the Manor Born (which prompted the BBC Director-General to describe 1981 as “a banner year in light entertainment”). [20] On November 29, 1981, which came to be known as the “Double Event”, both programs concluded – To the Manor Born with a lavish wedding, and Fawlty Towers with Basil Fawlty being run out of Torquay – fortunately, the latter program aired first, so as to prevent the good feelings brought about by the wedding; Fawlty Towers had ended in such a definitive manner so as to prevent the possibility of a fourth season; Cleese and Booth both felt that they had completely exhausted the narrative potential of the show, and knew that they had no interest in coming back to it. However, they did sell the idea to a pair of American writers (brothers, in fact) who had previously worked on Taxi Drivers…
The “Double Event”, for its part, became the highest-rated regular, scheduled broadcast in British history, with both programs attracting over 25 million viewers (To the Manor Born slightly outperformed Fawlty Towers); the previous record-holder had been the Royal Variety Performance of 1965. [21] This was certainly the pinnacle of success that could be expected for the BBC: both shows, of course, aired on their flagship network, BBC-1, opposite only two other channels: sister station BBC-2, and commercial rival ITV. But a second commercial network would begin airing on January 1, 1982, the result of legislation passed in 1979, though years in the making before that – many remote controls sold as early as the 1960s were labelled “ITV-2” in anticipation of the fourth channel. Their anticipatory actions were eventually vindicated when the name of the service was indeed announced as ITV-2, thus leading ITV to follow in the path of the original BBC service and rename itself “ITV-1”. [22] Notably, ITV-1 was actually tuned to channel three, and ITV-2 was tuned to channel four, as BBC-1 and BBC-2 occupied channels one and two, respectively. Nevertheless, the delayed creation of the fourth television service was enough to fulfill a dream long held by many. Observers in the United States wondered when they would acquire their own fourth network.
And then there was Doctor Who. Despite the Yank Years being well and truly behind it, the show continued to maintain a cult audience in the United States, many of whom (to their credit, at least in the eyes of certain British fans) preferred the exploits of the Fourth Doctor to the Third; perhaps this might have been willful contrarianism, given that Pertwee’s Doctor perpetually topped the popularity polls on both sides of the Pond. Jane Seymour, on the other hand, enjoyed a far more unambiguously positive reception as the Doctor’s primary companion, considered either the best since Connie Booth, or simply the best. Aware of the cachet that the role had given her, Seymour departed from Doctor Who after three seasons to appear as the lead Bond girl in The Spy Who Loved Me, the Soviet spy Anya Amasova. [23] She was convinced to remain as long as she had – departing after the 1978 season – purely so that she would remain with the program as long as her predecessor, the reviled Angela Bowie, did; the producers had sought to cleanse the palate of Bowie and found that such a task required an enormous amount of proverbial after-dinner mints. The Fourth Doctor himself, Jim Dale, continued past Seymour’s tenure; indeed, he had a hand in choosing the next companion, Joanna Lumley. Lumley portrayed a character more prim and proper than Seymour, and was also older, considerably over the age of thirty. [24] She remained as the principal companion for three seasons, helping to cement the tradition of companions lasting for precisely that long. Dale himself followed in the footsteps of his predecessor in departing after his sixth season on the program, in 1981; he was replaced by Richard Griffiths, who was twelve years younger than he (and also a year younger than Lumley, one of the reasons why she left the show at that juncture). [25] Griffiths was the youngest Doctor thus far, aged 34 when he assumed the role, and the first born after World War II; however, he looked a good deal older than his age would suggest (and, indeed, perhaps even older than Jim Dale did at the conclusion of his tenure). The question of what Griffiths would bring to the role intrigued many Who fans worldwide. For while the show no longer ruled the roost in the international market, it was one of the many British programs whose influence extended throughout the borders of the former Empire, and further beyond…
---
[1] Yes, he has the same name as his OTL half-brother. The “William” comes from Prince William of Gloucester (who, ITTL, survived and became the Duke of Gloucester); “Arthur” from the mythical King in the Matter of Britain; “Philip” from his paternal grandfather, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh; and “Louis” from his (TTL) maternal great-grandfather, the Earl Mountbatten of Burma. (The father of the Princess of Wales is named “John”, a name which by this time has come to be regarded as bad luck by the Royal Family).
[2] Prince Charles had two sons IOTL; Lady Amanda Ellingworth had three sons. He didn’t seem predisposed to providing X-chromosomes and she didn’t seem predisposed to accepting them, so it only seems fair that their first child be a son.
[3] The first European monarchy to switch from male-preference to absolute primogeniture IOTL was, unsurprisingly, Sweden, doing so in 1980 – after the birth of Prince Carl Philip displaced his elder sister, Princess Victoria. Legislation stripped him of his title as Heir Apparent at the age of seven months, granting it to Victoria – the Netherlands were next, in 1983, followed by Norway in 1990, Belgium in 1993, Denmark in 2009, Luxembourg in 2011, and (though the law has not gone into effect) the United Kingdom in 2013 (under the Statute of Westminster 1931, each of the Commonwealth Realms determines the succession individually). Notably, only in the pioneering Swedish instance did this apply retroactively, making Carl Philip the first Heir Apparent in a continuing monarchy to have that status revoked since another Swedish Crown Prince, Gustav (son of Gustav IV Adolf) in 1809. But ITTL, a son was indeed the first-born of Carl XVI Gustav, which delays any movement to push absolute primogeniture succession through.
[4] Saltsman made his proposal to annex the Turks and Caicos in 1974, at which time the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau was in power IOTL, and it died before being tabled. Dan McKenzie, though he was in office at the time, sat as an Opposition MP with the PC caucus, and made his own (separate) proposal in 1986 (by which time Saltsman had retired), when his party was in government under Brian Mulroney (who was more of a Reaganite/Thatcherite “Blue Tory” in contrast to Stanfield’s Rockefeller/One Nation “Red Tory”) – however, it died in committee. Stanfield, unlike either Trudeau or Mulroney, is more the type to be amenable to such a proposal.
[5] This was part of Saltsman’s argument for making his proposal IOTL (very much in keeping with the economic philosophy of his party at the time). Canada did (and does) provide a disproportionately large share of tourists to the islands relative to its population.
[6] The population of the Turks and Caicos in 1980 was 7,413; at present it is approximately 31,458, a more than fourfold increase. This gives it a comparable population to all the other Canadian territories, though it also means that it would cost much more to accommodate supporting their population.
[7] The Northwest Territories originally encompassed virtually all of Canada between the Great Lakes watershed and the Rocky Mountains, from the 49th Parallel to the North Pole, before various sections (first Manitoba, then the Yukon Territory, and finally Saskatchewan and Alberta) were separated from it. (IOTL, the eastern two-thirds of the remaining territory was reconstituted as the effectively Inuit-governed territory of Nunavut in 1999.)
[8] Although the apportionment of electoral districts (which are always assigned by province or territory) is subject to a convoluted formula which has been revised several times, the rule of thumb in recent decades is that there are about 100,000 electors for each MP, nationwide. However, each province and territory must have at least one MP, and no province may lose MPs in reapportionment (or rather, fall below a grandfathered threshold), meaning that older, smaller provinces (and the territories, with their low populations) are better-represented than newer, more populous ones. The Senate is a whole other can of worms that will not be elaborated upon at this time.
[9] Polling showed support for joining Canada at 90% in the 1990s, which is notable because the Canadian economy underwent a significant downturn in that decade IOTL, worse than the American and other world economies. ITTL, the Canadian economy is performing slightly better, relatively speaking, than the American economy in the early 1980s (because of the “Reagan shock”), which is partly reflected in the tourist presence in the Turks and Caicos, and this ensures strong support for the notion ITTL when it is formally put before the electorate (which never happened IOTL). The question put to the electors ITTL is a simple “yes” or “no” question, with no elaboration.
[10] Belize won independence a few months later IOTL – on September 21, 1981. As noted, it was the last continental holding of the United Kingdom in the Americas – leaving France as the only remaining European power with a physical presence on the American continent (in French Guiana).
[11] You will recall that Kingston is also the place where the CTA first emerges as something other than the ultimate placeholder.
[12] The CSA supplants the Canadian Space Agency as well as the British contributions to the ESA. Australia had earlier collaborated on missile designs with the United Kingdom, but did not have a dedicated space exploration agency until the 1990s IOTL; you can consider their earlier leap into the arena ITTL a beneficiary of their stronger economy (because of the earlier disengagement from the overseas quagmire) alongside the golden opportunity to get in on the ground floor.
[13] Petersen became the Premier of Queensland in 1968, and remained in that position until 1987 IOTL – his rise was too early for me to realistically butterfly, and considering all he went through in his nearly two decades in office prior to his ultimate downfall (and how that downfall came about) it would be difficult for me to unseat him. But on the plus side, at least it gave me a prominent figure into whose mouth I could insert those incredibly tactless words.
[14] When Brough left the role IOTL, he was replaced by a succession of department heads, none of whom lasted for more than a season (the last two, before the producers threw up their hands and promoted John Inman – though only de facto, as he had understandably grown superstitious of the position – each lasted only a few episodes). ITTL, with the circumstances of Brough’s departure changed, they decided not to replace him. The advantages of not replacing a character is that above-the-line costs go down, and the opportunity exists to focus more strongly on the remaining characters – which is how Mr Lucas is able to gain a second wind despite petering out IOTL – it’s a rather unfortunate coincidence that Bannister left just as the producers finally gave up on attempting to cast a permanent replacement for Mr Grainger.
[15] They went with the second option IOTL, choosing Kenneth Waller – who was 28 years younger than Bennett, young enough to be his son – to play the role of Old Mr Grace, caked in unconvincing old-age makeup. He lasted just one season before they reached the obvious conclusion of depicting Young Mr Grace as an unseen character; ITTL, I’m bestowing them with a fair deal more insight than they had IOTL, but the producers were experienced sitcom writers, so it isn’t too much of a stretch.
[16] Mr Mash left after the third season when the actor, Larry Martyn, made another commitment which he could not break; he was replaced by Mr Harman, played by Arthur English (the only replacement character on Are You Being Served? to outlast the original, and be better-remembered).
[17] Par for the course with the CBC – they failed to air the first season of Doctor Who until 1965, and lagged nine months behind on broadcasts of Coronation Street (despite airing it five times a week as opposed to the three times it aired on ITV) for many years, though they’ve finally caught up more recently, and are apparently “only” a few weeks behind now. IOTL, the CBC did not air Are You Being Served?, and Canadians became familiar with the show the same way that Americans did: by watching it on PBS.
[18] The Australian version of Are You Being Served? ran for two seasons IOTL, having scored a singular coup in getting John Inman to reprise his role as Mr Humphries, dispatched to the unnamed Australian city (the program was shot in Melbourne) by Mr Grace himself (his cousin owned the Australian store). However, the show suffered the same revolving-door casting as its English parent (the Mr Rumbold and Miss Brahms actors, who were ironically never recast back at Grace Bros., were swapped out between seasons). Meanwhile, the American version, Beane’s of Boston, never got past the pilot stage IOTL; as you might imagine, ITTL it was watered down considerably (with the solitary exception of the Mr Humphries analogue being made unambiguously gay – which, as in the UK, raised the ire of many gay rights groups for stereotyping).
[19] Fawlty Towers only ran for 12 episodes IOTL, of course, in two seasons which aired, yes, four years apart.
[20] An apt comparison for the third season of Fawlty Towers is Let It Be by the Beatles, popularly judged to be inferior to the rest of the Beatles catalogue but still superior to the overwhelming majority of pop music. Certainly, Cleese and Booth are deeply dissatisfied with the third season, and Cleese in particular will spend the rest of his life talking it down. (By contrast, IOTL, his favourite episode is “Basil the Rat”, the very last.)
[21] The Royal Variety Performance 1965 aired on November 14th of that year, on ITV. Every regular, scheduled broadcast since that has since outperformed it IOTL (five broadcasts have done so, starting with the divorce of Den and Angie on EastEnders at Christmas Day 1986) did so as a result of aggregated viewing figures (initial broadcast plus repeats). ITTL, the 25 million viewers figure refers only to those watching the “Double Event” the night of, on November 29. 1981.
[22] IOTL, the fourth television service, unimaginatively entitled “Channel Four”, started transmission on November 2, 1982, almost a year later.
[23] Amasova was played IOTL by American Barbara Bach, with The Spy Who Loved Me released in 1977, the third of the Roger Moore-era Bond films. Seymour instead portrayed the Bond girl in the earlier Live and Let Die, Moore’s first outing as Bond, in 1973 (at the age of 22). But fear not – despite being several years older ITTL, Seymour is still a full decade younger than Michael Billington. Actresses leaving television series in their prime to appear as Bond girls are a time-honoured tradition in the UK – famously, Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg both did so after their stints on The Avengers. (In an odd coincidence, both actresses were the only Bond girls to be older than the actors playing 007).
[24] Lumley had also appeared in a Bond film, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, IOTL (and ITTL), after which point she appeared in The New Avengers.
[25] Griffiths was twice considered for the role of the Doctor IOTL: in 1981 (for the Fifth), and in 1989 (for the Eighth, had the show not been cancelled). As was the case with Michael Billington as James Bond, I felt obliged to take all those near-misses and turn them into a hit.
---
Thanks to e of pi for his advice in the creation of and assistance in the editing for this update!
Here we have a look at the “modern Commonwealth” ITTL, and what it is trying to achieve as an organization – where it stands relative to British culture, and what British culture has been producing. Receptive markets within and beyond the Commonwealth will always welcoming programming that strikes a chord with audiences, and one thing to consider as the CSA forges on ahead is that the telecommunications satellites it will someday launch should only strengthen these bonds further…
I see where you are going with the American Brothers who wrote for Taxi Drivers Brainbin. Hope that things remain and turn out the same for Cheers, or whatever it will be called, ITTL as it did IOTL. Good ending for Fawlty Towers ITTL and another fine and interesting update.
Hope that things remain and turn out the same for Cheers, or whatever it will be called, ITTL as it did IOTL. Good ending for Fawlty Towers ITTL and another fine and interesting update.
Last edited:
