TV review: Channel 4 offer an alternative to the royal wedding guff
The Windsors: Royal Wedding Special, Channel 4, Tuesday at 9pm
FOR anyone who's had their fill of royal wedding hyperventilation then Channel 4 has been the natural place to go.
In fairness, the channel has always been questioning of the Windsors' place at the heart of the British nation.
It's 25 years since Channel 4 first presented an Alternative Christmas Message, in opposition to the traditional Queen's message on the BBC.
In 1993 it was Quentin Crisp who presented as a very different kind of queen.
The Windsors has been poking fun at the royal family for a couple of years now, but this double-length episode was the first big event to come along during the satire's life.
As ever, Harry Enfield was brilliant as Prince Charles, capturing the avuncular and possible octogenarian king.
Visiting Meghan (pronounced as 'Mugan' in the royal accent) at her mum's house in the US, he is lost without his valet who could not stay because she only has three bedrooms.
"I wonder if one of you might help me go to the loo?" was one of the better lines.
Pippa Middleton suffers most, with a storyline centred around her weight gain (I must have missed that in the red tops).
She feeds her sister calorific milkshakes to make her put on weight and rages that she's not getting the same attention as Meghan.
"Running and dieting was all I did for 15 years until I married a billionaire and thought f**k it," she offers as an excuse.
All the other royals get the rather lazy posh and stupid treatment.
Beatrice and Eugenie are only interested in eating out and getting a man to marry. Beatrice is so desperate that she refuses to go to the "bourgeois" wedding because she's dating an anti-royalist Corbynite.
Harry and William are disappointing copies of Enfield's 'Tim Nice But Dim' character of the 1990s, although at least the Windsors offered a counter-weight to overwhelming fawning coverage elsewhere.
Innocent, ITV, Monday to Thursday at 9pm
This was one of the better crime dramas among television's favourite genre.
It was a whodunnit which began as David Collins was freed from prison after a third straight trial collapsed, leaving the judge to acquit him of killing his wife.
Police must now reinvestigate the murder of Tara Collins and either confirm to themselves it was the husband or find a new suspect.
In the best traditions of the whodunnit, it kept the audience guessing with four credible suspects by the mid point in the series.
Collins, who clearly has an anger problem, may be guilty despite getting off.
His sister in law Alice Moffatt lied to police about her rocky relationship with her sister.
Rob Moffat (Alice's husband) is a boat builder whom we see tying a specialist knot used to tie up Tara's body, and Tom Wilson has been forced to admit that he had an affair with Tara, lied about his movements and assaulted her shortly before her death.
The more interesting question though was one of how to accept a court judgment.
The real tension in the drama was when Collins is released from prison and wants to see his children for the first time in seven years, but their guardians (Alice and Rob) remain convinced he murdered Tara but only got off on a technicality.
His children, initially confused and frightened - they were five and eight when their mother was killed - don't know what to do.
Is Collins entitled to renew his life as an innocent man and take care of his children or is he a murderer who's gotten off on a technicality?