BROADCASTER Michael Palin has dismissed a suggestion that a film producer was the seventh member of the Monty Python comedy team.
Palin – one of six stars of the famous television comedy series – is fighting a bid by Mark Forstater, 69, who claims he is entitled to royalties from the stage musical Spamalot.
Mr Forstater produced the cult 1970s' film Monty Python and the Holy Grail – a parody involving duelling knights from the days of King Arthur, which famously used many shots of Doune Castle in Stirlingshire.
He has taken legal action over royalties because Spamalot is a theatrical spin-off from the Grail film. And he has argued in court that, for "financial purposes", he should be treated as "the seventh Python".
However Palin, 69, told a High Court trial yesterday that the idea Mr Forstater was a "seventh Python" would not have been accepted.
"It may have been what he wanted, but it was never going to be accepted by the Pythons," Palin told the hearing in London.
"The idea of a 'seventh Python' just doesn't happen. It was never going to be accepted."
Palin said Mr Forstater had not "created" Monty Python And The Holy Grail.
"He was not the creator of the film. The film had been created by the Python team entirely," said Palin.
"Mark came on board. He became the producer. But I don't think he was entitled to anything beyond that."
Mr Palin said it was unlikely Mr Forstater had "input" into writing the Grail film. "It doesn't seem really likely to me," he told the court. "There were six of us. We wrote our own material."
Mr Palin said "major decisions" would have been taken by "the Pythons themselves".
"I find it really bizarre Mark should think he would have been there writing the film with us," he added. "It just wouldn't happen."
Fellow Pythons Eric Idle and Terry Jones also gave evidence but John Cleese and Terry Gilliam have submitted written statements.
The hearing continues today.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article