Post by kafka on Oct 9, 2006 14:32:13 GMT -4
mouse said:
kafka said:
I'll take a different stance from all of you:I respect her in her capacity as a monarch, for her unwavering dedication to fulfilling her duty, and for being so conscientious.
But I don't like her as a person or respect/admire her as a mother. Yes, I realise that some of her issues are a result of the job, while others are due to that vicious, ghastly harridan, the Queen Mother, but I don't think her character is all that admirable.
That's my opinion, too. And honestly, I don't think that her duties as a monarch are any excuse for her failings as a parent. Her own parents were very warm and supporting of their children, even during WWII. Honestly, she just doesn't seem to have much of a personality.
Mouse, while I agree with your overall feelings about her, especially as a parent, I don't agree with your other points. Her mother was more of an albatross around Elizabeth's neck and she completely overshadowed, dominated, bullied and controlled QEII until her death. The Queen Mum was a vicious, spiteful, selfish harridan who thought only about her pleasure, who insisted on dominating her daughter down to the smallest article of clothing, who bullied her husband and then used his death to become Queen Victoria II.
She was a massively controlling old bat who only lived for her own pleasures, no matter what the cost or embarrassment to her daughter, not even when there were debts in the millions at Coutts because the QM insisted on gambling on horses and spending like a profligate.
The very fact that the QM --- one of the most poorly educated, bigoted, racist, vicious, spiteful, nasty, shrewish Queen in any of Europe's modern history --- managed to get her official title changed so that she had "Queen" in it twice (unique in British history) is only one example of her total narcissistic, self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing self.
She was hardly much of a mother to Elizabeth. And neither was George VI, albeit for totally different reasons. HE cared, but he was weak, bullied by that vicious Old Bat, suffered from indifferent health and a stutter which gave him anxiety, and totally overwhelmed by the job. He was hardly a hands-on involved father, even by the standards of those days. And she was just busy ruling him.
(There's an interesting book I have in one of my many boxes of books in the garage about the diary of the King's aide (and indirect relative) and his total annihilation of the Old Harridan while she was Queen. About their visit to NY in 1940 or so, and how she was more concerned about showing off her hat in the best angle to the most amount of people, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A SERIOUS ASSASSINATION THREAT AGAINST HIM. No matter how much the chap tried to talk to the King and to alert him to the danger, she would rule everything out in the biggest display of vacuous, Paris Hilton-like vacuous self adoration. She not only didn't get it but she didn't care. And, FWIW, that German assassination attempt came close. It was foiled, no thanks to her. The stupid cow. )
Erm..... I think I'm going off track. My point is that the present Queen hardly had a joyously close childhood with loving parents. She was sent away during the war, the Old Hag couldn't particularly care less before of after, and once QEII became Queen then the Vicious Harridan focused on her daughter as the avenue to make herself important.
I may loathe the Queen Mother (and, in truth, it's hard for me to think of any modern Royal, from any country, that I'm unassociated with, whom I despise more), but I'm not the only one who saw the weight of the QM's dictates on the Queen's shoulders. From dressing in clothes and hats identical to the QM (even if much older than Her Majesty's age at the time), to the emotional stranglehold present in other things, the QM was the *WORST* influence. And she's been the biggest influence on Charles....
Once the Vicious Bat died, people all over started to note a fundamental lightening, easing, relaxing and glimmer of joy in the Queen. She finally --- finally -- got the chance to come into her own, free of her mother's emotional blackmail or passive-aggressive criticism. Bottom line: the Old Cow couldn't stand being on the sidelines and, despite managing to invent a unique style of title where she was the one person on earth to get "Queen" twice over in her title, she still resented being out of the limelight.
So, no, the Queen didn't come from a loving background.
And, no, I don't agree that the Queen has basically no personality. I think she's got tons. But where her personality is strong, is not in *POSITIVE* things. For example, she has a well-established dread of getting involved, no matter how minor, private or personal the issue may be. She's built avoidance into such a huge fallback position that it has, in turn, created a host of other problems.
She left the raising of the children to Philip but, in truth, I don't blame her for that. She was giving him a substantial position so he didn't feel useless; she was making him an equal of sorts, even if the arena wasn't as significant as national affairs. And Charles' bleating to the contrary, and Philip's foot-in-mouth gaffes aside, and the damn awful boarding school/Gordonstoun aside, Philip was a good father.
He really a thousand times more hands on than the QM or George VI had ever been with *their kids.* He took Anne and Charles on overnight camping trips, he went into the kitchen with Charles, he was involved down to the smallest thing. Until that damn boarding school.
Back to QEII, she definitely has a personality but it's not an interactively aggressive one. It's not one that every takes the initiative. It's not only cautious, but wary, hesitant, and reluctant to get deeply ---- let alone emotionally --- involved.
When Charles sicc'd his blood hound, Mark Bolland, onto his own family, he officially approved Bolland's leaks to the press excoriating his own brother Edward, sacrificing his son Harry by deliberately leaking news of Harry's visit to the drug clinic (after having set it up in the first place so Charles would "seem" to be the involved parent and making a deal with the tabloids about how to spin the news), and so much more, the Queen wriggled but she didn't do anything. It was only when Bolland --- with Charles' approval --- leaked attacks on the Queen herself and, more to the point, attacks on Prince Philip, that the Queen put her foot down.
With Bolland as with Diana, the Queen just hoped that avoidance would make the "scene" and the need for confrontation go away. Someone willing to let half the members of her family be attacked by her son's PR chap during "Operation Parker Bowles" is not someone with a nonexistent, bland, almost generic personality. They have a character all right. One which avoids conflict at all costs. And THAT explains a lot about the current state of the Windsor opera.
She's a great Queen, as a monarch. But as a person or a Pater Familias, let alone a mother...... not so great.
For that, as in many things, I blame that vicious old cow, the Queen Mother.
However we may diverge in theory or conclusions, thanks for a fun discussion. 
