Queen Elizabeth II

[Yossarian]

I like Kitty Kelley. I know she's trashy blahblahblah muck-raking cakes, but she's still a good read. It would be good if she did an epilogue in the wake of Diana's death though (maybe she has but the version I have is old?). Anyhoo, I am now just about to finish her book on the Bush family. Whoa, baby. It's all juicy trashy goodness. That said, I think I read somewhere that she has never been successfully sued for libel or slander. I noticed that she is *very careful* with certain things she writes ... "some may say that this is true but I haven't been able to verify the story" and then she launches into the full story about Dubya forcing an ex-girlfriend to have an abortion. She covers her ass while still letting out all the sordid details. Good times.

[nuharoo]

I dunno. I read it, but it was insanely outlandish. Furthermore, Kitty Kelly is the type that lives to ruin and tarnish reputations, no matter the cost to the psyche or such to the person she's writing about.

[kafka]

nuharoo said:

I can't believe that. The Queen Mother was not like that I'm sure.

No. You're right. She was worse.

As for The Queen, she was twenty-five at her acension and I'm sure that she was unsure of herself. Plus she was bred to do her duty to her country and it did exact a cost at the expense of her family life. Back then chlidren were raised by nannies while their parents did what they were expected to do, which was their duty.

I absolutely agree. She was young and, more to the point, she was obsessively conscientious about her duty in an age when it was rare for a female to be the monarch, to bring England together after the ravages of war, and to manage motherhood at the same time. Time, class, social norms let her hand the children off to the nannies.

But, as someone who was hugely raised by nannies in an important political family, it's not hard for a parent to be closely involved and loving DESPITE the job. My parents managed, and they were all raised in British or Swiss boarding schools with the British emphasis on emotional aloofness. Despite the job, the politics or upbringing, I knew I was raised more by my parents than the army of nannies. I doubt QEII's children would ever say as much. Nannies and duty aside, she simply couldn't get passed her emotional repression enough to actually show overt love or involvement with her children. Whatever Pr. Philip's many problems, he managed to do so.

As for the Queen's youth when ascending to the position, obviously it must have had an impact. And yes, she was unsure of herself. But her mother's endless passive-aggressive jibes influenced and controlled her to the day of the harridan's death.

Besides, the Queen Mother did rise magnificently to the occasion when it came to WWII and I'm sure that if she was luxury loving, it was a small flaw compared to the lifetime of service she had given to her country. She never shirked her duty and as for the title, well, I have to admit that it does make her quite unique in her daring. She showed that just because her husband had died, she wouldn't douse herself in black and mope. While Diana set a new standard as a Princess of Wales, the Queen Mother set a new standard for women who marry into the monarchy and lose their husbands. Females who do lose their royal husbands can still have a role to play. In that way she was quite the trailblazer, no matter how old fashioned she was to the end.

There are a lot of alternative, strategic political explanations for why the QM and George VI stayed in London during the Blitz. As for her actions..... there is another way of seeing them too, one which is not complimentary. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but to me, you're seeing the outward facade without knowing a lot of details about how she was as a person on a day-to-day basis. And you're taking the one issue of the Blitz to be representative of how she was as a person.

Sure, everything is up for interpretation and bias, but many of her totally vicious bigotted, racist comments aren't subject to any sort of excuse. Quite simply, none is possible by any objective standards. Not with those slurs.

Nor can her total shallow, frivolous callousness towards the assassination threat at her husband be excused. All the woman cared about was making sure that as many people as possibel saw her new hat, even though it opened up her husband to more visible sniper exposure.

She and her husband couldn't leave England, and she was forced by the govt. to go out to bombed areas but that doesn't make her a conscientious, caring Queen. After the Wallis/Abdication mess, the government was going to ensure that the next monarch didn't seem to shy away from duty, let alone leave the country.

As for her "lifetime of service to the country," what exactly was it? The govt. forced trapsing to the East End during bombings to talk about how she was like everyone else? Okay, even if that was genuine, what was the "LIFEtime of service"?

IMO, just being alive for a huge amount of time and merely existing is the real reason she's given a break or gets admiration, but think about it....... what has she ever actually done that benefits the country or was purely altruistic? She's not like her daughter, the Queen, who will put everything aside for the job or who will give up everything for the position, even at the cost of her children's emotional wellbeing.

What exactly did the Queen Mother do? Of her own accord as opposed to political obligations by a war cabinet? And, evdn if she did that by herself (which she didn't) what did she ever do for the country other than just live a long time and thereby become a symbol?

Getting bailed out for millions in debts for horseracing and outrageous spending, thereby triggering a national debate about royals and their taxes? Being a passive-aggressive cow to her own daughter? Being an active cohort in assisting Charles' affair while never letting him actually marry the woman? Violating every titular rule about Wallis simply because she wanted to make the woman pay? (Pay for what? For her own husband's congenital health issues? Or was it really for someone else getting the man and title she'd wanted?)

[happypenguin]

I have to say that I had no idea the Queen Mother was like that. But if she was its perfectly feasible that it affected the Queen's parenting.

kafka said:

-- she wasn't into the PoW but the Scottish aristocrat, yet when turned down by him, then she went for the PoW, and when turned down *him*, then she settled for his brother;

-- she was turned down by David/Edward and then fell for brother;

-- she never was into David/Edward, loved the Scottish chap, but ended up falling for George VI, even though she went through the forms of rejecting his proposal the first two times he asked.

No-one is sure as to the truth but, IMO, she really *did* love the other chap who left her, so then she decided to be "practical." Which, for her, translated into mercenary.

I have to say I can't really hold all of that against her. It happened in those days, her situation was not unique, except in how high up she married. In her time people did marry for advantage.

So what do people think of The Queen and Prince Phillip's marraige?

[kafka]

happypenguin said:

So what do people think of The Queen and Prince Phillip's marraige?

I think it's a complicated modern marriage with its share of faults (which most marriages have), but it's one which works for them. Now. After a lot of problems and issues. But one which they've finally settled --- years later, and many decades after she was the ONLY one in love ---- finally, it's become a relationship where they've finally gelled together as two people who love each other equally and who depend on each other.

I think it's hard for a traditionally, old school-type Greek man to subsume his authority, masculinity and dominance to the wife. And to live a life constantly a few steps behind, requiring to be muzzled, and never having any role other than to be the husband? I think that must have been mindblowingly difficult for him.

Which is one of the many reasons why I believe the stories about his adultery.

I think she looked the other way (Past tense) because she's loved him since she was young, because she didn't think it would undermine their overall bond, because there is nothing she could do even if she had enough (since the Queen could never get divorced), and since One Never Makes a Fuss. No matter how much it may have hurt. In her generation, the wife is expected to look the other way.

That said, I believe the accounts which say that he's her biggest support. I wrote a piece once about royal cooking amongst the Windsors, and there was a very sweet account about how Pr. Philip is with Elizabeth when the doors are closed. He'll close the suite doors, then get out his portable electric fryer and make an omelet, his special recipe for mushrooms, and some of his other personal recipes (a few of which I have, btw), and then he'll take them over to the Queen in their bed, give her a plate and eat beside her as they watch Coronation Street or some other show.

Philip's cooking of a private snack is a nightly ritual and just one of the many ways of how he truly tries to tend to the *woman,* as opposed to the monarch or the aloof icon. Even after so many years, and even with his cheating, he still is the involved, cossetting partner.

That said, I believe there is more than a grain of truth in the Mountbatten Agenda stories, but I think once Philip married Elizabeth and once their marriage weathered the numerous rocky shoals, then a very tender, intimate, personal connection arose.

[Deleted]

No wonder the British RF is so dysfunctional. Heck, I'd even say they are not doing so poorly afterall--at least none of them has ended up in an asylum yet--given all the drama that goes on in that household. Yikes.

[Deleted]

I know the Queen has gotten alot of flack for the divorce in her families. But what family is perfect. My parents have alot of friends who have children, and all of them are divorced and remarried.

[Augustus]

kafka said:

She's not like her daughter, the Queen, who will put everything aside for the job or who will give up everything for the position, even at the cost of her children's emotional wellbeing.

Yup, you can say whatever you want about dear ol' Lizzie, but she sure knows what her job entails and it is indeed her top priority, despite the effects on her, her private life or her family.

I've heard stories how she looked down on Juliana when she abdicated to make way for her daughter Beatrix. For Elizabeth it is a lifelong job and abdication? Never! She is the Queen till the day she dies.

[Deleted]

She will wear that crown until she dies in it.

[zivvie]

The late father of my friend Sarah was a British Ambassador, and he had quite a few meetings with QEII over the years. He had a few tales to tell about her... first of all, QEII hated Margaret Thatcher. Hated her, which, of course, endears QEII to me. Second, even though the Amb. was meeting with the monarch, he said that she had a wonderful sense of humor, and is more intelligent than she's able to express in most situations. He had a very high opinion of her as a monarch, and liked her very much as a person.

Oh, and Kafka dear, Sarah totally concurs with your opinion of The Vicious Cow. Actually, Sarah calls her "the gin-soaked old N@zi".