Let's discuss the legendary Queen Mother or Queen Mum as she was affectionately known in the UK. (Elizabeth II mother)

By all reports only slightly classier than Trump's mom.

I met her in 1987. She was simultaneously charming and slightly remote.

Hitler hated her.

When you old queens are done down there, this old queen up here needs a drink!

Really r1? In what way?

R3 is correct. He called her the most dangerous woman in Europe.

r2 Please explain and elaborate on your encounter with the Queen Mother a little more please! Where did you meet her?

From what I gather she knew how to make everyday life fun. That's someone I'd want to be around.

r6 Because of her charisma and ability to boost the morale of the british public during the war?

Notorious fag hag, and drunkard.

Oh, nobody is nastier than Trump's mom. But I thought the queen mum was a drink-sodden earthy type.

[quote] Notorious fag hag, and drunkard.

And that’s a good thing.

[quote] Because of her charisma and ability to boost the morale of the british public during the war?

Precisely.

Probably apocryphal because it's too good saying to her daughter in an argument, 'Elizabeth who do you think you are?'

R7, I met her very briefly when she opened a new swimming pool in my town. I was only 10 years old, and my class had been given the afternoon off from school to attend the opening of the pool. She was obviously the centre of attention, and a large crowd had turned out to greet her.

As an adult, I find the basic idea of royalty fairly indefensible, but The Queen Mum did impress me. She was tiny, beautifully dressed in the type of colours The Queen now wears. Those clothes are designed to make them stand out in a crowd. And she wore a huge hat.

She had beautiful manners. She made a great effort to talk to everyone, and she did have charisma, even as a very old lady. She asked me some questions about my school and whether I could swim. She also seemed to enjoy speaking to children more than the adults, although she gave my aunt, who had accompanied me, a beaming smile. Weirdly, the adults all seemed to be incredibly pleased by how much attention she gave to the children.

I was accused (by the adults surrounding me) of making one faux pas, as I found her very upper class, soft, slightly wavering voice a little hard to understand, and I said “what?”. The adults corrected me and said I should have said “pardon”. However, someone here on D/L once consoled me and said that “What?” Is the correct response, and that no posh person would say “Pardon”, which is considered declassé. I’m afraid I was not posh enough to know that!

Meeting her was nice, but also a little strange, which is probably why I found such a nice person a little alienating/remote too. By the time I met her, she did seem very much like a person from a different era, a historical figure. That was my impression, even as a child.

Because of her frumpy looks, people assumed she was a nice, cozy, warm sort of woman. Actually, she was quite snobbish and not at all nurturing (just look at Elizabeth and Margaret and you'll see what kind of mothering they got). And she hated her nickname of "Queen Mum," thinking it common.

I love you R1

I always seem to think, quite erroneously, that she arranged for Diana's 'tunnelling'. Like, what did she have to lose at that late stage in her life?

I hate the Greville tiara on Camilla, & I hated it on her. And the backwards "beckoning" wave drove me absolutely insane.

She encouraged the distant relationship between Phillip and Charles, as that gave her power over the future king.

She worked with Mountbatten and others to stop Camilla’s relationship with Charles in the 70s.

If rumors are to be believed, she conspired with Diana’s grandmother (and her lady in waiting ) Ruth Fermoy to marry Diana off to Charles.

Kitty Kelly indicated in her book that she called Elizabeth after Fergie did something embarrassing during her separation from Andrew and told her daughter to have that marriage ended.

She was a very devious, manipulative person, and her grandmotherly persona was all an act.

I understand she preferred to be called 'the Scottish cook or Cookie.'

Have you ever known a woman who was not a devious manipulative person?

Attributed to the Queen Mother when the Queen asked for another glass of wine with lunch:

"Are you really sure you should, dear? Remember, you have to reign all afternoon."

She herself said I'm not as nice as I appear to be.

“At noon, she had her first drink of the day — a potent mix of two parts of the fortified wine Dubonnet to one part of gin. This was followed by red wine with lunch and, very occasionally, a glass of port to end it.”

“Later came the ritual observed at 6 p.m., deemed the earliest acceptable time for an evening drink,” he recalled. “‘Colin, are we at the magic hour?’ the Queen Mother would invariably ask, and I’d mix her a martini. After a couple of these, she would sit down to dinner and drink one or two glasses of pink champagne.”

r15 Thank you for your detailed reply.I hadnt realised she was especially good with children,

r20 would calling her a sugar coated acid drop be a good description for her?

Jimmy Carter kissed her on the lips

[quote] Jimmy Carter kissed her on the lips

He lusted in his heart.

And in his weenie.

r27 Really???!!!

I learned it at my mother’s knee, or some other low joint.

She wasn't of royal blood, thus she brought the first smattering of healthy genetic diversity into the British royal family in many centuries.

She was addicted to opium as a young girl, only to replace that addiction with booze.

I'd rather discuss the Queen Mum's brother-in-law, the bisexual Prince George.

She was forced to marry Prince Albert, Duke of York. Her true love was his equerry, James Stuart. He was packed off to the oil fields of Texas, giving Bertie a chance to woo her.

[quote] [R3] is correct. He called her the most dangerous woman in Europe.

That was only because he was trapped in an elevator with her once after she had eaten a lot of sauerkraut.

I used to know two upper class screamers who lunched with her every time they were in London. She used to sit with her back against the window so the light caught her enormous diamond drop earrings. Footmen everywhere. Steel trap mind, and enjoyed being a bitch. Massive amounts of booze, but always in control. She had a new TV installed and one of the servants showed her how to operate the remote control and how to change the channel. Reply: "How fascinating. However, we prefer to ring."

She lived the life of an Edwardian lady to the day she died. She never really left the 1920s.

Not surprisingly, as she was a DLer trapped in an old queen's body, she loved [italic]The Golden Girls.[/italic]

R20

Lady Fermoy was a bit of work, gave evidence against her own daughter Frances who bolted from John Spencer, Viscount Althorp who she divorced to marry Peter Shand Kydd. That assistance gave Viscount Althorp a boost in being awarded custody of Diana and her siblings.

As for working in tandem with HM The Queen Mother to engineer Diana's marriage to Price of Wales, Lady Fermoy has explicitly and expressly denied any such involvement. Replying to such queries with " "You can say that if you like – but it simply wouldn't be true". In fact to contrary Lady Fermoy has said she counselled Diana against the marriage saying "Darling, you must understand that their sense of humour and their lifestyle are different, and I don't think it will suit you."

To see the Queen Mother with her adoring subjects watch this video from 1961. She was 60 years old here and fully bedecked. Check out the royal wave. This was before QE2 modified it to vertical.

She was good friends with Cecil Beaton because he photographed her so beautifully consideringly bolstering her image as a gracious lovely royal. Grandly dressed she still exuded the qualities of an understanding sympathetic kindly individual. She even visited his home for lunch. This lasted until Beaton published his diaries comparing her face to a plump pinkish bladder and making her out to be well meaning but rather dim. She did not find this endearing and did not attend his funeral.

R38 Largely true

r39 She LOVED a British sitcom from the 1990s called Keeping up appearances.

Cecil Beaton was really stupid to have published his incredibly bitchy diaries before he died.

The message the Queen Mum learned with Cecil was the same Babe Paley learned with Truman Capote: no matter how amusing a bitchy and gossipy gay courtier might be, never trust him not to turn his tongue against you.

r45 Sounds like she was very much a major fag hag

Bump!!

I wonder what the history books will reveal about the relationship between her and Wallis Simpson?

R47

There's nothing more to revel than what gallon of ink has already done.

Queen Elizabeth detested Wallis Simpson from almost day one. That being said by end of her life QM's attitude toward Duchess of Windsor softened a tinge, but it wasn't as if all was forgotten and forgiven.

You'd think they'd (BRF) be grateful in hindsight, Edward VIII would have been a disaster as monarch during run up and actual event of WWII, so his abdication really allowed Great Britain to dodge a bullet.

r48 What was the basis or reason for her hatred of Wallis from day one? I get why she hated her later but why initially?

R49 - Wallis, the moment she hooked the Prince of Wales ("David") began to put on airs long before it was either wise or polite to do so. She was rude to the Yorks when she was fairly certain she would actually be Queen, and "David" aided and abetted her (Harry reminds me of the Duke sometimes).

For example, David once agreed to carry out an engagement in Scotland, but demurred at the last minute due to "other responsibilities", and sent his brother, Prince Albert, Duke of York, to deputise for David, instead.

David was then seen picking up Wallis at the Aberdeen train station at the same time his younger brother was carrying out the public engagement David had committed to. The "other responsibilities" turned out to be collecting Wallis at the train station. Unfortunately, David was seen and photographed. As one observer put it at the time (might have been Chips Channon), "Aberdeen will never forgive him."

It was stuff like this that put so many people's backs up, not just the noblesse oblige traditionalists. When David became King, he began cutting staff who had served in one of those households for decades, many already in old age. They were casually let go with no thought for what would become of them. The horrified Yorks hurried either to find new places for them in other royal households, took some of them on themselves, and helped organise financial assistance for others.

You just didn't treat old retainers like in those circles after a lifetime of service, you had a certain responsibility to them.

So there was an immediate clash of values. Later, when the Abdication Crisis hit, and the Yorks were left hanging waiting to hear what their fate would be for days on end, and the never very emotionally tough Prince Albert was under enormous stress, was I think when the real hate set in.

I think the best description of the Queen Elizabeth was “an asp in chiffon”

R35, that’s complete rubbish.

[Quote]What was the basis or reason for her hatred of Wallis from day one?

Not R48, but my understanding is that as a divorcee, Wallis was already suspect in circles where divorces just didn't happen, despite extramarital dalliances. To boot, Simpson was a TWICE divorced AMERICAN and appeared to have benefitted socially and aspirationally from the dissolutions.

Then there's the great story of how David/Edward VIII brought Wallis to Royal Lodge in Windsor Park where Albert/George VII and Elizabeth, then the Yorks lived. Wallis was not a gracious guest and commented how much better the views would be if they removed a centuries old tree grove.

You don't shit on a hostess when your own credentials are shitty.

As the Queen Mother has finally gotten her own thread, I feel compelled FINALLY to put to rest the nonsense about the "trust funds" she left William and Harry.

I hope the Queen Mum Trust Fund Troll who kept citing media pieces that always began with "reportedly" but never produced a shred of proof, Forbes Magazine has a new article up about what Harry's and Megha's true wealth. The piece contains this sentence:

". . . Contrary to published reports, a representative confirms he was not a beneficiary of any of the nearly $100 million (£70 million) fortune left by his great-grandmother, the Queen Mother."

So the old lady, as long obvious from the public records of Harry's income, did NOT leave him a nice trust fund.

Which shows her excruciatingly finely honed appreciation for the realities of which descendants really would need the money - and those weren't the two great-grandsons sired by the richest man in the family.

R53 - Ah, that incident was made public by Marion Crawford in "The Little Princesses", the memoir of the two princess's governess (which got Crawfie banned from royal circles for the rest of her life, even though it was completely anodyne to the point of comatose - full disclosure: I have a first edition. I blame my mother.) Crawford recounted how totally inappropriately Wallis behaved, and how self-controlled and courteous the Yorks remained during the visit. David had, apparently, driven over to Royal Lodge to show off his new American station-wagon auto.

The two princesses joined their parents and their guests for tea that day.

Wallis also recalled the event in her own memoir, acid as always, remarking that she was "immediately aware of the beauty of the Duchess's complexion" and that the Duchess of York's "justly famous charm was highly evident". The two children, Wallis described, were "so blonde, so brightly scrubbed, and so beautifully mannered that they might have stepped straight from the pages of a fairy book."

And then Wallis opined that whilst the Yorks might have been sold on the American station wagon, she suspected that they weren't sold on "David's other American acquisition."

So Wallis was fully aware of having made a bad impression, and the visit became something of a marker of a battle joined.

As a left leaning Brit living in the US, I can't help but admire the Queen Mum to some extent. I think the whole system is fucking awful (my ancestors were probably cleaning the floors of the nobs), but the old girl was as tough as shit.

She was born into a certain class, and made it work for her. I bet she was an absolute hoot.

Major pussy hound. Big Bush supporter.

R40 Lady Fermoy, like many others, later denied supporting a marriage that had become “embarrassing.” In 1980, Diana’s family, except possibly her sister Sarah, were thrilled she was marrying Charles. Lady Fermoy would throw daughter and granddaughter under a red double decker bus if it meant making herself look better.

When they played God Save the Queen, she acted like they were singing it to her. The only royal thing she had in her body was the was Prince Albert's dick.

Thank you so much r50 the anecdotes and your explanation have helped me grasp and understand the dynamics that bit more. I had no idea David and Wallis sacked a lot of loyal staff. That is shameful.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Queen Mother out of all of her royal sisters in law was closet to Princess Alice formerly known as the Duchess of Gloucester. Do we know much about their relationship and why they apparently got on the best?

Thank you r53

Wallis sounds rather vulgar. I knew alsthat she was divorced but hadn't realised that it was twice which would be really taboo breaking in the 1930s.

She always used to look at me with a strange look in her eyes. It wasn’t hatred, it was sort of interest and pity mixed in one.

The Queen Mother may have been open-minded about the gay servants and artisans she used, but she was as racist as one would expect from someone of her place and generation.

And she was royal by association, not in the way that truly matters.

Plus the obligatory note that she vied for David's attention before Wallis got him and that he had no interest in her always has left a scent of revenge in her stances. Of course David was a mess and made a terrible king. But the Queen Mother, finally relenting to accept the second son because of her own ambition, always seemed to have her own ax at the grinder.

She didn't soften towards Wallis so much as let go because she had, completely and utterly, won against her. At the Duke of Windsor's funeral Wallis was confused and broken, so the Queen Mother's little touches just were like covering the severed head with a pretty handkerchief.

And, R59, perhaps you haven't heard the stories that both Elizabeth and Margaret (the second try for a boy, after which the Duchess of York declared she had had enough) were "turkey-baster" babies.

r63 Why did they need to go down the turkey baster route?!

R60, the Queen Mother and Princess Alice had much in common: they were approximately the same age, were both the daughters of Scottish aristocrats, and grew up in Scottish castles. Alice, like the young Elizabeth, had an image of being shy and demure, but actually had quite a sharp sense of humour. And neither had any inkling that they would end up marrying into the Royal Family. - In previous generations, it was accepted that Royal Princes of Britain had to marry Royal Princesses from other royal houses of Europe. In that sense, Elizabeth and Alice were both outsiders, raised to a position they could never have expected.

r65

Thanks r65 that does make sense.I had not realised that Alice also was scottish .

Now dataloungers lets speculate {Hopefully intelligently with some reference to why where and reasoning!!} share information, anecdotes or gossip on the Queen Mothers relationships with other members of the royal family.

I imagine somewhere amongst the Datalounge posters glitterati will be some people very knowledgeable on this subject or knowledgeable enough to bring something of flavour to the thread.

I am interested in any relationship with any other member of the royal family but especially

Her husband Bertie

Her Daughter The Queen

Her younger daughter Princess Margaret

Her son in law Prince Philip

Wallis Simpson

Abdicated brother in law David

Princess Diana

Sarah Ferguson AKA the Duchess of York

Princess Anne

Prince Charles

The divine Princess Alexandra her niece by marriage

Of the top of my head I have a vague recollection of a journalist asking Princess Anne about her royal grandmother and replying Im not the best person to ask about her! What may that reply been all about?

Noticeable Sarah Ferguson was on her personally approved guest list for her funeral whereas Princess Margaret left Sarah off the guest list to her funeral effectively banning her. Did she have any kind of a residual soft spot for Fergie despite the scandals or did the Queen when contrasting Sarah with Diana see Sarah as being the better of the two?

[quote] In previous generations, it was accepted that Royal Princes of Britain had to marry Royal Princesses from other royal houses of Europe.

It's a good thing they were smart enough to end that tradition. The Royal houses were so inbred it would've been a genetic disaster if they'd continued.

The QM did a lot for Britain during WWII. She and the King refused to go to Canada and stayed right in London. They both did a tremendous amount for the morale of the British people. They almost died when the Luftwaffe bombed Buckingham Palace.

Very true r67

It definitely was not sustainable for the future.

r62 Was that Quote from Andrew Mortons 1992 book that Diana cooperated with?

R63, I’m not convinced that the Queen Mother was actually racist. For example, when she and the King visited South Africa (as King and Queen of that country) they were outraged that they were forbidden by the government from shaking hands with the black citizens and from awarding medals personally to them. They were forced to act on the advice of The government headed by General Smuts, who was heading into an election against an opposition which was actively intending on underpinning racial separation by introducing the apartheid regime. The King and Queen’s visit was intended to strengthen General Smuts’ position, and to keep South Africa from formalising the apartheid regime. His loss of the election led to Apartheid becoming officialpolicy, and eventually led South Africa leaving the Commonwealth until Mandela entered office.

She was, however, extremely xenophobic against Germany and Japan, and that never left her. She never trusted them, and indeed hated them. She was happy to unveil a statue of Arthur “Bomber” Harris (who had led the bombing campaign against Germany), at a time when many people were criticising him as a war criminal.

In her defence, she did live through two wars against Germany. Her brother was killed in World War 1, and she nursed many of the wounded who were sent to Glamis to convalesce. In the Second, her nephew was taken prisoner in the retreat to Dunkirk and imprisoned by the Nazis for 4 years. She also saw her husband’s already weak health be destroyed by the strain of the war.

r71 Very informative thank you.

If you are in a position and willing to comment or inform in a reply to post r66 I would be grateful as I am sure many others would be!

I’m sure many know this already, but for those who don’t: she took shooting lessons during the war. Both she and the king were determined that they would not be driven into exile like the stream of royals (including Charlotte of Luxembourg, Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and Haakon of Norway) who arrived in London, having been chased out by the Nazis. Both she and the King were convinced that defeat of Britain would lead to a definitive Nazi victory, and they were determined to stand or fall with their people. Her famous philosophy was “The children will not leave without me. I will not leave without the King. And the King will never leave.”

It is impossible to over-estimate the extent to which both Elizabeth and George really did see the war as a very unambiguous fight against good and evil, even before the full horror of Nazi atrocities came to light. They were both very religious people (it was one of the things which really united them). The King was a decent man, but not considered to be very bright, and the one book he ever professed to have read was The Open Tomb, which was basically the story of the resurrection. Elizabeth’s family, although rich and fond of high living, also had a puritanical side and read the bible aloud on the sabbath. As the Nazis approached British shores, seemingly unstoppable, both the King and Queen saw the war in apocalyptic terms, but were determined not to see Britain fall while they were able to resist. In fact, it is known that Elizabeth wrote to her sister, asking her to do her best to care for the Princesses if she and the King were killed. They thought it was a real possibility.

I knew virtually none of that r73 and I am quite astounded!

Thank you!

R70 It was from one of the phone tapes, squishygate or something. It’s quite a visual. Interest and pity about sums it up for poor Diana.

Thanks for answering r75! Yes it definitely reached the stage were there was no love lost between Diana and the Queen Mother!

My sister was once having a discussion about the royals with a British ex-pat who adored them. (Probably reading this thread on DL right now). After a half hour of his gushing about them, my sister said, "I've always heard that they're rather dull conversationalists and not all that bright". Her friend became incensed, and said "WHY YOU IGNORANT IRISH PEASANT GIRL". She laughed and laughed at that, which probably did nothing to improve her standing in his estimation.

Good heavens r77 What an acid tongued person your sister encountered!

Her private secretary. No romance. Just a warm friendship.

r79 Am I right in suspecting he was a 'confirmed bachelor'?

Clarence House was largely staffed by gay men.

R67 & R69

It wasn't so much that the Windsors stopped marrying heirs to other royals, but more that world had changed.

English monarchs long married daughters from nobility. Only two of Henry VIII's wives were royal princesses (Catherine of Aragon, and Anne of Cleves), both of those dynastic marriages didn't go well. It was with the arrival of Hanoverians that royal blood mattered when it came at least to the heir if not all children of monarch. German royalty and nobility long had a thing about purity of bloodlines, which explains some families horror about morganatic marriages.

By the time Victoria ascended the throne large swaths of British public along with ministers of the Crown were fed up to the back teeth of (often) penniless (and minor) German royal princes and princesses marrying into BRF.

Due to various circumstances finding a foreign prince to marry Princess Louise (one of Queen Victoria's brood), and indeed the good lady herself flatly outright refusing to marry any Prussian prince, attention was turned inward to Britain. And for first time since Henry VIII's widowed sister Mary, who had been Queen of France married a commoner - Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. British public were overjoyed at the match for it was (again) breaking with the long tradition of poor German princes and princesses arriving on British soil.....

Next up was Victoria's grand-daughter, Princess Louise who also had no interest in marrying a German prince, a feeling shared by her mother then Princess of Wales, later Queen Alexandra. So you see the die was cast so to speak.

Then came WWI, which not only wiped away the Romanovs and Hapsburgs off their thrones, but the Kaiser and all the royal or serene families in Germany as well.

Of course prior to those events the hate in UK against Germany and anything German meant any further hunting for marriage partners from that country unthinkable. As it was George had to change is family name to remove taint of German connections, then do same for members of BRF who were also in whole or part mostly German in origin.

For generations Germany with an abundance of royal and serene houses was happy hunting ground for brides and grooms not just for Britain, but Russia as well. Denmark was the other kingdom that supplied royal princesses at least....

While scions of both Bourbon or Bonaparte families were still considered royal for equal marriage purposes, these are Catholic royal houses, and thus unless a bride or groom was willing to convert to C of E, marriage to the heir was impossible. OTOH royal houses of Sweden, Denmark, Russia and much of Germany were all Protestant, so there were no large problems there...

Even late as Prince Charles young days as everyone was busy scouting about for potential brides old wounds were still fresh about WWII, thus anyone German was out.

R82 Russia wasn't Protestant. They were Russian Orthodox Catholic.

I will never understand why Americans are so interested in this nonsense.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon the Queen Mother was the product of a Victorian Era surrogacy between her father Lord Glamis and the family's French cook - that's why Wallis always called her 'Cookie'.

I feel bad for "Cookie" because she got the fuzzy end of the lollipop on The Crown....she was weirdly cast for Seasons 1 and 2 but at least got an episode where she got something to do. In Seasons 3 and 4, it was better casting but she really got NOTHING to do in either series.

People love The Crown, and I mostly do, and they praise so much of the casting but Victoria Hamilton as QE: Mum for the first 2 series was such terrible casting. Hamilton is too attractive for the role and they saddled her with horrible make-up and hair.

And, the actors cast as Andrew and Edward weren't attractive enough and didn't really look like they were royal...they looked too suburban.

But, I digress.

[quote] Probably apocryphal because it's too good saying to her daughter in an argument, 'Elizabeth who do you think you are?'

R14, I heard (or read) it slightly differently. After a somewhat snippy discussion where the QM was trying to persuade her daughter, who was having none of it, to take a particular course of action, the QM said, "You may be the Queen, Elizabeth, but I am your mother!"

My other favourite anecdote involves Noel Coward. Noel was escorting HM down the grand staircase at Buckingham Palace, and was appreciatively eyeing the Guardsmen standing to attention on every other step. She whispered to him, "I wouldn't if I were you, Noel. They count them out and they count them back in again, and they are sure to miss one."

"Wouldn’t it be terrible if you’d spent all your life doing everything you were supposed to do, didn’t drink, didn’t smoke, didn’t eat things, took lots of exercise, and suddenly, one day, you were run over by a big red bus and, as the wheels were crunching into you, you’d say, 'Oh my God, I could have got so drunk last night.' That’s the way you should live your life, as if tomorrow you’ll be run over by a big red bus."

What a gal!

R85 That absurd rumour has been laughed out of court so often I wonder people are still gullible enough to write it.

Do people ever apply logic to shit like this?!

Eluzabeth was her mother's EIGHTH FUCKING BABY. WHY WOULD A WOMAN IN HER FORTIES WITH SEVEN KIDS BE SO DESPERATE FOR AN EIGHTH THAT THEY WOULD USE THE COOK AND A TURKEY BASTER??!

And what's more, the Countess went on to have yet a FUCKING NINTH BABY, Elizabeth's younger brother, David, to whom she was very close. Oddly, no one applies the surrogacy rumour to him.

"My two Benjamins." the Countess called her last after the biblical late, unexpected one.

The glaringly fecund Countess of Strathmore didn't need fertility "help". She'd already had SEVEN kids before Elizabeth and then had a ninth, as well.

Wallis Simpson called her "that fat Scotch cook" as a sneer at her rival's frumpy traditionalist fashion choices and nonroyal birth, which was hilarious given Wallis's. "Cookie" was her shorthand for that sneer.

Wallis was, like many social climbers, a feudal snob.

I suspect it is yet another trait she shares with Meghan Markle.

Loved the Queen Mum on SPITTING IMAGE.

Queen Mum still making headlines, but for the wrong reasons this time.

[quote] Am I right in suspecting he was a 'confirmed bachelor'?

Well SurvivingAngel, whether he was or he wasn't, he was a very brave man. He tried to escape from a number of German POW camps in WWII, finally finishing up at the most famous prisoner of war camp ever, Colditz Castle.

Sounds like exactly the type of guy you'd want at your party, regaling tales of daring do!

Kate's a throwback to the Queen Mother, but without the wittiness and fun.

She was adorable but not beautiful, and the Countess of Airlie, who knew her from her teens, described her charm as rooted in a " unique blend of kindness and radiant vitality". Elizabeth had the kind of looks that were admired (dainty, sweet-faced, lovely colouring and skin) but she was hardly a beauty in the sense women like Diana Cooper, wife of Duff Cooper, were.

She had a nearly elysian childhood and, as would later occur with William, her family life was a major contrast to the troubled one her husband, Prince Albert, grew up in.

Prince Albert was as much seduced by the cosy family life of the Bowes-Lyons as by Elizabeth. Just as, three generations later, William would be as much seduced by the close family life of the Middletons as he was by Kate.

One of the Queen Mother's early portraitists as Duchess of York, Alexius de László, said that she was "the most unselfconscious sitter" he had ever had.

She was simple perfect for the job - it was a match made in heaven.

I should have made up a Queen Mother bingo card before reading this thread. Every hackneyed anecdote has been wheeled out (actually, have we had 'I'm glad we've been bombed. Now I can look the East End in the eye' yet?) Better yet, I could have made it a bingo-cum-drinking game.

"Ah well, that's racing"

[quote] Better yet, I could have made it a bingo-cum-drinking game.

I’d love to play.

[quote]Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon the Queen Mother was the product of a Victorian Era surrogacy between her father Lord Glamis and the family's French cook - that's why Wallis always called her 'Cookie'.

Bullshit. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the spitting image of Cecilia Bowes-Lyon. They were obviously biological mother and daughter.

IF that surrogacy rumor were true, it would certainly be a devilishly clever nickname for Wallis to have devised.

Prince Phillip hit the royal jackpot when his uncle Lord Mountbatten maneuvered him into position to woe and marry young Princess Elizabeth.

It was Prince Albert almost all over again, an attractive young foreign prince who was also basically penniless but also (unlike Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg-Gotha), stateless. PP has lived in the lap of luxury ever since, enjoying a lifestyle and life that surely otherwise would have been different had Princess Elizabeth looked elsewhere.

One wonders if things had gone differently, that is Edward VIII not abdicated but still didn't breed heirs, this leaving Princess Elizabeth still heiress presumptive, but not coming to the throne for a very long time. Would HM have met and married some other suitable young man.

R83 Russian Orthodox (or any Eastern Orthodox) is not Catholic.

Porchy R99

[quote]Russian Orthodox (or any Eastern Orthodox) is not Catholic.

nor Protestant.

R98 - Yes, it would. Unfortunately, it so flies in the face of logic (seven kids, in her forties, and so desperate for an 8th she used the cook and the turkey baster AND then went on to have a ninth!), that one suddenly understands why the world is in the shape it is: people believe anything. I have no doubt that now that, at last, an actual representative of the Queen Mother's actual estate has told no less an actual publication of the calibre of FORBES that there was no trust fund left to Harry by the Queen Mother, that same troll will trot out articles by "reputable" sources like The GUARDIAN, even though every last one of them uses the term "reportedly" and offers not a shred of evidence.

As for the anecdotes - well, someone started the thread and asked for the discussion. I think the one the poster upthread mentions has not yet been trotted out, and neither has the, "The children won't leave without me; I won't leave without the King; and the King will never leave!" when it was suggested the two princesses me moved to Canada for the duration of the war.

The Queen Mum was also once recorded as saying she didn't hate Wallis, she just felt sorry for her.

In this case, the populace rightly refused to believe what they heard; even Venusians knew full well that Elizabeth hated Wallis's guts.

And vice-versa.

^*be moved (not me moved)

r98 I could believe the Queen Mother was insemination via a turkey baster rather than sex with her husband. It is conceivable even if unlikely but surrogacy. No way.

Lovely photo

Yes r106 but she doesn't look too happy? I think this was taken for her 80th or 85th birthday?

The turkey baster claim is from Lady Colin Campbell, who also took the surrogacy rumour as fact when it's demonstrably false.

Again, the QM was the spitting image of Cecilia Bowes-Lyon. The surrogacy rumors are horseshit.

BUT, no-one knows what the cook looked like.

Saying a lady looked like her own cook was a common insult high born ladies threw around from roughly Victorian period until between war years, if not after. Since both Wallis Simpson and Queen Elizabeth were both women who were born and grew up during that period the Duchess of Windsor's message was sent and received by those it was intended to reach.

She wasn’t racist r71? What would you call her refering to black people as “nig- nogs”, then? Bloody good fun?

She was a fat, trashy, racist, drunk climber. Her fucking teeth were BROWN when she died.

The only good members of that dimwiit, drooling moron family are Elizabeth and (sort of) Harry.

R106 There is a story about that photograph and why the photographer took the blue capes, but I can't find it ATM.

Anyone any thoughts , amateur psychology, gossip or insight on the question in post r66 about the Queen Mothers relationship with the different members of the royal family?

I think Snowden took the pic? Its one of a series, and was highly parodied at the time, because they aren't even blouses or dresses, they are just pieces of blue satin that were draped around them. I actually like it.

She was known for coming down with convenient illnesses, with a sudden onset of whooping cough on her honeymoon which succeeded in banishing her groom from the marital bedchamber.

She was thrilled with the press interest in her when it emerged she was seeing the king and queen’s second son. She gave a chatty, indiscreet interview once and never again.

r116 Any word on what indiscreet things she said in that interview?

r115 Oh yes I'd forgotten about Lord Snowden. Snowden . I like the photo too but I'm just trying to figure out when it was taken and for what occasion?

R112 Hi, Pet! Yeah, Harry - the pearl of the family! And he has no history of racism, does he? Why, no, not at all! And what an IQ! He didn't even know he was related to the Romanovs! And that goldigger he married! Wow! Too dumb to pass the major's exam but happy to let Gran make him an "honorary" one. Preaching to the world about climate change but living in a house with 16 loos, interview on a double decker bus with police cars front and back AND his huge Escalade trailing behind. Lied to his nice Gran and tried to pull another fast one on her and when he failed insulted her publicly.

Yeah, he's the best of the lot, all right.

[quote]She wasn’t racist [R71]? What would you call her refering to black people as “nig- nogs”, then? Bloody good fun?

FFS everybody called them nig-nogs back then. The fucking Pope called them nig-nogs.

R110 Elizabeth's chatty interview after her engagement was totally anodyne. It was the fact that she talked to the journo at all that was indiscreet. The Palace told her never to do that again and she didn't.

The most indiscreet thing said in the "interview" was the journo mentioning how everyone knew what a beautiful dancer she was.

"Thank you, that IS kind of you to say that!" said the newly minted fiancee, soon to be Duchess of York.

And that was the height of the "indiscreet" interview.

Sorry to disappoint you.

R6 is actually correct. I had to Google it.

"Adolf Hitler called her "the most dangerous woman in Europe" because of the buoyant effect she had on public morale when Buckingham Palace was hit by a bomb in 1940".

'What would you call her refering to black people as “nig- nogs”, then? Bloody good fun? She was a fat, trashy, racist, drunk climber.'

The Queen Mum was the original Klan Granny so of course the rancid Pet Troll admires and defends her.

LOVE Harry for insulting the Queen Elizadeath, chief Klanner.

r122 that era was what it was. You can't judge people from back then in the context of modern times. Of course, that's what rational, educated people do so it would be lost on you.

"Never complain, never explain"

So, is Prince Andrew Porchy's son rather than Philip's?

R64, the rumor about the turkey baster was that Bertie (later George VI) had issues with both periodic impotence and premature ejaculation, requiring medical intervention to sire their children. The reasons for his sexual problems may have lay in childhood: Both David and Bertie had been abused by a mentally unstable nanny when they were very young, and it had devastating emotional effects. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon didn't want to marry Bertie because he was not only painfully shy and stuttered but also suffered from facial tics, anxiety attacks, and bleeding ulcers. He proposed several times before she finally accepted him.

Elizabeth WAS interested in James Stuart, and Bertie's family probably did intervene to have Stuart offered a good job out of the country so that Bertie would have a chance to press his suit again. As in the case of his father and Mary of Teck, the family thought Bertie's wife would be the making of him. They might have even considered her for David, but 1) at that point they were still hoping to marry David to a foreign princess (as he was the heir) and 2) David didn't find her the least bit attractive. David liked very thin, very modern, very fashionable women. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was none of those things.

Prince Andrew has the heavy Bowes-Lyon eyebrows and jaw. It's why his daughter Eugenie bears a more-than-passing resemblance to the Queen Mum. He has his father's close-set eyes and thin lips, though. He's Philip's son.

She was great friends with Noel Coward. When Coward got a memorial in the Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey in March 1984, Coward's longterm partner Graham Payn thanked the Queen Mother for coming. "I came because he was my friend, " was her reply.

R108, Campbell simply repeated the long- and often-told story. She did not invent it.

As for the surrogacy issue, she is a gossip and of course has supported it. If Ms. Markle's babygut did not grow and shrink from day to day, there would be no traction in such tales.

The turkey baster theory might explain why Bertie and Elizabeth didn't try harder for a son. Their own parents and grandparents had large families, so it wouldn't have been unusual for them to have five or six children. To stop at two, and two girls at that, is suggestive that at least one of them had fertility problems. Especially given that David was at that point getting on in years with no wife or children in sight, making Bertie and Elizabeth's children even more vital in terms of succession.

When the succession crisis was going on, TPTB did consider skipping Bertie and the dull, plodding Henry (third son in line) and going to George, Duke of Kent (fourth son). George was bisexual with a history of drug abuse, but he'd cleaned up his act by then and had a stable marriage to Princess Marina. He was good-looking and outgoing, and he'd already fathered a son. But they concluded that it would be even more destabilizing to start skipping heirs like that, so they settled on Bertie, counting on his wife to support him and get him through. Which, whatever you may think of her, she did.

In an alternate universe, though, Prince George became King and was never killed in a plane crash during WWII. He'd be gone by now, but his son, Prince Edward, is still alive and would be King Edward instead. Elizabeth York would just be an obscure countrywoman enjoying her horses. Diana Spencer would be equally obscure, and probably still alive. Kate Middleton would be married to a posh bloke but also living her life in luxurious obscurity. Funny how decisions echo down through time.

[Quote]Bertie's family probably did intervene to have Stuart offered a good job out of the country so that Bertie would have a chance to press his suit again.

I read that Queen Mary prevailed on George V to send him to a diplomatic post in Canada.

Who ever thought that the Queen Mother would outlive Diana?

And Princess Margaret, too.

It took Bertie and Elizabeth 3 years from their wedding to produce Lilibet and then another 4 years to produce Margaret. Then they stopped altogether, though Bertie was only 35 and Elizabeth 30. That's highly indicative of some kind of fertility problem, particularly in an age with no access to reliable birth control even among the elite.

Her teeth terrified me!

WTF was up with her hideous teeth? Was she a smoker?

More teefs

r131 Yes inded a strong ripple effect down the ages.Just shows how we are more intertwined and interconnected in each others lives and fates than we realise. Another good metaphor is the sliding doors movie- only a few different choices and chance encounters and history would be so different. r133 I seem to recall reading somewhere, it may have been Andrew Mortons book but I am not sure that Diana spoke of outliving the Queen mother and spoke with an element of sarcasm and casual glee about having to decide what I will wear to the Queen mothers funeral.

r135 Good point

r131 What was so wrong with Prince Henry of Gloucester that the powers that be considered briefly the possibility of also skipping over him as well as Bertie?

R135

First of all not every member of BRF is highly sexed, and that goes for nobility and some other well off persons as well.

Queen Victoria and her heir liked their fun, but more importantly they had to provide throne with heirs.

George breed of his consort Princess Mary (May) of Teck almost at once producing Prince Edward barely one year after their marriage in 1894, then five more children in space of about ten years. But again George V was monarch and at that time it was still deemed necessary (thanks to still rather high infant and child mortality rates) for royal and noble families to have not just an heir and spare, but perhaps a few more just in case.

Duke and Duchess of York were married 26 April 1923, then promptly set off for a tour of Kenya, Uganda, and the Sudan from December 1924 to April 1925. Their first child, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; was born 21 April 1926 about a year after couple returned to Britain. Any bird brain can do the sums and find baby making didn't begin until after honeymoon was largely over. As Duke of York was only the "spare" there wasn't any real urgency for him to set about breeding children at once.

That Princess Margaret didn't come along until four years later is neither here nor there. There may have been personal reasons between the duke and duchess for limiting their family,or things just didn't happen.

R100 Except, it IS Catholic. It's why one branch is called ROMAN Catholic and the other ORTHODOX Catholic.

"The Orthodox Catholic Church is commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, partly to avoid confusion with the Roman Catholic Church. It counts around 200 million members, most of them in eastern Europe, Greece and the Caucasus. Its traditional base is in modern-day Istanbul, previously known as Constantinople.

In its first thousand years, the Eastern Orthodox Church coexisted with the Rome-based Catholic Church, although relations between the two were always fraught by both theological and political differences.

These differences ultimately led to the East-West Schism, also known as the Great Schism, in 1054 A.D., in which Rome and Constantinople broke with one another. Each side blamed the other for the rupture, sometimes even accusing the other of heresy."

R100 Except, it IS Catholic. It's why one branch is called ROMAN Catholic and the other ORTHODOX Catholic.

"The Orthodox Catholic Church is commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, partly to avoid confusion with the Roman Catholic Church. It counts around 200 million members, most of them in eastern Europe, Greece and the Caucasus. Its traditional base is in modern-day Istanbul, previously known as Constantinople.

In its first thousand years, the Eastern Orthodox Church coexisted with the Rome-based Catholic Church, although relations between the two were always fraught by both theological and political differences.

These differences ultimately led to the East-West Schism, also known as the Great Schism, in 1054 A.D., in which Rome and Constantinople broke with one another. Each side blamed the other for the rupture, sometimes even accusing the other of heresy."

R100 Except, it IS Catholic. It's why one branch is called ROMAN Catholic and the other ORTHODOX Catholic.

"The Orthodox Catholic Church is commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, partly to avoid confusion with the Roman Catholic Church. It counts around 200 million members, most of them in eastern Europe, Greece and the Caucasus. Its traditional base is in modern-day Istanbul, previously known as Constantinople.

In its first thousand years, the Eastern Orthodox Church coexisted with the Rome-based Catholic Church, although relations between the two were always fraught by both theological and political differences.

These differences ultimately led to the East-West Schism, also known as the Great Schism, in 1054 A.D., in which Rome and Constantinople broke with one another. Each side blamed the other for the rupture, sometimes even accusing the other of heresy."

R100 Except, it IS Catholic. It's why one branch is called ROMAN Catholic and the other ORTHODOX Catholic.

"The Orthodox Catholic Church is commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, partly to avoid confusion with the Roman Catholic Church. It counts around 200 million members, most of them in eastern Europe, Greece and the Caucasus. Its traditional base is in modern-day Istanbul, previously known as Constantinople.

In its first thousand years, the Eastern Orthodox Church coexisted with the Rome-based Catholic Church, although relations between the two were always fraught by both theological and political differences.

These differences ultimately led to the East-West Schism, also known as the Great Schism, in 1054 A.D., in which Rome and Constantinople broke with one another. Each side blamed the other for the rupture, sometimes even accusing the other of heresy."

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[QUOTE] As for the surrogacy issue, she is a gossip and of course has supported it. If Ms. Markle's babygut did not grow and shrink from day to day...

Only an incel like you wouldn't know that baby bumps do change shape and size from day to day. You've clearly never been near a pregnant woman.

Will the tedious Research Troll please fuck off.

[QUOTE] Elizabeth York would just be an obscure countrywoman enjoying her horses. Diana Spencer would be equally obscure, and probably still alive. Kate Middleton would be married to a posh bloke but also living her life in luxurious obscurity. Funny how decisions echo down through time.

And Meghan Markle would still be a well known actress who starred in a hit show.

[quote]And Meghan Markle would still be a well known actress who starred in a hit show...

...but who turns out to be a one hit wonder, who is forced to change careers, and and is gunned-down by a crazed psycho after handing him the wrong order at the Burger King she manages.

Anyone who posts the same thing 4 consecutive times deserves to be FF’d and blocked.

[quote]Duke and Duchess of York were married 26 April 1923, then promptly set off for a tour of Kenya, Uganda, and the Sudan from December 1924 to April 1925. Their first child, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; was born 21 April 1926 about a year after couple returned to Britain. Any bird brain can do the sums and find baby making didn't begin until after honeymoon was largely over. As Duke of York was only the "spare" there wasn't any real urgency for him to set about breeding children at once. That Princess Margaret didn't come along until four years later is neither here nor there.

Except there was some urgency, as David, the heir, showed no interest in marrying or having children. Even King George VI, lying on his deathbed, said that he hoped David would never marry so that Bertie and then Lillibet would inherit the throne. It was known for quite some time that Bertie's children might be dynastically important. As for 'doing the sums,' the fact that they didn't have a child until 3 years after the wedding doesn't mean they weren't trying all along. And to say that Princess Margaret wasn't born earlier because she wasn't born earlier is the worst kind of circular reasoning. Finally, the fact that they didn't keep trying for a son speaks volumes, when a boy heir would clearly have been preferred. One of the reasons for considering Prince George as heir over Prince Bertie was the fact that he already had a son.

The turkey baster story may or may not be true. Perhaps it was the Queen Mum who had fertility issues. But it's clear from the York breeding pattern that something was up.

r152 I'm really curious though why the powers that be were keen to also overlook the third son the duke of Gloucester?

I can’t help but like her.

R153 to paraphrase Lady Bracknell.

To lose one heir may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.

My post should say, George the V, lying on his death bed . . .

R153, by all accounts, Prince Henry was incredibly stupid and had even less charisma than his older brother Bertie. He also didn't have any children in 1936, and in fact wouldn't prove his ability to father a son until 1941 when Prince William was born. To swap Henry for Bertie wouldn't have improved anything at the time.

Prince George, despite his troubled history, was handsome, intelligent, and engaging, and he had a beautiful wife and a baby son. (If you Google Prince George and Princess Marina, they look like the Hollywood version of Bertie and Elizabeth.) It was more about TPTB, ever-aware of public perceptions, considering taking the opportunity to pick the most camera-ready King from the candidates available. But in the end, they went with tradition.

Prince Henry was no great shakes, but HIS oldest son, Prince William of Gloucester, was handsome, kind, and intelligent. He would have made a good king. His only issue was that he reportedly suffered from porphyria just like his grandcester King George III. He would have been a wonderful addition to the BRF if he hadn't died in a plane crash in 1972.

He was a great friend of Prince Charles, to the point that Charles named his eldest son after his cousin.

Her teeth.....yikes!

Thank you r157 Did the Queen Mother get on with Prince Henry? Do you mean he was stupid in an average intelligence way that wouldn't be intelligent enough for the role of monarch or exceptionally stupid? Am I right in thinking there was some rivalry between the Queen Mother and the Duke of Kents wife Princess Marina r158 ?

None of the biographies I've read have said much about the QM and Prince Henry. I do know there was some minor rivalry with Marina, who considered herself much better born than Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. That went away once Elizabeth became Queen. As to Henry's level of intelligence, again, I've not read a biography of him to know just how stupid he was. But that he was excessively dull and plodding seems to be the standard view, to the point where he wasn't seen as any better an alternative for the throne than Bertie. Also, the fact that Henry hadn't had children yet would have counted against him, as they weren't going to put yet another childless King upon the throne.

[quote] I do know there was some minor rivalry with Marina, who considered herself much better born than Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.

Marina did not like either Elizabeth or Prince Henry's wife, Alice. She had definite ideas as to what sort of a person should be allowed to marry into royalty. She strenuously objected to her eldest son's marriage to Katherine, the daughter of a baronet and of her daughter's marriage to an insignificant younger son of an earl. Elizabeth II approved of the choices, so there was nothing Marina could do but grin and bear it. Had Marina still been alive when Prince Michael wanted to marry Marie-Christine, Marina would have undoubtedly convinced the Queen to refuse official permission for that match.

The present Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Alexandra and Angus Ogilvy were often guests of the Queen Mother at Clarence House and up in Scotland. So, her animosity to Marina didn't extend to her children. However, there is no record of Prince and Princess Michael ever having been a guest in any of the Queen Mother's homes.

Nobody likes Princess Michael.

Is that because her pussy stinks?

a Mountbatten was another family member the Queen Mother didn't like. And although a was one of the fringe members of the royal family, she had in fact married into the family well before Elizabeth B-L did. a was extremely rich, thin, fashionable, and in the early years, quite irresponsible. All of these things made her dislike a from the get go. Elizabeth was also wary of the Mountbattens due to their ambitiousness. The Mountbattens were also close to the Prince of Wales and on good terms with the Kents. Elizabeth also disliked that. a was allowed to address the Prince of Wales as "David", and the Kents as "George" and "Marina". That sort of familiarity was frowned upon by Elizabeth. Before the Yorks came to the throne, a addressed George VI as "Prince Bertie" and Elizabeth as "Duchess" or "Ma'am". After George VI became King, Elizabeth made sure that a used "Your Majesty" and "Sir" or "Ma'am". a's husband however, was on a first name basis with the new King and Queen.

[Quote]The present Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Alexandra and Angus Ogilvy

She's the daughter of the Duke of Kent and doesn't carry that title. She goes by Princess Alexandra of Kent or Lady Ogilvy. Her husband was a commoner.

She was ugly and looked like she had bad breath and body odor.

Marina sounds like a raging snob. If they had made Prince George the King and her the Queen, the marital history of the Windsors would certainly have been quite different. I'm assuming that their children Edward, Alexandra, and Michael would have been required to marry princes and princesses, which would have been a tougher goal after WWII, with so many princely families demolished. I wonder if she'd have tried to fix up Alexandra with her cousin Philip Mountbatten, or would that have been too close a blood relationship (not to mention the fact that Philip is older than Alexandra by some 15 years)? She certainly wouldn't have let a social climber like Anthony Armstrong-Jones in, that's for sure.

When Prince Albert (future George VI) married Elizabeth, most of the Royal Family either disapproved or had reservations. Apparently, only George V, Queen Mary, and the Prince of Wales were pleased. Bertie's surviving great aunts and great uncle (offspring of Queen Victoria) and his aunts (sisters of George V) were against he marriage. Queen Alexandra (Bertie's grandmother) and her sister the Dowager Empress of Russia both thought she was charming, but distrusted her. A granddaughter of Queen Victoria who was married to Queen Mary's brother liked Elizabeth, but reckoned she wouldn't do very well at royal duties.

Marina's youngest on, Prince Michael of Kent, has a very kingly look about him. He'd have looked fantastic on the money (his older brother, by contrast, looks like a weedy professor).

However, Michael did sire the terrifying-looking Lord Freddie Windsor, so it's just as well the succession didn't dogleg that way. I can't imagine having THAT face on the money.

[quote] Marina sounds like a raging snob. ......She certainly wouldn't have let a social climber like Anthony Armstrong-Jones in, that's for sure.

Marina was incredulous and disgusted at Margaret's engagement to Armstrong-Jones. Marina probably had some smug satisfaction that except for Queen Ingrid of Denmark (who was Margaret's god-mother and was pressured to attend by her husband) the rest of Europe's reigning royal families boycotted the wedding.

[Quote]the rest of Europe's reigning royal families boycotted the wedding.

Wow. I didn't know that. It must have been devastating to Margaret who was a royalist uber snob. Was it because AAJ was a commoner or because his proclivities (bisexuality, fathering a child during his engagement) and bohemian lifestyle? And the social climbing part...

Nobody knew about his love child until many years afterwards, so I'm guessing it was his commoner status and his dodgy reputation.

Lord Frederick Windsor looks like a vampire.

Marina probably would have looked North for potential spouses for her children: Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. Even Luxembourg and Lichtenstein might have done in a pinch. But not Monaco, as the Grimaldis are Catholic.

It's surprising that almost all of the progressive Nordic countries still have monarchies.

William lives next door to two of his grandmothers' cousins.

How many of you ever even met your grandparents' cousins? I couldn't even tell you what their names were.

With future generations of cousins not receiving the perks the Gloucesters and Kents did (like palace apartments), it seems unlikely that future Windsors will know their distant relatives so well.

The famous Queen Mother quote about a Mountbatten was upon her funeral R165. Unusually, he final wish was to be buried at sea. Which was done just outside Portsmouth in the English Channel.

On hearing this news, The Queen Mother is quoted as saying, "Dear a, she always liked to make a splash."

[quote]Anthony Armstrong-Jones

Oh, dear.

r151 Thank you for your detailed reply

Imperial and royal houses of Europe (or just families whose thrones were now gone) felt it was beneath the dignity of a king's daughter to marry a man who was neither royal nor noble. So they refused to dignify the marriage with their presence. So, the only foreign royals in attendance were Queen Ingrid of Denmark, who was Princess Margaret’s godmother and Princes Ludwig and Maximillian of Baden, nephews of Prince Philip.

George V among other great royal upheavals in 1917 let his children know they were free to marry British citizens. The two way marriage market between Germany and UK was brought to an end, this also meant that British princesses would no longer have royal titles and styles after marriage other than their own. In short it was the end of princesses becoming empresses, queens, etc...

Princess Mary, Princess Royal married Viscount Lascelles in due time becoming Countess Harewood. Only one of George V's children to marry a royal was the Duke of Kent.

In hindsight don't see what all the fuss was about. AAJ was risen up to an earldom which is good as anyone is going to get since dukedoms aren't awarded any longer outside the RF.

We all know that there is no such thing as "royal blood" as a matter of genetics. But for 1500 years, Europeans were taught that God had chosen certain individuals as the best leaders of their people, and that that choice was carried on in their bloodlines. To be fair, the notion didn't start with Europeans. There was a reason that Cleopatra married her brother and it was the same reason (different religion though). Kings were believed to rule through "divine right". It took the fledgling science of heredity, genetics, evolution, and the work of Gregor Mendel to ultimately show how dangerous the limited breeding of royal to royal was for the health of progeny. First cousins were marrying first cousins for several hundred years... YIKES. Makes the people of Deliverance look diverse in comparison. The poor Hapsburgs - hemophilia, misshapen jaws and noses, etc. Every time a European royal marries a commoner, it's an absolute gift to his/her offspring.

I have been trying to post a photo for almost a half hour and I’ve tried more than a dozen pics but none of them will show up in a preview frame.

I’m tired of trying to guess which sites mediacrapolis will allow. So why bother?

Mediacrapolis needs to get its act together.

This was once a halfway decent site

If you gave us a hint r184, we might be able to help you.

Princess Margaret may have had last laugh when you look at who many scions of Europe's royal houses have married in past few decades.

R184

It isn't always Mediacrapolis, some sites just don't like link backs period.

Most links are too long for DL to cope with.

R188 that wasn’t the case as recently as six months ago. It’s only been within the last few months that almost no links appear in the preview.

R184 Who cares if the pic doesn't show-up in the preview window? All you have to do is click on it, and it opens. Things change, and you need to also. This is a great site, but if you don't like it anymore, we'll all understand if you need to leave.

I've never had link previews turned on. I don't need dick and asshole pics when I'm looking at DL on my phone in a public place.

R190 you must have your own special definition of the term “great site”

R182 - I've always found it odd that the Queen barely attends ANY wedding other than close family members - royal or otherwise. For foreign royal weddings, she usually sends Edward and Sophie and sometimes Charles. It's like she's too above it all to grace them with her presence. Surprisingly, the European royals all seem to respect her nevertheless. LOL.

IDK about previous decades, but at her age, you can't blame her for not wanting to travel.

The ignorance of those who seem to think that the monarch can simply be chosen by. . . someone (I'm not quite sure by whom) on the basis of who the best member of the BRF is (they should have chosen Prince Henry of Gloucester! They should have chosen Prince George of Kent! They should choose Princess Anne!) bewilders me.

Either you accept the hereditary principle and the accidents to which it exposes you (for every Princess Anne you miss out on, you have to suffer an Edward VIII) or you allow choice of who the head of state should be, and don't arbitrarily limit the candidates to members of the House of Windsor, and don't arbitrarily limit the electors to DLers.

R193 I wondered that, myself, and then read that because of the logistics, all the protection officers necessary, and protocols involved with being the senior royal at any given function, she stays away to not overshadow the event. It makes sense, really, and follows her pattern of trying to be gracious.

R193 It's an age-old thing. The monarch doesn't usually attend funerals or weddings unless they're of a close family member or friend. It's about respect - if the monarch turned up everyone would have to bow/curtsey to him/her rather than focus on the people who should be getting attention.

Monarchs historically wouldn't attend funerals as it would be a reminder of their own mortality and it was seen as treasonous to even imagine the king/queen dying.

For those who are interested, Andrew Morton has a new book coming out called "Elizabeth and Margaret - the Intimate World of the Windsor Sisters".

Last really big gathering of the "Royal Mob" took place in Berlin on in 24 May 1913, the wedding of Princess Victoria Luise of Prussia to Prince Ernst August of Hanover. To her father Kaiser Wilhelm II it as a "family affair", but since thanks to machinations of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert that "family" meant most of the crowned heads of Europe. Everyone from George V and Queen Mary to Nicholas II of Russia.

Security was a huge undertaking then with Berlin police having to protect so much not just royalty but other exalted guests and their retinues.

WWI put an end to the royal mob way of life sweeping almost all the crowned heads in attendance at that wedding off their thrones except George V.

Prior to that event the other largest gathering of European royalty in somewhat recent memory was funeral of Edward VII who died in 1910.

We weren't discussing who should or shouldn't be King, R195. We were discussing the abdication, a unique situation in British history. It's documented that other candidates besides Bertie were considered. Speculating on how different things might have been if he'd been passed over for a younger brother is interesting and relevant to the thread.

Again extended members of BRF did visit England at least prior to WWI. In 1909 Nicholas II and his consort Empress Alexandra along with their children were invited to visit England during Cowes Regatta week.

While Nicholas II and his wife/family did pay a visit to Prince and Princess of Wales, they didn't say (there was no room anyway), but remained on their yacht for much if not all of visit.

Clip is a highly fictionalised account from BBC production of "The Lost Prince"

Okay, R201. If it isn't too much trouble, could you direct me to a source for this?

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

Above is the receipt you asked for, R203. I'm linking the Times article it refers to here, though the entire article is paywalled.

Found the full text of the article in a database:

As the nation celebrates her 90th birthday, it's impossible to picture a world in which Elizabeth II was not our queen. Most of Britain has never known a time when she did not occupy the throne.

Our finest national asset, she has been a bulwark against changing and often unsettling times. Yet, she might never have been Queen.

The Times can reveal a previously unseen cabinet document that could have scuppered Elizabeth's chances of rising to the throne.

Written by a civil servant before the 1936 abdication, it sought to change the royal landscape after King Edward VIII fled the country in pursuit of "the woman I love".

In a few short words, the handwritten note proposed that instead of putting Edward's younger brother, Bertie, on the throne their mother, Queen Mary, should instead become regent. She would rule without becoming the sovereign. It was hoped that Princess Elizabeth's glamorous uncle Prince George, Duke of Kent, would later become king.

The plan, if enacted, would mean that today the Queen would be no more than a fringe royal, probably known as the Duchess of Edinburgh. Her children, Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward, would be distant figures on the horizon, her grandchildren, William and Harry, not princes but commoners with day jobs to go to.

Behind the two-page note is a tale of court intrigue that matches the Tudors for its deviousness and cunning. Hatched by desperate politicians and scheming civil servants, it was the establishment's Plan B to save the royal family for generations to come.

Princess Elizabeth was ten years old when she learnt that her Uncle David was quitting. She was told that, as a consequence, the crown would one day be hers. For now, her father, the Duke of York, would be king.

But things were not that simple. The royals themselves believed absolutely in the rule of primogeniture but others did not necessarily see it that way.

While King Edward VIII wavered over quitting the throne in the dying days of 1936, his brother Bertie was being primed for the job in a series of secret meetings with the prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, at No 10. Baldwin encouraged the reluctant prince to see himself as king material.

With doubts still in his mind, Bertie left London for an engagement in Scotland. During his five-day absence at the beginning of December civil servants cooked up their plot to deprive him of the throne.

At the heart of the intrigue was Sir Horace Wilson, an arch-manipulator employed in a freelance role to advise Baldwin. He was supported by two mandarins, the first parliamentary counsel, Sir Maurice Gwyer, and the treasury solicitor, Sir Thomas Barnes.

History relates that Baldwin played an honourable role as the abdication crisis unfolded but the same could not be said of these men. Wilson -- whose Machiavellian antics were described in House Of Cards creator Michael Dobbs's book Winston's War -- was urging the prime minister to push Edward into abdicating earlier. Gwyer and Barnes were obligingly finding ways to further Wilson's determination to influence events.

Seen at this distance, it is clear that there was a pincer-movement by these three officials, and others, to bring about a chain of events that would see Edward VIII off the throne and a cherry-pick his successor.

(continued)

A letter in the National Archives, penned by Gwyer to Wilson, reveals that he offered "a suggestion so interesting and hopeful I pass it on to you at once. It is that Queen Mary should be invited to be Queen Regent". He went on: "The difficulty about the immediate 'succession' of the Duke of York is that a substantial part of the country might still favour the present King and see his brother as a sort of interloper. Queen Mary as Regent would re-establish the reputation of the monarchy. The Duke of York could scarcely object and all the King's subjects would only rejoice to see Queen Mary carrying on again."

Not everybody felt that Bertie was monarch material. Despite his portrayal by Colin Firth in The King's Speech as a man doggedly facing his destiny and fighting down his demons, those nearest to the throne had very mixed feelings about him.

George V's doctor, Sir Stanley Hewett, said: "The Duke of York is the worst of the four sons and has a mean character. Steady and reliable, but dull." The diarist and MP Sir Henry "Chips" Channon also dismissed him as dull.

Lloyd George, the former prime minister, viewed Bertie's prospects as king with barely concealed contempt: "He will not pry into any inconvenient questions, he will always sign on the dotted line without asking any questions -- he will always do exactly what he is told."

Thomas Dugdale, an MP close to the abdication action, was "depressed by the dullness of the Duke of York". Other senior courtiers thought him "not naturally a likeable man". The historian Susan Williams noted that not everybody loved Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother) either: "His wife has shown an unfortunate tendency to play to the gallery," she quotes one correspondent as saying.

Dr Williams notes the sudden shoals of letters to Downing Street and Buckingham Palace from a nation only newly alerted to the crisis. "Your brother The Duke of York is no King for England," one wrote to Edward VIII. "He is a snob for the aristocrats, while you are for the poor and needy."

There were also serious questions about whether Bertie was up to the demands of kingship. He was known for his outbursts of uncontrollable bad temper. There were panic attacks too.

A report by the RAF's director of medical services, James Birley, some years earlier had insisted that although Bertie had taken flying lessons he should in no circumstances be allowed to fly solo. Bluntly, Birley said, he was psychologically unfit to fly -- "too highly strung". In the run up to abdication it was felt necessary that doctors should undertake a discreet psychological assessment.

All these things led many in power to conclude that Bertie was not the man for the job. A mere 20 years earlier, the weakness of Tsar Nicholas II's rule led to him being toppled from the Russian throne and murdered.

In prewar Britain there were doubts that life could go on without a revolution. The General Strike, the Jarrow March and the surge of leftwing politics all seemed to point that way. What was needed was a show of strength and dependability. Maybe Bertie didn't have it.

But what about Queen Mary? Was she ready, and able, to usurp her son? The former Princess Mary of Teck, known as May, had been an important part of George V's hugely successful 25-year reign. She saw her son Bertie as weak: he had cried on her shoulder at the prospect of kingship. If she cared at all about the future of the monarchy, Mary would have to take responsibility if it failed. She would have to accept the Regency.

When Baldwin, the prime minister, returned to London from his final meeting with Edward VIII at Fort Belvedere on December 5, 1936, he called in Gwyer. Baldwin's biographer Keith Middlemas, notes that Gwyer had drawn up two parliamentary bills but did not disclose their purpose. Their likely content included two proclamations: one naming Bertie as King George VI; the other naming his mother Queen Regent.

Queen Mary was 69. Her becoming regent was merely a holding position. To complete the plan there had to be another contender for the throne. The obvious candidate was Harry, Duke of Gloucester, Bertie's next brother. Harry Gloucester was considered by many to be a complete fool -- a man who drank too much, had a silly giggle, and who had fathered at least one illegitimate child. Hardly the stuff of monarchs.

The plotters' eyes turned to Prince George, Duke of Kent, the most glamorous of the brothers, popular and married with a son and heir.

No record of the plan to put Prince George on the throne exists in the archives but incontrovertible evidence is to be found elsewhere. In a longforgotten book The Work of The Queen, the academic, herald, and royal speechwriter Dermot Morrah wrote: "It was certainly considered at this time whether, by agreement among the Royal Family, the crown might be settled on the Duke of Kent -- the only one of the abdicating King's brothers who had a son to become Prince of Wales, and so avoid laying so heavy a future burden upon the shoulders of any woman. The possibility of such a course was debated by some men of state who believed that it would accord with the wishes of the royal concerned."

Those men included Baldwin, his chancellor, Neville Chamberlain, his home secretary, Sir John Simon, and the men who had hatched the plot. It explains why Prince George -- until then his eldest brother's favourite -- suddenly and unexpectedly distanced himself from Edward VIII.

There can be no question that Morrah knew what he was talking about. It was he who wrote Princess Elizabeth's speech delivered on her 21st birthday, still frequently quoted: "I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service."

That speech, nearly 70 years ago, remains the Queen's marker to this day. In the light of her unblemished reign it seems absurd that civil servants felt they could alter the course of history, and put the person of their choice in her place.

But what if they had won the day? No doubt Prince George and Princess Marina would have made an excellent king and queen, and the same may be said of their son Eddie, the present Duke of Kent -- a hardworking and devoted royal for all of his 80 years. But by now all would be chaos. For if Eddie Kent were king his son, the Earl of St Andrews, would be Prince of Wales and we would be facing yet another constitutional mess.

George St Andrews, 53, married a Roman Catholic divorcee, Sylvana Tomaselli, in 1988. Until last year, when the law was changed, that barred him from ascending the throne. The rules have been relaxed but his son and heir, Lord Downpatrick, 27, is a Roman Catholic and constitutionally barred from ever becoming king.

Whatever tipped the balance in favour of Bertie becoming king, thus allowing his daughter to reign over us so spectacularly well, will probably never be known. But he and she -- and we -- had a lucky escape.

Christopher Wilson is a royal historian and author of The Windsor Knot: Charles, Camilla and the Legacy of Diana

From the Times, 21 April 2016

And, it would NEVER have happened because Queen Mary would NEVER have agreed to any of it.

It also made little to no sense since the Abdication itself was thrusting the government and monarchy into a constitutional crisis. Starting to fuck around with the laws of succession would have done the same thing.

Further more, George wasn't any more prepared to be King than Bertie or Richard, the Duke of Gloucester....he was a bisexual boozer/drugger and an immature, shallow playboy. Richard was thick as a plank.

R209

And I thank you!

Sad that Eugenie gave her son a Nazi name, August.

Henry, not Richard, R209.

[R211] Why Nazi name?

If R211 refers to August Landmesser, the man was anything but a Nazi. German yes, but not a Nazi and suffered the consequences.

R209, I agree that Queen Mary would never have agreed to the plan. The original conversation here was just speculating about how different the BRF would be if somehow they had managed to skip over two brothers in favor of Prince George. The Times article itself points out that ultimately it would have been an unworkable idea since George's grandson married a Catholic and has a Catholic son. Nominating George would have resulted in another succession crisis down the line--George St. Andrews (the grandson) would have had to give up the woman he loved or abdicate himself, OR they would have had to change the Catholic rule much earlier. In any case, the Catholic great-grandson still couldn't inherit.

The only inherently Nazi name is Adolf.

What is known or believed about her relationship with her two daughters?

Nothing, R217. There's absolutely no available information on the topic.

SurvivingAngel = SPAZ

Your nasty abuse given an ff r219

I've read that the Queen Mum found Margaret annoying and needy. They lived in the same house once Lilibet became queen, but mother and daughter rarely saw each other.

Margaret was a Daddy's girl, which is why she came a bit unraveled after his death. If he'd lived 5 years longer, he'd have seen her married to a suitably rich and posh husband who would have treated her far better than Antony Armstrong-Jones. She'd have been much better off with Billy Wallace or Johnny Dalkeith.

Racist cunt with teeth the color of rotten corn. Next.

Ignore 219, Angel. It's one of the Meghan Markle shills that tries to derail every single BRF thread, even the ones that don't center on Markle.

r221 When did Princess Margaret move to Kensington Palace or did she have two UK homes?

Cheers r223 👍

I find it difficult to believe that Prince George was seen as such a great choice for monarch.

Yes, he was nice looking, but those in the know must have heard the rumors of his affairs with men, including Noel Coward, and his addiction to narcotics.

If memory serves, Margaret lived at Clarence House with the Queen Mum until she married. After that, she and AAJ moved into the big apartment at KP. Once they split some years later, Margaret stayed at KP and the BRF bought AAJ a lovely Kensington villa as part of the divorce settlement, with the proviso that the house could not be sold but must be left to his children with Margaret.

Interestingly, he and Margaret both gifted their vacation homes (his a country cottage, hers the place in Mustique) to their son David, Viscount Linley during their lifetimes, and he sold them both within a year or twoand bought a house in Provence instead. Not the sentimental sort, old Dave.

George had kicked the opioid habit, and he certainly wouldn't have been the first King to have a boyfriend. As long as he was discreet, nobody cared.

What they did care about was that he was handsome, more intelligent than his brothers, good with the public, had a photogenic and well-born wife. Also, and probably most importantly, he had fathered a son--the only one of the brothers to have done so in 1936.

How bad must Bertie and Henry have been behind the scenes that the Grey Men even considered overturning centuries of tradition and appointing their younger brother--their bisexual and recovering addict brother--instead?

r227 Thanks for all that detail! Wasn't her mystique home given to Margaret by an admiring aristocrat who hooked up with a young man on his deathbed or twilight years after years of being married to his wife eg a closet case?

r228 Which other kings are thought to have had boyfriends or gay relationships?

The property for Margaret's Mustique home was gifted her by Colin Tennant (Lord Glenconner), who did have a fairly scandalous private life. It was a clever gift: Margaret's presence added cache to Mustique, which he was trying to establish as a vacation spot for the elite. It also pissed off her husband AAJ, whom Tennant detested, as the gift was clearly for Margaret rather than for the couple. AAJ only ever visited Mustique a couple of times.

Tennant's wife was Lady Anne Coke, who had originally been engaged to be engaged to Johnny Spencer. Spencer threw her over for 17-year-old Frances Fermoy, and together they created Diana, the future Princess of Wales. Later, Anne would comment that she thought Johnny went back on their understanding because she 'wasn't quite rich enough.' Frances had a nice trust fund thanks to her descent from Frances Work, an American socialite whose stockbroker father was a protege of Cornelius Vanderbilt. Diana's melting blue eyes came from her great-grandmother.

King James I was a notorious cockhound, despite his 7 children. He was harsh on the gays publicly, enacting stringent anti-sodomy laws, but in private had a long-term and serious relationship with Esme Stuart, creating him first Earl and then Duke of Lennox. When Scottish nobles, mistrustful of the power wielded by Lennox, through a series of intrigues got Lennox banished to France and Lennox died soon after, James was devastated. Their love letters survive to this day.

SurvivingAngel is a revolting, racist Klan Granny CUNT. Fuck you KKK bitches. Hope you all get covid and end up dying slowly on ventilators.

Oh dear, the Klan Granny troll is off its meds again.

It's a pity when unbalanced, poorly behaved children like R234 intrude on an interesting thread.

Now now, let's be nice to R234. I'm sure Meghan is very nervous about the upcoming Oprah interview, and we all know that pregnant women are prone to profound mood swings. Especially OLD pregnant women.

r231 r232 r233 Thank you so much for all the detailed information it is really appreciated! I don't know if you are all the same person or not! Did the Queen Mother ever go to Mustique?

[quote]Did the Queen Mother ever go to Mustique?

We've been to Mustique. And the Isle of Greek.

You're welcome, SurvivingAngel. I honestly don't know if QM ever went to Mustique. I suspect not, as it was really Margaret's private hideaway.

Mustique was in the middle of nowhere, you can't blame the son for selling it in five minutes.

r240 Thanks. Now I come to think of it I can't recall much if anything at all of the Queen Mother travelling abroad within my lifetimes memory? Most likely she stopped travelling overseas in her seventies or early eighties?

I can't imagine that Margaret's children would be sentimental about her.

I think the QM made several trips to France in the 80s.

I don't know if Margaret minded David selling the Mustique villa. Lord Snowdon was quite unhappy that David sold the country cottage, as Snowdon had spent years fixing it up from a tumbledown wreck into a lovely home. Also, the place had been in Snowdon's family for over 200 years. It later became a boutique hotel and was for sale a couple of years ago.

After her death, her children sold Margaret's famous wedding tiara at auction to help pay death taxes on her estate. It ended up in the hands of a private bidder and has disappeared.

Princess Margaret was quite pretty in her youth, but the booze and cigs aged her fast. She got really haggard in middle age.

Agreed, Margaret was much prettier than Elizabeth when they were young women. But by the time she married at around 30, she'd already started to age visibly. I wonder if she'd have lived as long as Elizabeth without the cigs and booze?

Strangely, neither of the Queen Mum's daughters looked all that much like her. Their features are pure Windsor.

Margaret couldn’t afford to pay her taxes? QE2 didn’t offer to help her? Not that she was obligated to do that, since Margaret was a cunt, but I thought that she would have...

They were death taxes R249, which are about 40% on large estates. Margaret was in no (corporeal) position to pay them.

r249 I think the Queen offering to mitigate Princess Margarets inheritance tax would have been hugely damaging for the monarchy.

Estate of sovereign to consort or vice versa passes free of death duties thanks to agreement made by HM and John Major's government . Princesses royal or not are not part of that agreement so Princess Margaret's estate of £7.7 million was taxed like any other with Inland Revenue getting standard 40% which worked out to £3 million.

Once again many of those commenting do not have firm grasp how wealthy persons handle their affairs. Princess Margaret like nearly everyone else of her class in UK, USA and elsewhere gave things away in her lifetime to avoid death duties. HM the Queen Mother did exactly same thing...

This is what trusts and estate planners are there for; subject to certain limits such as amount that can be gifted before avoiding taxation, and the finality that comes with some trusts, there is a wide range of options that can be employed to "spend down" an estate.

If you want your daughters to have jewels or nephew that Rembrandt you're far better off often making a gift while living rather than bequest. Problem is with many of these estate planning devices there is no "give me backs". Laws require one relinquish control in certain situations totally and irrevocably.

Contrary to what is depicted in films and television programs most who are in line to inherit wealth don't get it all via a last will and testament. That is one of the most expensive ways to do things. Those inheriting may not find out about trusts or whatever until that time, but they may have been set up long before demise of whoever is doing the giving.

There was no need for HM to get involved in the estate of her sister, The Queen likely was made well aware during Princess Margaret's lifetime about her financial affairs as relating to estate.

Annnnnnnnnnnd the Titles Troll brought the thread to a crashing halt yet again. The most boring poster on Datalounge.

[quote]What is known or believed about her relationship with her two daughters?

Have you seen The Crown?

R254 “The Crown” was fiction - only clueless twats like you think of it as a documentary.

R255, you seem to be missing a sense of humor, hon.

No r254 I do not have netflix

No, “hon”, I’m just not a stupid American.

Oh? What variety of stupid are you?

Sounds like the very common variety.

Anybody read any biographies of the Queen Mother or other royal biographies that mention her in detail?

If you want to know more about the young Queen Mum, I recommend the excellent biography of Queen Mary: Matriarch, by Anne Edwards. The focus is Queen Mary, but it goes into the lives of her children and their consorts, too.

Thank you very much indeed r262 👍

Bump!!

A refreshing and very intelligent discussion of the British Monarchy by Russell Brand

R265

Between his accent and blathering on and on stopped video at 2:30. If there was ever something that could benefit from good editing........

her farts were said to clear the room and have maids puking uncontrollably.....

Most elucidating r267 ! 😉 I wonder if there will be a film biopic of the Queen Mother in the coming decades?

I wonder what she would make of events in the royal family in the past 18 months?

Perhaps she is having a good gossip with Prince Philip and Princess Margaret about it right now!!

R266 Her Pudding teeth had the same effect, I think she stopped brushing her teeth in the 60’s..

r270 Good heavens I doubt she never brushed her teeth for over 30 years!!