The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Thursday 24 October

A Book I Read This Summer...

The Muse is regrettably still not focused. This week started out very hopefully as I did FINALLY finish reading "The Queen and Di" by Ingrid Seward. I was all set to write a book review, but the itching to comment on Paul Burrell and "Queen" Camilla Parker-Troll were getting the better of me. The thing that brought me back to the review of the book was my fear of having this end up as a wandering column where I give my all to tie the loose ends together in the final paragraph as if all three things belong together.

"The Queen and Di" - was a relatively quick read that I did not find "explosive" as the Daily Mail apparently did. The overall feel of the book to me was Ingrid trying hard to convince us that her account was balanced when in fact it was not. Though I do believe that Diana possessed jealous tendencies, I cannot for a minute believe that she was jealous of the attention given her children at their own christenings. Nor do I believe that Diana told Ingrid that Camilla was not the cause of their marital strife. I personally believe that Diana, feeling stronger and distant enough from the situation to see it less muddied by the emotions she felt while in it, was woman enough to admit that there were issues other than Camilla that contributed to her irretrievably broken union with the Prince of Wales.

Additionally, I didn't like the supposition that Diana went to church with the Windsor's on Christmas just to be photographed as a team player before running off to visit the homeless. In my view a good parent puts the feelings of the children ahead of their own and Diana was in fact making an appearance for her sons sake - and no one else's. The fact that she chose to visit the homeless was more evidence that she related with "the truly downtrodden". That she found more pleasure in sharing the holidays with people who were suffering is commendable, not playing the press. As we found out after Diana's death, many of the visits she made were in secret and we weren't aware of the full extent of her charitable works while she was alive proving that it wasn't all about press attention. After all the years she spent in the glare of the public, I've no doubt that any phoniness she may have felt towards her charities would definitely have become public knowledge. How could it not?

Charles is, naturally, portrayed as a man who though he is clueless and blundering, does try to do the right thing. As opposed to Diana who not only refused to deal with the double life, but also had the nerve to make it known that there was a double life. It is apparently Ingrid's view that by cooperating with Andrew Morton and by giving her Panorama Interview she has left the House of Windsor with more ruin than Edward VIII did upon his abdication in 1936. While Charles just tried to get along as all the men before him did, by keeping his nose to the grindstone and employing a mistress to keep him happy and satisfied. His wife, relegated to the role of symbol of the future of the monarchy like any crown or scepter would be, was simply expected to make her life work somehow. In my opinion, Charles' grandfather, George VI, never cheated on his wife, Elizabeth, and his great-grandfather was also true to his wife, Queen Mary, so Charles had to go back to Edward VII to find an example of this behavior.

Add in the fact that Camilla Parker-Bowles is the great-grand daughter of Edward VII's last mistress, Alice Keppel, and one need look no further to see that Charles and his supporters are just using the "that's the way it's always been" statement a few generations past its prime. In light of the fact that Charles continues to buy Mrs. Parker-Bowles the jewels that were once owned by Alice Keppel and that the pair are looking at purchasing a villa in Tuscany (Mrs. Keppel spent the years following the death of Edward VII in a villa she purchased in Florence, Italy), I'd say the Edward VII study is quite apparent. Where is the balance in that? What are we supposed to believe that is so 'normal' about any of it?

Ms. Seward also portrays the Queen as a tolerant woman who gave Diana enough rope to hang herself, not realizing that she was hanging the entire House of Windsor with her. I do believe the Queen was understanding of the fact that Diana was having problems coping. I do believe that the Queen wasn't sure how to deal with it. Though she had dealt with her own husband's philandering I don't believe she could really understand what it was like for Diana as Charles had the same woman for 30 years and Prince Phillip was always being reported with different woman. Supposedly, he gave up the women once he was found out, so maybe the Queen needed to spend a bit more time trying to understand why Charles couldn't give up Camilla. The thing I don't think the Queen could comprehend was how Diana could make public statements about her unhappiness. For the Queen, that would be unthinkable. I believe the Queen knew that Diana did not want a divorce and that helped her hang in there with Diana as long as she did.

I do agree that the Panorama Interview Diana gave Martin Bashir was the last straw for the Queen. More I think for her statements about Charles, heir to Elizabeth II's throne, being better suited for life as a country squire than life as King than for her admission of adultery. That's because the Queen believes that the throne is passed from one to the next through the will of God and Diana saying that Charles is not suited really blew the hereditary transfer theory or at least cast doubt over the validity of it. That was a very serious setback for the monarchy that one of Diana's sons is set to inherit.

The book is full of anecdotes meant to provide insight into the personalities, traits, beliefs and reactions of the members of The House of Windsor. It does focus on the relationship between the Queen and Diana, but again, I don't think it holds Diana in the best light. The Queen is a very astute woman and if she kept faith in Diana there had to be some better reason than she thought she would eventually come around. I think it was because she respected her ability to carry out her role of representing the monarchy, appreciated that Diana's popularity saw the negative feelings about the need for a monarchy in this day and age dwindle and I think she truly enjoyed seeing how happy her grandsons were. The Queen has fond memories of her childhood, probably few of Charles' and I believe derives great pleasure from all of her grandchildren.

Would I recommend reading this book? Absolutely. It is an excellent trip down memory lane, a good way to remind you about the power of the written word and the impact it has on popular opinion, as well as, some very nice photographs in its center.

Hello! Things here are going along. The leaves are turning and it is quite beautiful. I took my first hayride on Sunday and lived to tell. On the royal note, I wish I had a way to see the BBC Panorama television show that is scheduled for this Sunday evening, October 27th - "Queen Camilla?" Also, I think our fears about the Paul Burrell trial are being substantiated. Beside having to get a new jury on day three of the trial, it is now said that Princes Charles and William were grossly mislead by police into thinking that Mr. Burrell had sold some of the items - which they haven't been able to prove - and their intelligence also told them they had photographs of Mr. Burrell dressed in Diana's 'frocks' - which they have also not been able to reproduce. It looks like more than Mr. Burrell and the reputation of Diana, Princess of Wales are getting the shaft here. It looks as though the Princes have been taken into this net as well.

Looking forward to posting your thoughts in this week's Speakers Corner. Let me know if you've read the book and if you share any of my opinions on the matter.
 

All the best,
Eileen