August Annotations

Mohammed al-Fayed and the Crash Controversy

Courtesy bbc.com

Trevor Rees-Jones told the media, “If I even thought he [Henri Paul] had one drink, he wouldn’t have driven that night.” [source]

So said the bodyguard that was assigned to Diana and Dodi Fayed that ill-fated evening. Rees-Jones was in the employ of Harrod’s owner Mohammad al Fayed - Dodi’s father - and was the only person to survive the crash in the Point d’Alma tunnel in Paris.

Rees-Jones revealed a lot in that simple sentence. Now, he has been tucked away, back to his everyday normal life, fully recovered save for occasional aches. He lives quietly, away from the press and public. To keep him from speaking further, the claim is that he suffers from trauma-induced amnesia. This could very well be true in some aspects. Look at what the poor bloke went through. However, he was coherent enough to state the obvious - Henri Paul was not drunk.

If you see the video footage of Diana talking with Dodi and Henri before setting off, you can tell that Henri Paul is steady on his feet, and looks competent. Trevor Rees-Jones’s statement backs this up. Rees-Jones was the bodyguard, his job was to protect Dodi and Diana. Why on earth would the man let a drunk driver operate a car, then sit in the passenger seat without his seatbelt? As a bodyguard, Rees-Jones does not wear a seatbelt, because he needs to maneuver within the automobile. He certainly doesn’t seem like a suicidal type of person.

Henri Paul was not drunk, but what was the cause of the crash? Speed was obviously a factor. The paparazzi were berated for taking pictures and causing the Mercedes to speed away in the first place. Then, at the scene of the crash, people believed them to be sensation seekers, snapping away without adequately assisting the injured people. Some took pictures, certainly, and one sought help. But what about the others?

The so-called blood alcohol level found in Paul may have been something that a “photographer” was responsible for. Were they ALL actual photographers, or were some more sinister? The driver’s body, following logic, would’ve had a non-existant blood alcohol level. Suddenly it turns out he had a level of almost 4 times the legal limit after an autopsy was performed. His body could’ve been tampered with either at the scene or between the accident time and an autopsy. So I believe that this accident was really no accident at all. Something was purposefully done.

Are the right people being held accountable however? Mohammed Al Fayed blames Prince Philip and calls him racist, but that’s just mere convenience.

“You’ll get slitty eyes” by being in China, Philip says, among other anecdotes. Things that an eighty-five year old man raised in the colonial era says out of ignorance, not genuine malice. For the Harrod’s boss, this makes the Duke an easy target. Easy, but not correct. Philip is an excuse for Fayed to vent his long-held frustrations over being denied British citizenship.

Al Fayed, with his well-known crooked payoff of British MPs, has most likely made many enemies. Enemies that would not think twice about harming someone’s family. That’s the world he moved in, and his son paid the price.

Unfortunately, King Harrods trod upon the wrong toes, and it came back to haunt him. It is going to take time to find out which enemy struck down his son and the princess. Hopefully his racist hatred for the British Royal Family will not cloud his judgment much longer, and he can find the real assassins.

Written by: Mandy
(c)2006 www.mandysroyalty.org

Harry Blunders Big-Time

Prince Harry dressing up in a Nazi costume is the stupidest thing I have seen in a long time. I am furious that the prince is THAT insensitive. His grandmother the Queen has just spent time and effort visiting Germany barely two months previous to establish better understanding between the two nations. And to FINALLY, in the 21st century, lay to rest the Nazi joke that has been made of Germany. Yes, they had a horrible dictatorship at the time. Yes, Hitler was a bastard to the tenth power, but generations of politics and people have come and gone, and life begins anew.

Secondly, the Windsors had their named changed from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to disassociate themselves from German roots, because during WWI, the German government and the Kaiser were the evil doers. During WWII, Edward VIII was forced off the British throne because he and his brash wife were Hitler-loving Nazi supporters. The monarchy has not, and never will, put up with that kind of mindset.

The choice of costume is also displaying gross insensitivity for the victims of the Holocaust, the soldiers of his own country who gave their lives to defeat Nazism, and the Queen herself. Harry needs to sit down with someone and be directed. No spoiling, no pussy-footing around, no allowances for foolish or reckless behavior. Where were stern Scottish nannies like Claire Knight when he was little? Where is Charles now? The Prince of Wales may have been forced by the public’s irrational love for Diana to bow to her demands on everything. However, no matter what the public thinks of the “People’s Princess” and her offspring, Charles must put a firm hand in the situation and put this boy straight. The public will not castigate you for showing your son the right way to go.

Into the military he goes! No more parties, no more trips abroad, no more photography sessions in Africa. It stops here.

©2005 MandysRoyalty.org

Official Stance on Diana & Charles: Analyzing the facts and dealing with them

Family and Personal Backgrounds

Lady Diana Spencer was from one of the oldest aristocratic families in Britain. She was raised with luxury and privilege, brought up within the royal circle. The Spencers were known for their royal associations and were the epitome of a Court family: Diana’s father was an equerry to HM King George VI and the present Queen, and Diana’s great-aunt had been a Woman of the Bedchamber to the Queen Mum. Diana played with Princes Andrew and Edward when they were young, as they were all the same age. She and brother Charles even made Christmastime visits to Sandringham to see the Queen.

When Diana came of age, she took some money she had inherited and moved into her own apartment in London with some flatmates. She lived the unburdened bachelorette life in complete anonymity with her friends.

Prince Charles, on the other hand, could not lead his life however he wanted. He had to construct a life for himself within the confines of the Monarchy and in the public eye. The Prince was indeed raised in privilege, but due to his position as heir to the throne, he was responsible for more than just his own personal wants.

In order to “toughen” Charles, his father sent him to spartan boarding schools that tested one’s mental and physical stamina to the limit. Charles, who never really took to that sort of life, instead leaned towards cultured interests such as art, books, and gardening. When he was older, he came to appreciate the physical tests that came with serving in the Royal Navy: how to navigate ships, fly helicopters, and most importantly, he learned how to work in a team. He got to know many people outside of his circle of aristocracy.

Charles, as the crown prince of the people of the UK and Commonwealth, has to be informed, intelligent, and publicly aware. He has had many admirable accomplishments in projects concerning foreign affairs, the environment, and Britain’s role on the world stage. Diana wasn’t raised to think of the nation, and it was hard for her to adapt to that line of thought once married. Thus the problems started…

Love and Marriage

Many years ago, Charles fell in love with Camilla Shand. He couldn’t decide whether he should marry her as she wasn’t, as some have said, an ideal candidate for a future queen. She had a “past”, didn’t have model good looks, and was a tomboy. Charles debated his feelings of love and considered whar the public’s and establishment’s feelings would be towards her. He had been raised with the purpose of serving his country, so many important decisions like marriage had to be made with the country and monarchy in mind. Would they accept Camilla? Charles returned to the Navy and decided to think about it a bit more. While he was away, Camilla decided to marry Andrew Parker-Bowles. Deeply saddened, the Prince realized his marriage prospects would no longer include the former Miss Shand.

Charles decided to focus anew for finding an ideal woman. It was not easy. There didn’t seem to be any girls who would give up their wealthy, free lifestyle for that of a life of tradition and duty. Poor Charles; in his mind their feelings were justified. Who would want to marry him? He was a daunting prospect to the Ladies of the realm, not a desirable one.

Then he met a girl who seemed to be a great match - Sarah Spencer. She was a strong willed, outgoing girl with an impeccable pedigree. She was the daughter of Earl Spencer, the aforementioned equerry to HM King George VI and Queen Elizabeth II.

They dated for a time, but then one day Sarah publicly announced that she would never marry Charles. She pointedly told the press she would never marry someone she didn’t love, “whether it was the dustman or the king of England”. The hint was dropped. Crushed, Charles moved on.

Charles felt that things were a bit hopeless. Soon that view would be turned around with a meeting in a hay field. He struck up a friendship with Sarah’s younger sister, Diana, while out at a shooting party. She had had a girlish crush on Charles’ younger brother Andrew, who was her age, and once thought she might marry him. Now Diana was starting to wonder if perhaps it was Charles who might be ‘the One’.

Even though the Spencers and Windsors had been closely tied together for many years, the heiress and the Prince were only just beginning to know each other on an adult level. They began talking, and eventually the nineteen-year-old Diana would find herself as the top candidate for Princess of Wales and future queen. She had gone hunting with him, listened to him speak of books he’d read, and fished on the River Dee. Diana had made it seem that she was really involved with all sorts of outdoor and intellectual pursuits, just like Charles. She desperately wanted him to like her, and wanted to be a fairy tale princess with a charming prince for a husband.

Diana was excited to think that she had bested her elder sister for the Prince of Wales’ affections. Her natural sense of entitlement and competitiveness gave her a rush of exhilaration at this thought. She was also giddy with the tidal wave of publicity she was receiving. She was ready to marry Charles, and when presented with a tray of rings, picked out the biggest engagement ring she could lay hands on. Diana was going to be the Princess of Wales!

Charles was over the moon that both his family and the public approved of Diana. He felt he had made a wonderful match. Soon, the facade that Diana had built up around herself would begin to crumble.

As the wedding day approached, the princess-to-be started to lose her nerve. She suddenly realized what was going to be expected of her. Courtiers and other members of the Royal Household had instructed her on various aspects of royal life and the position of Princess of Wales. They gave her books about previous Princesses of Wales, namely Alexandra and Mary, and helped Diana to set up her own office.

Daydreams were over; the work was beginning. Diana realized that her own wants had to be placed aside most of the time, in order to help represent Queen and country. She panicked. She wasn’t ready to accept that royal duties would dictate her schedule. She was also really bored by Charles and his interests, his friends, and the Monarchy itself. She couldn’t go on pretending, but she was stuck now. Invitations were sent, dresses being made, and tea towels created. Unlike the other aristocratic girls Charles dated, Diana was not aware of what a royal wife would have to do, strangely enough, and therefore did not know how to decline before getting in over her head.

Throughout the rest of their married life, Diana would fight Charles and the Royal Family. She wandered away from her husband and started hobnobbing with celebrities, lunching in fashionable restaurants, and spent thousands of pounds on her personal appearance: coifs, makeup, manicures, and personal trainers. Then there were Diana’s astrologers, vacations, and colonic irrigations. Charles and the Queen were not amused by her excessive spending habits, nor were they keen on her abuse of royal privilege and the media. They tried to get her to curb her spending on such flights of fancy, but Diana refused to listen. She felt that she deserved every luxury she could find, and for a while the Queen allowed her everything but the kingdom itself in order to keep her happy. Diana was, after all, the mother of the Queen’s grandsons, and the mother of the future king. Her Majesty let Diana run the gamut for a while in the early years, believing that she was still adjusting to royal life.

Funny, it looked like Diana had a pretty royal, aristocratic life already by being born a Spencer. Yet she still had to “adjust”? After a while, I think the Queen got fed up and realized that Diana was simply not going to be mature enough to handle royal life and protocol. She was heartbroken.

Charles, in the meantime, had no idea what to do with the mood swings and illnesses that Diana had and decided to turn to a friendship with Camilla Parker-Bowles in order to seek advice. He had never known anything like bulimia before. He had been sweet and caring towards Sarah Spencer when she revealed she had anorexia, but even then he still did not fully understand those types of illness. No one in his family, nor in his group of friends, had ever experienced anything like it before, so it was quite foreign to him.

At first, Charles believed Diana’s mood swings needed to be helped. He, too, decided to just let Diana do whatever she wanted until she adjusted. Princess Margaret, the Queen’s own sister, also agreed with this tactic. Bolstered by his aunt, Charles called in the best psychoanalysts and psychiatrists he could find as well. Then he realized that he could not get her to settle into the royal routine happily no matter what he did. He tried for years to work things out with Diana, especially with their children in mind. In the end, Charles eventually gave up. Diana had even started taking lovers, and so Charles decided that if she could not stand him that much, he would take up a relationship elsewhere, too. Since he could not establish a normal relationship with his wife, he re-established one with Camilla, a longtime friend and a woman his own age who shared many interests. He loved her deeply, and stuck by her.

Diana and Charles drifted further and further apart. She traveled extensively, promoting charities everywhere and giving the perfect photo opportunities to journalists. For swanky events, she dressed in in low-cut gowns. She even telephoned journalists as a “friend of the Princess” so that they would turn up at the most unexpected places, splashing her photos across the newspapers the next day. Diana tried to outdo her husband and the Queen to show them that she would not be held back by rules and traditions. She wanted things her way, and she wanted to be the star.

The Queen advised Charles and Diana to divorce. It was no good trying to keep up appearances. The public knew all too well that Diana was bored to tears by royal life and Charles. She said as much in the Panorama interview and her book. The marriage came to and end in 1996.

Knowing that the worst was behind them, Charles and Diana were actually able to mend some fences and remain on good terms. As the mother of his children, Charles knew Diana was an important part of their family life and wanted things to be as cordial and happy as possible to give William and Harry stability.

Diana started dating Dodi Fayed, son of notorious business tycoon Mohammed al-Fayed. She kept up with her charities and various commitments, and spent as much time with her sons as possible. She frequently included them in her yacht trips with Dodi and the Fayed family. Having Dodi bolstered Diana’s confidence and sense of security, and with that came her acceptance of Camilla as Charles’ companion.
Meanwhile, Charles’ and Camilla’s relationship continued to blossom. The Prince of Wales promoted his organic food “Duchy Originals”, spoke out in support of UK farmers, and devoted much of his time and energy into “The Prince’s Trust” for the youth of Britain. Things were going smoothly between the prince and princess, but horrifically everything came crashing down on the night of August 31, 1997 when Diana died in a fatal car accident in Paris.

Today, Charles is working as hard as ever, but puts in a lot of time with both of his sons. He always remembered how lonely he felt when his parents traveled extensively, so Charles makes sure that he is in constant contact with his sons. He is always there for them, especially when he had to help William and Harry adjust to life without Diana.

The boys have also accepted Camilla as a part of their father’s world. Even though their mother has passed away, they still have a life to live and time is short - no time for petty insecurities and grudges. They both realize that Camilla makes their father happy, and upon meeting her they found her to be a pleasant person. The princes were friends with her children also, and they all get along very well.

Looking back, Charles should never have married Diana, because he was expecting someone who would help him in his duties and support him. He should’ve realized that a nineteen year old might not be on the same level as a thirty year old. However, because the public and the monarchy wanted someone without a past, who was pretty and an ideal princess-figure, Diana seemed the most suitable.

Camilla will not be another Princess of Wales nor queen. Public mood dictates that there has already been one Princess of Wales for the Prince, and there shall not be another. Camilla is a central figure in Charles’ life however, and should there be a marriage, she will act in the capacity of consort regardless. We must accept her, as even Diana herself did.

©2004 MandysRoyalty.org

The Queen and Her Heritage

The anti-monarchists and republicans keep calling the Queen a German, as if that is a bad thing. As far as I can see, the only bad thing here is their attitude towards the Royal Family and Her Majesty.

Anti-royalists constantly imply that the Queen’s German heritage is a hindrance. This is quite racist, as it pertains to getting rid of her and the monarchy simply because of their background.

It matters nothing to them that the Queen and her family have been steeped in British tradition for generations, working tirelessly for Crown and country. They only see ways to try and get rid of the monarchy, and are doing it through race. Victoria and Albert were German; Queen Alexandra was a Dane; Prince Philip was a Prince of Greece but was of German descent. All of this deems the Royal Family terrible in the eyes of their detractors, even though there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Queen Victoria’s children were born in the United Kingdom. They are British. Edward VII’s children were born in the United Kingdom. They, too, are British. And although Edward’s son, George V, married a German princess, she easily adapted to her new country.

Princess Mary of Teck, the future Queen Mary, stated, “We are English from top to toe.” George was of the same mindset as his wife - “I’m damned if I’m an alien.” That says it all right there.

If they always kept up German ways of life and only spoke German, and insisted that the whole of Britain become Germanic in nature, then I could see the rancor. However, simply having German heritage is not a reason for such hate.

I myself have German blood, with roots in Grotzingen (Wurttemburg). This is from a long time ago, though. I am much more connected to my British heritage, which stems from only two generations previous.

Even though I am very British, I have German in my family tree. Does this disqualify me from certain things? I would hope not. The anti-monarchists seem to think so, especially in regards to the Queen. How repulsive!

With Queen Elizabeth II, all of Britain and her people are one nation. The people of the Commonwealth countries are much loved by the Sovereign, and they return that love and loyalty. God Save The Queen - and indeed all of us - from a Republic, whose narrow-minded views are thinly disguised as progress.

©2004 MandysRoyalty.org

Margaret & Peter:
Can You Blame the Royals?

Princess Margaret, who died one year ago February 9th, was the first immediate member of the family to divorce. This set in motion the acceptance - albeit reluctant acceptance - of divorce among members of the monarchy. This commentary looks at the situation between Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend, her subsequent disasterous relationship, and hints that maybe the Royal Family can’t be blamed for the princess’ unhappiness after all.

Fifty years ago this summer, Her Majesty the Queen was officially crowned in Westminster Abbey. But that was not the only major event of that year. There was one other person who inadvertently began a new chapter in royal history - bringing attention to the divorce barrier and thus changing the rules in the royal family. Princess Margaret, the Queen’s younger sister, is that person.

Margaret, then twenty-three, was in love with forty-two year old Group Captain Peter Townsend. The married father of two sons had previously been an equerry to King George VI. Upon the king’s death, Townsend was moved into Elizabeth II’s service.

Margaret thought he was dashing and was very flirtatious with him. Townsend enjoyed the company of this witty and charming princess, and was soon engaged in an affair with her. She fell in love and wanted to marry him, but the courtiers kept putting her off. Peter had just divorced his wife on the grounds of her adultery. This made him the technically innocent party, but divorce, innocent or not, was frowned upon in the royal family. The monarchy was supposed to be the paragon of virtue, and a royal princess marrying such a man was unacceptable. Also wary of Townsend’s intentions, as they had been in 1936 over the treacherous Wallis Simpson, they told Margaret that she should wait until 25th birthday when she didn’t need the Queen’s or the government’s permission to marry anymore. They hoped that during this waiting period the romance would die out.

The Townsend marriage, it should be noted, was one of wartime haste, and the relationship had dwindled. According to Rosemary Townsend it was because of her husband’s dalliances. Eileen Parker, wife of a Prince Philip aide, also suffered spousal disloyalty and could relate to Rosemary’s situation. “[We] were married to men frequently lured from us by the lustre of glittering prizes.”

Rosemary had become involved with other men as a result of Peter’s trysts, but Princess Margaret was the breaking point. She felt very bitter, and had every right to be: she had given Peter two sons, and he was now carrying on with someone “barely out of ankle socks”. However, Townsend was quick to take advantage of his wife’s adultery and sued for divorce, placing the blame on her. In this he thought he had been very clever: free to do as he wished and also the innocent party. How could anyone object to his relationship with Princess Margaret? But object they did.

Princess Margaret, who had been largely sheltered from the ways of the world, found love with a man who was not so innocent. The Court and the Family were well aware of what the situation was, and wished to keep him from hurting her. His divorce made him an unsuitable partner for a princess, but more to the point the Palace was suspicious of his motives towards this young girl. Might there be other ‘prizes’ that could lure Townsend from Margaret? If he deserted her, not only would it crush the princess, but he would be able to make off with a lot of money and any titles granted him during the union.

Margaret was also third in line to the throne, and at the time was named Regent. If the Queen became incapacitated in any way, Margaret would fill in for her sister. If the Queen had died, Margaret would reign until her nephew Charles came of age. This meant that Peter Townsend would be included in that reign. This was not something the courtiers or the Family looked favorably upon, and so the Palace finally came to a conclusion. They refused to let them marry in England, Margaret would be stripped of her title and income, and the two would have to live abroad for an “indefinite amount of time”. The Palace had threatened to take away Margaret’s material glitter and waited to see what Townsend would do next.

Resentful of what Buckingham Palace proposed, Margaret was not prepared to break away from her family, and was certainly not prepared to let go of the lifestyle of a royal. While part of her was always an independent spirit, at heart she was pure princess. Although she felt defeated by the system, Margaret still loved Townsend even after the two-year waiting period.

But her love was completely shattered by Peter himself when he drafted her letter of renunciation of the relationship. “It was Peter who didn’t want to [go through with the marriage]“, Margaret sadly admitted years later.

Townsend was then sent away as an Air Attache to Brussels, and soon he became involved with a young Belgian tabacco heiress. He wrote to Margaret and told her that he was going to marry her instead. His new wife looked like Margaret, but had all the money in the world to bring to the marriage. The girl was young, beautiful, and wealthy - she was a glittering prize but without the strings attached.

Margaret decided to marry good friend Antony Armstrong-Jones soon after the arrival of Townsend’s letter. She and Tony, as he was called, would have two children together. He was a lot like Margaret: witty, charming, and a great performer. The two sang, danced, traveled and entertained friends, but soon their strong personalities clashed, leaving nothing but bitter feuds and anguish.

Margaret took to drinking and smoking heavily, and was soon having affairs on the side. Tony did so as well, and eventually found a permanent romance with Lucy Lindsay-Hogg. Eventually, after a required cooling-off period, Margaret and Tony decided to split up. The princess was alone again, only now she herself was divorced.

Her Majesty was terribly distressed over the break up of her sister’s marriage. She had never quite gotten over the sadness of Margaret’s broken relationship with Townsend, either. She knew that Margaret had truly loved him, but he was not a good choice in the Queen’s eyes. Elizabeth loved Margaret and had a duty towards her, and had tried to protect her the best she could.

The Queen also learned a valuable lesson from Margaret’s liason with Tony. The princess didn’t really love him the way she loved Townsend, it was more or less a rebound relationship. When Tony and Margaret couldn’t get along anymore - to the point of hatred - Elizabeth knew that divorce would be the only answer. It was not a preferrable course of action, but it had to be done. When the affair with Townsend was on, Elizabeth was partially influenced by the advice of her courtiers and ministers. This time, she acted on her own.

Tragically, the princess would not be able to find a solid romantic relationship, but she would always be nestled snugly into her royal world where she had her sister, mother, children, and friends. Her divorce made the Palace realize that soured relationships were best done away with. Princess Anne and Mark Phillips, Charles and Diana, and the Yorks are good examples of this.

What really would’ve happened if Margaret had married Peter? We will never know, but what we do know is that, although she could not find a true love, she was a high spirited and unique royal personage. Margaret will always be missed.

©2003 MandysRoyalty.org

Great Britons:
Diana’s Role In History Questionable

Diana, whose need for attention was astounding, will forever be remembered only because photographers needed to do their jobs.

Without the son of Queen Elizabeth II, Diana would be an unknown. Because Prince Charles married her, she was then able to access great wealth and privilege, even more so than in her own family. Diana then had the time and money to employ people to make her look the part of a princess. All she was concerned about was an impression and a ‘look’; a mere outer shell. She obsessed over her photos in the newspapers, not her role as a supportive consort.

Looking back at her pre-Windsor days, her fashion sense was naught. So it is quite obvious that her acquired status gave her access to those who were skilled in design and fashion, who thus created an ‘image’ for her. Diana’s hair was dyed consistantly blonde, and her makeup done by only the best makeup artists. The jewelry, stunning clothes, and the makeup that made her face pretty resulted in a glamourous person. But what does that do for humanity? She was not responsible for knowing what was going on in government affairs, nor did she have to help govern Britain. Diana didn’t have any discipline or respect for tradition, and cringed at anything that would educate her about her role. To do so would mean adhering to protocol, and she was far too selfish to do that.

Instead, she made up her own agenda: whatever she could do to “out media” Charles and the Royal Family. The Queen makes an important trip, so Diana shows up somewhere with a new hairstyle. Charles demonstrates his prowess at the cello, Diana strolls across the room, plunks down at a piano, and does her best Bach impression. Charles wants to explain his relationship with Camilla openly and honestly, and Diana throws herself into a short, plunging black dress that left the media gasping for more. The Royal who? The Prince of where? This result left Diana delighted.

The point I am making is this: don’t drag the Monarchy through the muck simply because you don’t agree with them or can’t get along with them. Don’t make them out to be the Bad Guy just because you don’t want to understand their ways. You can live a life of glamour on your own, but leave the monarchy to the mature.

And calling Diana the Queen of Hearts is a bit extreme. This leaves Princess Anne and many other ladies - royal or not - out in the cold. As if Diana is the only one who takes up arms for charity? How insulting. Again, it was only part of her agenda to out maneuver the Royals and get her face in the papers. To grace those actions with the title of “Queen of Hearts” when her heart wasn’t in the right place to begin with is incredibly ignorant.

For this she was included as a Great Briton? How embarassing for Britain’s time-honoured traditions and past noble peoples. At least it is somewhat comforting to see that Winston Churchill just triumphed over the late glamour girl. Without the clothes, jewels and heartwarming stories of trips to the candy shops for sweets, how much interest could Winston generate? But win he did, and I am glad. He had heart.

The reality of the Princess and her life was summed up rather succinctly by Theodore Dalrymple’s article, “The People’s Princess”:

[Burrell's] revelations so far would have damaged the reputation of the Princess in any age but our own. Those who never admired her always thought her vain, witless, shallow, scheming, egotistical, vulgar, tasteless, sentimental, manipulative, hysterical, and altogether lacking in culture, character, and intelligence (though not without a certain low cunning): but even they never suspected the extent of her promiscuity, which required her butler—actually, her procurer—to smuggle lovers into the palace in the trunk of his car, to be greeted, Danielle Steele–style, by the Princess in a fur coat and jewels, only. Her much publicized psychological travails resulted not so much from the complexity as from the emptiness of her personality.

That is why no revelations about her conduct will make any difference to those who adhere to her cult: a cult to which it is so easy and gratifying to adhere, because it requires nothing in return. Her deep inner emptiness reflects that of modern man, who distracts himself from it, just as she did, by feverish sensation seeking. Thus she was indeed the People’s Princess, but not quite in the sense originally meant: her epithet flatters neither her nor the People.

©2002 Mandy’s British Royalty

Washing Off The Muck

Why people seem to believe that Queen Elizabeth hampered Burrell’s trial out of deceit and treachery is beyond me. She tried to stop it ‘to avoid embarrassing revelations’, as some have claimed, thinking the embarassment must be about her or Charles personally. The only REALLY embarassing thing I see is Diana’s many love affairs.

Di’s activities tarnished her reputation, from my perspective. Emerging details from Burrell and others only helps to further dispel the myth that she was some doe-eyed innocent. Her image had already taken a beating with James Hewitt, Will Carling, and Oliver Hoare. Then came revelations about Hasnat Khan, the Pakistani heart surgeon she had desparately been chasing.

What was already known within the aristocracy - that Diana was highly sexed, spoiled and conniving - is now being broadcasted to the British public at large.

The Queen is probably fed up with the accusations and wants Diana’s ghost laid to rest. She cares a great deal about her grandsons William and Harry, and therefore tries to protect them from any further damaging news about their mother. Not only that, but she doesn’t want to have Diana’s scandals attached to her monarchy. Charles was technically an adulterer with Camilla, but he was truly in love with her and wanted to be with ONLY Camilla. This is not a scandal. Diana and her sexual escapades ARE scandal.

This is simply my own personal theory. I do not feel that the Queen is a vindictive person, so therefore halting the trial was not done to hamper justice. If she wanted to cover up something, this was certainly not the way to do it, was it?

Things aren’t made any better by Burrell giving ‘exclusive’ interviews and taking a tour of New York as a quasi-celebrity.

What about the alleged rape though?, I hear you ask. That could’ve been embarassing. Perhaps that’s what they wanted to ‘hide’. But, how would the Queen know about it? The alleged rape involved people in Prince Charles’ staff, so how would she know? Or how could Charles know every single thing taking place within his staff?

It has been alleged that Charles was told, yet still did nothing. When told of the accuser’s past false claims and cries of “wolf”, he decided that the problem would work itself out between the two parties. I am not sure. However, it is ridiculous to hold the family or Charles responsible as if they are the ones who committed a crime.

All of this scandal happening because of other people, and it’s the Queen and the monarchy that gets blamed. MPs are calling for her to be stripped of her powers, and for what? Is this how you thank someone for working so tirelessly for your country for 50 years? Diana blows through London and sets a record of royal backstabbings, and undoes all of the serious dedication and work by George V, VI, and The Queen. Now everyone else, out to make a buck, is taking up the same reigns.

Even in death, the family is still harrassed by her in some form or another. Whether it’s snippets of a Diana book, a dress tour, or Earl Spencer - living in SOUTH AFRICA - complaining that he never sees his nephews. It never ends.

I’ll bet Diana didn’t bank on her legacy harrassing her sons though. Or did she care to think about that?

©2002 Mandy’s British Royalty Amended 10.28.03

Lucian Freud:
Great or Grotesque?

In American Wasteland: A Commentary, D. Marty Lasley tries to justify the mangled portrait of HM The Queen by Lucian Freud. The controversy of said painting, which arose during the Christmas holidays nearly one year ago, created a stir and much debate over whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

The Queen, as we all know, has been through quiet a few storms. She has deftly handled the pressure of having to be composed in public at all times, even when it must evidently be difficult for her. You never see the Queen out of sorts, and to be so strong throughout these 50 years doesn’t happen without a spine of steel. In this horrendous painting, Freud tried to portray the Queen’s famous strength, but he came up short. It looks more vindictive than anything.

Lasley, author of the article on the painting debate, quotes the art critic Adrian Searle (from the Guardian), who said ‘It’s probably the best royal portrait for at least 150 years…Portraiture is meant to get beneath the skin…’. Searle went on to tactlessly describe the Queen’s expression as the ‘before half of a before-and-after testimonial for constipation tablets.’ Note that this art critic is from The Guardian, a newspaper known to jump right on the bandwagon with anything that pokes fun at the monarchy or wants to tear it down all together. So how much faith do we put in a sarcastic opinion from someone like that? If ‘art critic’ Searle thinks this travesty is the best royal portrait in 150 years, then I think he needs to either get out and view more art, or give up his current job and go back to working the garbage barge on the Thames.

Why are we led to believe that Mr. Freud, grandson of Sigmund, is trying to get ‘beneath the skin’ in order to understand the inner workings of the Queen? Instead of a monarch with dignity and grace, Freud painted her tough, looking as if she is saying, as Lasley put it, ‘Don’t **** with me!’ That’s not the Queen’s style. She’s not crude; her style is subtle and graceful, yet no less resolute.

Freud obviously wanted to make a statement. He seemed to paint as though he resented her age. Twenty-five to age seventy-five is a long time, and naturally there will be changes in one’s appearance. However, the Queen is still lovely, and as you can see, Freud’s artwork did not do her justice. Another theory is that perhaps he is a bit chauvinistic. If you notice, the ‘Queen’ looks as though it may be Mr. Freud in a wig and a crown. He is not getting beneath her skin, he is getting beneath his own skin to demonstrate how he feels about the monarchy. It seems the view is that he thinks the monarch should not be a queen, but a king. This is insulting to Her Majesty’s 50 years of hard work and dedication to paint her as a man.

I would like to conclude this piece by responding to the closing of Mr. Lasley’s article. Many can say that ‘accident’ of birth and hereditary monachy are undemocratic, but she is a fine and wonderful Queen. She has done a better job at being a head of state than any politician. Her parents were good monarchs, and they raised her to be a good monarch as well. When Edward the Eighth partied too much and left his responsibilities of state for the arms of a mistress, he was sacked. The popular romantic myth is that he abdicated for love, but the government and his Royal Family were not going to accept a boozy Nazi sympathizer as king. He was duly banished and replaced by his brother George VI, who was honest and hard working throughout the war years. The monarchy knows how to take care of business, and will do so for the good of the people. Can you say that about Blair, Clinton, or Bush?

©2002 Mandy’s British Royalty”

‘Fergie’

The band ‘Massive Attack’ apparently embarassed the life out of Our Lady of The Chat at the MTV Europe Awards.

Sarah Ferguson, former Duchess of York, presented an award to ‘Massive Attack’ as she blundered her way through her lines. At the end, the band apparently refused point blank to shake her hand, leaving poor Fergie flabbergasted. And according to reports, one of the band said ‘F*** you very much,’ as they departed from the stage.

Now, call me obvious, but I don’t believe that was a fun moment for Sarah.
Going back through her track record, however, it seems that she has proven time and again that she is someone who is completely unembarassed by just about everything. This situation might have been a little rough though. It would have been for anyone!

This raises the questions: is Sarah Ferguson that desparate to look hip and contemporary and ‘common’? Or is it the money she needs? After all, ‘The Duchess of York’ is quite a lofty title and can generate much money if the need arises. Fergie is a master at this; watching her in action over the years puts Donald Trump to shame.

Her title also gathers her a little bit of deference from people, especially if she is here in America. It can get her whatever she wants. But if you are an American like me, a staunch monarchist, you are unimpressed by her and are certainly quite disgusted by the blatant lack of respect shown this title by its holder. Although stripped of ‘HRH’, she still does far too much damage to ‘Duchess of York’. Just because you can sometimes get what you want doesn’t mean you should actually go ahead and do it. If this title is Fergie’s calling card, then she needs to tone down her actions and chosen activities. A LOT. I can see a little society life, her Budgie books, and maybe promoting charities. This is something that would befit her status as a duchess who is still within the royal world by way of her ex-husband and daughters. But television commercials for cranberry juice?? And now a chat show?? As with the MTV Europe Awards, Fergie is just making a bigger and bigger embarassment out of herself. Activities such as these should be declared off-limits.

Sarah is doing much the same thing Diana did. A member of Diana’s household tried to justify her post-marriage lifestyle by saying that ‘She [Diana] is now a divorced woman and it’s her life.’ As in, she can do what she wants, leave her alone. This would be true if speaking about a regular woman, but when your son is to be the future King and you still hold the courtesy of being Princess of Wales, you need to think twice.

Diana was stripped of ‘HRH’ like Fergie, and was referred to thereafter as ‘Diana, Princess of Wales’. If her mother-in-law is gracious enough to allow her that, I would like to think she would show more respect to the position. She didn’t. And Miss Ferguson is still following the path of disrespect, carrying on where Diana left off. Divorce means some semblance of freedom, but if you are still allowed a title and a home within royal grounds, then you need to respect that. You still have a position to maintain. If you cannot restrain yourself, then you must accept the fact that your title should go.

Now there’s a scary thought for someone who has built herself entirely on that one thing. Can she not go on as regular Sarah Margaret Ferguson? Her chat show is called ‘Fergie’, so perhaps the lack of her royal name-dropping in the title is a sign that she may leave her ‘calling card’ behind. We can only hope.

©2002 Mandy’s British Royalty”

Charles & Camilla:
A Match Made in Heaven?

Camilla is in the picture to stay. Even though some still think of her as an ‘usurper’ to the late Princess of Wales, there are just as many now who believe her to be an asset to Charles and to the Monarchy in general. She is an asset mainly due to her positive affect on the Prince. Just because she is not a supermodel or is without sweet demure looks, it doesn’t mean she is unsuitable. And as far as being an asset to the Monarchy in general, I’m sure you would agree that a blissful Prince means a blissful and sucessful Monarch.

They have much in common, and are about the same age. She is aristocratic and loves the countryside as much as he does. Charles loves Camilla with all of his heart, and the joy and contentment shows when he is out in public with her. Who would want to deprive the Prince of some happiness? In the time following the death of Diana, the public (around 75% or so) did not want Camilla as the Prince of Wales’ girlfriend or especially as the future Queen. Now that more time has passed, however, the acceptance percentage for Mrs. Parker-Bowles has gone up quite a bit and people are saying that Charles should marry her AND become king. This is quite significant and a good sign for the relationship.

If Her Majesty allows them to marry if they so choose, then there really isn’t anything that can stand in their way. A green light from the Queen means that everything is satisfactory. It has been rumored that the Prince of Wales would not marry Camilla if the Queen Mother didn’t approve, but it seems that it is the Queen herself who has the final say in it all. One naturally assumes that Her Majesty has most likely consulted her mother in these matters, (who, it has been said, liked Camilla) and I think both women have come to the conclusion that the Prince and Camilla are probably going to be a positive match for each other. Elizabeth knows full well the controversy of her son’s relationship and probably disapproves of it in some aspects, but it is his life and she would not want to cause any friction. She sees him happy, and as I said, a content and strong King with a good partner is what the Royal Family and the country will need.

Most importantly, William seems to have accepted her into his father’s life. It is my understanding that it was he who invited Camilla along on a family vacation in the Mediterranean in 1999. Not only is it a future king giving his consent, but it is a son who has lost his mother, yet now wants his father to have companionship and love. A child embracing a parent’s significant other is indeed a big step for them all, and with a situation as healthy as this one seems to be so far, I think their futures look very bright indeed.

©2002 Mandy’s British Royalty”