Below is an excerpt from “The Royal W.E. Unique Glimpses of The Duke and Duchess of Windsor” by Victoria Martínez. The title of each of the eight chapters is part of a quote that not only nicely sums up the subject of the chapter, but also casts light on the way The Duke and Duchess have been perceived throughout history. The following is the first part of the chapter entitled Frequent Kicks and Blows, which is from a quote from “The Duchess of Windsor: The Uncommon Life of Wallis Simpson” by Greg King, who wrote the foreword to “The Royal W.E.”

I may not be a fan, but I will readily concede that Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall’s lot is not an easy one. Like most partners of royalty, everyone who has an opinion considers her fair game, and she has been constantly placed under the microscope by the media machine and public opinion. But, unlike most partners of royalty who frequently have the advantage of entering the relationship with a clean slate, the nature of Camilla’s long relationship with Charles and her role as the third person in the “love triangle” that was the Wales’ marriage have made her the object of scorn and dislike almost since the moment she publicly entered the picture. To add insult to injury, she’s never been the most aesthetically pleasing person, especially in a direct comparison to Diana, who (as we all undoubtedly remember) called her nemesis “the Rottweiler.”

In short, as a controversial public figure, Camilla not only has little chance of ever being judged by the standards of a private figure, but will probably never find that anything said about her is taken with a grain of salt. Every tidbit of information – whether founded in fact or fiction – will be considered, evaluated, perpetuated… all to the point of creating a figure that is a caricature of the actual person. Her simple virtues extolled, her shortcomings exaggerated. The testimonials of her dearest friends snickered at, the rantings of her personal enemies rapaciously consumed. Not a fate most of us would choose for ourselves.

But if Camilla requires any comfort, she need only look to the Duchess of Windsor. At first glance, it’s quite easy to draw superficial or critical parallels between the two women. Superficially, both women were at one time mistresses of a Prince of Wales, divorced women perceived as home wreckers, and widely viewed as unattractive. More critically, both women exceeded the limits of a “socially acceptable” mistress and provoked fear that “such a woman” could be so dangerously close to the Crown or, for that matter, possibly even covet the position of queen consort for herself. Fortunately for Camilla, most views of her rarely stray from these relatively mild accusations.

The Duchess of Windsor was not so lucky. In a time when the propriety of a woman could be put into question simply by an unchaperoned encounter with a man who was not her husband or immediate male relative, Wallis Simpson was seen as the worst of all kind of women, an “adventuress.” Not only that, she was a divorced American adventuress who had designs on the popular and charming Prince of Wales. Naturally, it was Wallis, not Edward VIII, who took the fall when he abdicated in 1936. And things only got worse for her after that.

What surprises me is that, despite all the information we now have access to, the Duchess of Windsor is still vilified as the ugly American divorcée whose designs to be queen consort led to the downfall of a once-promising British prince. As if that weren’t enough, she’s accused of having been a dominatrix, a hermaphrodite and a Nazi sympathizer. Did I mention that Camilla has it easy? And while Camilla has had the benefit of excellent spin-doctors and a camp of loyal supporters, Wallis had little support in her corner of the ring. In fact, she had quite the opposite, as everyone needed a scapegoat for the abdication and no one wanted that scapegoat to be a member of the Royal Family.

To be sure, plenty of mud has been slung over the years regarding the Duke of Windsor, although, amazingly, it has done little to reverse the negative perception of the Duchess. Almost everything that was said of her beginning in 1936 still comprises the bulk of general knowledge about her. Except among a small group of her supporters, she is still the unworthy woman who seduced King Edward VIII away from his duty, while he is the man who gave it all up for love. An anonymous letter sent to a friend of Wallis in 1937 very effectively sums it up: “Edward VIII is regarded as the victim of a bold, domineering adventuress, a woman without heart, scruples or principles, whose scandalous efforts to gain the title of ‘Queen of England’ jeopardised the very existence of the British monarchy.” Personally, it has always been my belief that this type of theory is too simple and one-sided to believe and, accordingly, the subject has always been one of my favorites where royalty is concerned.

To read the rest of Frequent Kicks and Blows, download a copy of “The Royal W.E. Unique Glimpses of The Duke and Duchess of Windsor” by Victoria Martínez, available for Kindle, Nook and other eReaders, as well as in PDF form, at the following links (you don’t even need an eReader since Kindle and Nook can be downloaded on most devices for free).

Find it on: Amazon || Barnes and Noble || Who Dares Wins Publishing

The End of an Era?
by Victoria “Tori” Martínez

I’m afraid this has been coming for some time now, at least in my opinion. The wedding of Prince William to Catherine Middleton last month only confirmed my fears.

The era of ubiquitous royal tiaras appears to be nearing its end in Britain.

When Catherine Middleton, now HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, first appeared in the Cartier Halo tiara (also known as the Scroll tiara), which was lent to her by the Queen, the first thoughts that crossed my mind were how lovely it looked on her and what an appropriate choice it was. As a middle-class woman marrying the second-in-line to the throne during a major global economic recession, anything grander would have seemed unsuitable, not to mention tactless.

My second thoughts were about just how much the role of the tiara has changed in Britain since the Victorian Era, particularly in the last 50 years.

Consider this: although royal brides from Queen Victoria to Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon generally did not wear tiaras during their weddings, they could at least expect to receive quite a few of them as wedding gifts, and they most certainly wore them at every possible opportunity.

Princess Marina of Greece broke the Victorian tradition of wearing no bridal tiara when she married Prince George, Duke of Kent, in 1934. Instead of the usual flowers, she fixed her veil to her head with a beautiful fringe tiara given to her by the City of London. The move was quite appropriate, as under the reign of King George V and Queen Mary, tiaras were de rigueur for any royal or high social event. It’s well-known that Queen Mary wore a tiara even when she dined alone with the king.

When Queen Elizabeth II was Heiress Presumptive to her father’s throne, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth gave their daughter her first tiara, the Scroll tiara we now know as the Halo tiara. The king had originally given this tiara to the queen in 1936 when they were Duke and Duchess of York, just before the Abdication Crisis that made them king and queen. Although the Duchess of York had worn it before she became queen, the rich bounty of the royal vaults gave her an incredible selection of magnificent tiaras and other jewels, making the Halo seem a bit un-queenly.

For this reason, it was the perfect tiara for the 18-year-old Heiress Presumptive, although it seems she never wore this tiara in public, probably since her collection rapidly grew thanks to birthdays and the beautiful tiaras she received as wedding gifts. Among the wedding gifts were the tiara given to Queen Mary when she was a bride by the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland, which Elizabeth called “Granny’s Tiara,” and a Cartier bandeau tiara of English rose and foliage design from the Nizam of Hyderabad. On her wedding day, Princess Elizabeth borrowed The King George III Fringe tiara from her mother.

After she became Queen, Elizabeth proved to be an excellent model for the many beautiful royal tiaras in her personal and the State collections. Some of the best pictures of the Queen, in my opinion, are those taken of her as a young woman looking every inch a queen in her beautiful 1950s and early 1960s gowns and furs, literally sparkling in jewels and tiaras that were only matched by her radiant smile and glowing skin.

Princess Margaret was also quite stunning in a tiara in those days. The Queen often lent her the Halo tiara, which looked quite elegant on the doll-like princess. For her wedding, however, Margaret went all out with the magnificent Poltimore tiara, bought especially for her at auction. Despite having no royal connections, the tiara was a towering beauty that could be disassembled and worn in a variety of other ways.

As the Queen’s only daughter, Princess Anne, came of age, she was frequently photographed wearing the Halo tiara for portraits and State occasions. Clearly, this tiara had become something of a starter tiara for young royal ladies. When Princess Anne married, she followed in her mother’s footsteps and borrowed the Fringe tiara from her grandmother.

Like the Queen, Princesses Margaret and Anne eventually acquired further tiaras of their own. In addition to the Poltimore tiara, Princess Margaret was given Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother’s Papyrus tiara and the Persian turquoise tiara. Princess Anne was given Princess Andrew of Greece’s Meander tiara by the Queen in 1972, as well as a diamond festoon tiara presented to her in 1973 by the World Wide Shipping Group.

Other royal ladies, including the Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester, Princess Alexandra of Kent and Princess Michael of Kent, also inherited or acquired an array of tiaras, and the fashion for wearing and receiving tiaras seemed firmly set in royal style well into the 80s. Princess Michael of Kent, in particular, seemed born to wear beautiful tiaras.

When Prince Charles married Lady Diana Spencer in 1981, the new Princess of Wales received the Cambridge Lover’s Knot tiara as a wedding gift from the Queen and frequently borrowed the Spencer tiara she had worn as a bride. This may seem a paltry collection for a Princess of Wales, but considering that she could have expected to inherit much of the Queen’s personal tiaras one day, never mind wear the Crown jewels, it is not all that surprising.

Sarah Ferguson, on the other hand, could not expect such a large inheritance as Duchess of York. Had she remained married to the Duke of York, she might have eventually inherited a few more from the Queen after her eventual death, but the bulk would have gone to Diana if she herself had become queen. Nevertheless, her bridal tiara (not a family heirloom, but a purchase from Garrard) was a wedding gift from the Queen and Prince Philip. To my knowledge, it remains her only one.

No doubt the divorces of Diana and Charles and Fergie and Andrew caused the Queen to become even more circumspect in her sharing and gifting of tiaras. Now, the royal vaults are more tightly sealed than ever, and new royal brides and royal ladies are considered lucky to receive a tiara as a gift, or even as a loaner, from the Queen.

When Sophie Rhys-Jones married Prince Edward and became Countess of Wessex, her bridal tiara was a wedding gift from the Queen that was possibly made from a necklace that formerly belonged to Queen Victoria. Since her marriage, the Countess has borrowed several smaller tiaras from the Queen for State occasions, but they usually pale in comparison to the tiaras worn by Continental royal women.

Autumn Kelly, the bride of the Queen’s eldest grandson, Peter Phillips (and the first of her grandchildren to marry), had to make due with a loaner at her wedding: the diamond festoon tiara given to her new mother-in-law, Princess Anne, by the World Wide Shipping Group. In any case, the down-to-earth Autumn doesn’t seem like much of a tiara-wearer.

It seems likely that if a tiara had appeared on the head of Camilla Parker-Bowles when she married Prince Charles there would have been uproar from certain quarters. Still, Camilla has managed to borrow at least two of the late Queen Mother’s tiaras, including the Boucheron and Delhi Durbar tiaras (the latter was originally owned by Queen Mary, who probably rolled over in her grave the first time Camilla wore it).

In my opinion, the Duchess of Cornwall does little justice to these large and magnificent tiaras, which doesn’t bode well for her future career in tiara-wearing. Not that any of the tiaras she may one day wear as queen (or, if you like, “princess consort”) will weigh anything but heavy on her head given the past. This, naturally, is only my personal opinion; but what is perhaps more based in fact is that the Prince of Wales has expressed somewhat less of an interest in the outward displays of pomp and pageantry than his predecessors. When (if?) he eventually becomes king, it’s possible that he will follow the more modern mood of informality, including using fewer of the more magnificent pieces of royal jewels to decorate his wife.

The new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge seem even less inclined to cover themselves in ermine and diamonds, much in keeping with their own generation’s style. Instead of tiaras and furs, the Sloane Ranger set seems much more interested in expensive – and frequently bizarre – hats and the latest modern haute couture. If they continue in this way, their eventual royal court will probably be about as low-key as their wedding was. Not poor, to be sure, but not dripping in passé heirloom diamond tiaras.

As an ardent admirer of fine jewels – especially tiaras – this future is a bit sad for me. I, like many others, revel in seeing magnificent old tiaras elegantly worn on beautifully-coiffed heads. The idea of seeing these images only in books one day makes me a bit wistful. On the other hand, it also means progress to a more modern monarchy that lives somewhat less grandly and has less need for parading around in fine tiaras or keeping them locked away in vaults out of the public eye.

It also means that more of these historic tiaras may be making their way out of the vaults and into museums to be seen up close and personal after years of gathering dust or giving their wearers right royal headaches. In fact, if the generous act of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in asking for charitable donations rather than gifts as wedding presents (at least from those outside close friends and family) is any indicator, perhaps one day many of the magnificent royal tiaras – including those that haven’t been seen for many years – may be put on display to raise money for charity.

In this way, the end of one era could become the beginning of another.

Victoria “Tori” Martínez
Author of “An Unusual Journey Through Royal History,” available on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com.

The following is an excerpt from a new book, “An Unusual Journey Through Royal History,” by Victoria Martínez, which features 18 essays on a variety of royal history-related subjects spanning a thousand years. This is the first part of the chapter entitled: An “Illustrated” Royal History.

The last Anglo-Saxon king of England lay dead on a battlefield near Hastings, an arrow through his eye. William the Bastard of Normandy was now William the Conqueror of England.

William’s next, most immediate problem was to positively confirm that the corpse before him did indeed belong to his vanquished rival, Harold II – a task made difficult by the dead man’s disfigured face. The solution came in the shape of Edith Swan Neck, King Harold’s longtime mistress, who identified her dead lover by the words “Edith and England” tattooed on his chest, just one of several such illustrations on his body.

While not all stories of royal tattoos are quite so dramatic, just the concept of “royal tattoos” can seem incongruous to our modern perceptions of royalty. After all, it was only in the late 1990s that Zara Philips, daughter of Britain’s Princess Anne, caused a media sensation simply for having her tongue pierced. Relatively speaking, it should probably come as a far greater surprise that the supposedly prim and proper Victorian era was high season for tattooing among royalty and the aristocracy.

King Edward VII helped pioneer the fashion in Britain when, as Prince of Wales, he had a Jerusalem Cross tattooed on his arm during a visit to Jerusalem in 1862. Twenty years later, his sons – Prince Eddy, the ill-fated heir to the throne, and Prince George, the future George V – both had dragons tattooed on their arms during a visit to Japan. Before returning home, they stopped in Jerusalem to be further illustrated by the same artist who had tattooed their father.

Queen Victoria may or may not have been amused upon learning about her grandsons’ new body art, but their mother, Alexandra, Princess of Wales, reportedly was most certainly not amused when she was told incorrectly that the tattoos were on their faces, not their arms. Despite her undoubted horror at imagining the tattooed faces of her sons, Alexandra probably had nothing against more discreet tattoos, even among the women of her set.

Lady Randolph Spencer Churchill (née Jennie Jerome), the American heiress, society beauty, and mother of Winston Churchill, circulated quite freely among the Wales’ social circle sporting a tattoo of a snake around her left wrist. A well-placed bracelet hid the tattoo when it didn’t tickle her fancy. Her son Winston followed suit and had an anchor tattooed on his forearm, à la Popeye. Even Alexandra’s sister-in-law, Queen Olga of Greece (1851-1926) – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh’s paternal grandmother – reportedly had a tattoo.

Still more royals outside Britain were getting “inked” around the same time. Another of Queen Victoria’s grandsons, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, had a tattoo, as did George V’s cousin, Czar Nicholas II of Russia. Actually, royal tattoos were common in Russia long before Britain caught on – it seems Peter the Great (1689-1725) and Catherine the Great (1729-1796) both had tattoos.

To read the rest of An “Illustrated” Royal History, download a copy of “An Unusual Journey Through Royal History” by Victoria Martínez, available for Kindle, Nook and other eReaders at the links below (you don’t even need an e-reader since both Kindle and Nook can be downloaded on most devices for free).

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004X7LYPQ
Barnes and Noble: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/An-Unusual-Journey-through-Royal-History/Victoria-Martinez/e/2940012509307
Who Dares Wins Publishing: http://www.whodareswinspublishing.com/UnusualHistory.html

Royal Weddings: A Very Peculiar History (With Added Majesty)
By Fiona MacDonald || Published by Salariya

This little hardcover treasure trove of wedding facts is divided into nine chapters, full of delightful history lessons.

Just before you pore over the contents, you are presented with small Q&A of  royal wedding facts, as well as a handy family tree of Queen Victoria’s English descendants. These make a great introduction.

You expect proposals, weddings, and honeymoons to be romantic, but that’s not always the case among royals. One of my favorite courtship stories in the book is between William the Conqueror and the object of his desire, Matilda of Flanders.

Around 1047, the young Duke William of Normandy sent a proposal of marriage to Matilda, daughter of the king of France.

He was turned down flat.

Matilda haughtily refused him, saying she ‘would marry no bastard’. William leapt on his horse, rode to the royal palace, stormed his way into Matilda’s bedchamber, and dragged her around the room by her hair. Rather surprisingly, this savage courtship won Matilda’s heart, and they enjoyed a long and happy marriage together.

William the Conqueror, indeed.

Another favorite section of mine is the unique piece that puts you in Henry Tudor’s shoes. You have to deal with betrothal at age 11, becoming king, finding a wife, trying to produce an heir, then trying to get a divorce. Then you have to find another wife. Did I mention finding a wife? And in the end, your longed-for male heir is sickly and dies young. It’s your daughter that heralds England’s golden Elizabethan era.

The little details put into this book really make it entertaining and fascinating. We get the low-down on select wedding cakes, background on the traditional dressing – and undressing – of the bride, and the little favors they gave to their guests. The Queen, as a young princess in 1947, gave her wedding guests little hand-tied posies of myrtle and Scottish white heather.

My only point of contention is the graphic embellishment in this book. While beautifully detailed, it looks too busy. Mind you, the book is only about 4″ x 5″; if it was a larger book, there would be more room for the graphics. The small size of the book is what makes it very charming, however, and any book I can tuck into my purse and take with me everywhere is definitely a plus!

Royal Weddings: A Very Peculiar History, is a great book and an absolute gem to have in the run-up to Prince William’s royal wedding. You will heartily enjoy MacDonald’s compilation.

Fiona Macdonald will be helping to provide commentary on the day of Prince William’s wedding, live on MSNBC. Be sure to check it out!

Up next: Music for a Royal Wedding and Royal Weddings: A Very Peculiar History

You don’t want to miss these reviews. Wedding fever continues!

Questions From Some Top Royal Bloggers:

Who do you think is the most scandalous modern British royal? – Cinderella of royalty.nu

MF: Well, since Fergie’s no longer officially royal, that’s hard to say. Actually, none of the modern royals can (please pardon the pun) hold a scandal to their forbears. Murder, madness, illicit sex, and vicious scheming have been replaced by silly missteps and the occasional tempests in a teapot. Perhaps this has something to do with the power wielded by the royals. When it was nearly unlimited, their scandals reflected that. These days, with very limited power, royal misdeeds are relatively petty.

__

What is your favorite royal scandal and why? – Marilyn Braun of Marilyn’s Royal Blog

MF: There are oh so many to chose from, Marilyn, it’s really hard to say. I guess I got the greatest kick out of the truly wretched marriage of the future King George IV and his cousin Caroline of Brunswick. He was an indolent fop who drank way too much and amassed staggering debts. She was a foul-smelling exhibitionist who lacked all decorum and self control. George despised Caroline from the moment he met her. He passed out in a fireplace on their wedding night, but managed to consummate the relationship the next morning. It wasn’t easy. “It required no small [effort] to conquer my aversion and overcome the disgust of her person,” he wrote. After Caroline produced the heir to the throne, Princess Charlotte, George left her bed for good. Caroline eventually went away to Europe, where she made quite a spectacle of herself–as a stripper, essentially. At a ball in Naples, for example, she appeared, as one reported, “in the most indelicate manner, her breast and her arms being entirely naked.”

She also carried on a flagrant affair with her chamberlain, Bartolomeo Pergami. Caroline had no intention of returning to England, but then her father-in-law George III died and her estranged husband became King George IV. The wayward Princess of Wales now intended to claim her rights as queen. It was a mortifying prospect for the new king, especially because the people were firmly behind his despised wife–more out of hatred for him than any real affection for her. A bill was introduced in Parliament to deprive Caroline of her rights as queen and as George’s wife, but it went nowhere. Nevertheless, George IV was still determined to exclude Queen Caroline. When she arrived at Westminster Abbey for his coronation, the doors were slammed in her face. Several weeks later she was dead, perhaps of stomach cancer, though some have suggested poison. The inscription on her coffin, which she wrote herself, read: DEPOSITED, CAROLINE OF BRUNSWICK, THE INJURED QUEEN OF ENGLAND.
__

Have you heard any of the hints that Prince Albert took Queen Victoria away from England, on various visits to Scotland and other places for a time—because she had had a nervous breakdown? – Susan Flanders of Writer of Queens

MF: No, Susan, I have not heard that. I write extensively in the new book about Victoria and Albert’s earliest retreat, Osborne, on the Isle of Wight. They sought this refuge not only to get away from the stifling court life of London and Windsor, but, really as a place of their very own–where Albert could be the master. He created and controlled virtually every aspect of this “dear and lovely little domaine,” as the queen called it. She was content just to watch him work: “Never do I enjoy myself more or more peacefully than when I can be so much with my beloved Albert–follow him everywhere.”

After reading Michael Farquhar’s new book, Behind the Palace Doors: Five Centuries of Sex, Adventure, Vice, Treachery, and Folly from Royal Britain, I had the privilege of a great interview. Please enjoy this interview, and keep an eye out for Part 2 when he answers the questions of some prominent royal bloggers.

—

Mandy’s British Royalty: What inspired you to be a writer and historian?

Michael Farquhar: Well, I’m not a historian, per se; I’m a reporter of history. There’s a big difference: The historians are the true experts. I merely synthesize their discoveries in a (hopefully ) entertaining, readable way. I’ve always loved history, especially the juicy side, and started writing about it for The Washington Post about twenty years ago. Since then, I’ve made a career of history writing and feel like the luckiest guy in the world to be able to make a living doing what I love.

MBR: What inspired you to research rotten royals?

MF: I wouldn’t call them rotten…just extremely human, in a larger than ordinary life sort of way. People with their kind of power tended to misbehave…royally…and that makes for very entertaining reading. Although my first book, A Treasury of Royal Scandals, focused entirely on bad behavior, my new one, Behind the Palace Walls, incorporates other facets of British royal history: triumphs, tragedies, adventure, romance–as well as all the treachery, folly, and deep family dysfunction.

MBR: What is your opinion on royal behavior today? Is there enough naughtiness for a book?

MF: Misbehavior by the royals today barely registers as scandalous, especially when compared to the actions of some of their forbears. So, no book…at least by me. However, I have included several stories of the modern royal family in the new book, including the heroism of King George VI, the present queen’s father, who is featured in “The King’s Speech.” (I wrote about King George and his wartime partnership with Churchill before the film was released, and only touch briefly on his efforts to contol his stammer.)

MBR: You’ve also written about “Foolishly Forgotten Americans”, “Great American Scandals”, and produced “A Treasury of Deception”. What is it about scandals and bad behavior that intrigues you?

MF: I’m intrigued by what happens when ordinary human behavior–jealousy, greed, ambition, etc.–gets magnified by the people who make history. It’s a never ending education!

MBR: Who is your favorite royal in history?

MF: The marital adventures of Henry VIII first got me interested in history as a kid. And though so much has been written about King Henry’s life and times, he never ceases to fascinate me. I

MBR: Who is your favorite character – in general – in history?

MF: There are too many, Mandy!!

See Michael discuss his other books at the C-SPAN Video Library.