The Duke and Duchess of Windsor’s secret plot

King George VI led the nation through the Second World War with his winsome wife, Queen Elizabeth, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill. But as the war drew to a close, the king’s health began to fail. The formerly uninterested Duke of Windsor decided that he and his wife, Wallis, would take advantage of his brother’s illness and return to Britain to reign in his stead.

According to the Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Wilson, an acknowledged expert on the Royal family, has studied copies of the 1946 correspondence between Windsor friend Kenneth de Courcy and the Duke and Duchess. The plan formulated by de Courcy amounted to treason – the Duke would return from exile to reign in King George’s place, even though the Duke had already officially abdicated kingship a decade earlier. He would supplant the king’s daughter, Princess Elizabeth, the rightful heir.

To de Courcy, the ill George VI was similar to King George III during his years of madness – still technically king in name, but increasingly unable to reign. Shunting Princess Elizabeth aside could be explained away as merely keeping Lord Mountbatten from the throne. One letter explained it thus:

“I do not think it too much to say that if the Regency should be one primarily influenced by the Mountbattens [ie Lord Mountbatten and Prince Philip], the consequences for the [Windsor] Dynasty might be fatal… the Mountbattens, thoroughly well-informed of the situation, will do everything in their power to increase their influence…”

It was a plan for the Duke to become King Edward VIII once again, only this time it would be on his terms. Thankfully, such a scenario never occurred. Princess Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth II upon the death of George VI on February 6, 1952. The Queen will celebrate 60 years on the throne in 2012.

“No offence, Prince, but our ties to the monarchy should end,” says Jeffrey Simpson of Canada’s Globe and Mail.

Mr. Simpson offers up a summary of the excellent relations between Canada and the UK and even expresses respect and admiration for the Queen. When it’s Charles’ turn for the throne, however, Simpson says Canada will probably say farewell.

“[...]the issue is less about Charles himself, although personalities cannot be removed from public matters, as about the appropriateness and the fit of the British monarchy – and it is a British institution, no matter what its clangorous defenders say in Canada – for contemporary Canadian realities.

Our governments generally agree on world matters – climate change excepted these days. We are fighting together, as we have in the past. We share the more sensitive intelligence information, which we do with few others. The number of Canadians with family ties to Britain and vice versa is considerable and valuable. We trade with each other, talk sensibly to each other, work together. Few relations for Canada are as free and easy as with Britain. But they are British, and we are Canadians. That is not a statement of threat or disapproval or arrogance, but rather of fact.”

Will Canada truly say farewell, or will King Charles have a chance to see his face on the Loonie?

She was a beautiful young princess in love with a much older war hero. It was the love story of the century turned into a doomed affair.

Princess Margaret’s decision not to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend, a divorcee, has always been thought to have been made under pressure from the Court and senior figures within the Church of England. The Queen herself had bowed to the pressure as a young new monarch, causing a rift between her and her sister.

Now, a letter written by Princess Margaret to then-Prime Minister Anthony Eden has been unearthed, changing the history of events entirely.

Christopher Warwick, the princess’ official biographer and close friend, said the letter was “a very remarkable and significant historical document which puts a completely different complexion on the accepted version of events”.

It was a confident Princess Margaret who wrote, very much in control of her destiny, questioning whether or not she loved Townsend as much as she thought.

“At the end of October or early November I very much hope to be in a position to tell you and the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers what I intend to do,” she stated.

The Queen, said Margaret, knew that she was writing to Prime Minister Eden but told him to keep the letter confidential since everything was still “so uncertain”.

Margaret was not as helpless or pressured as was once believed.

“What is certain as a result of this letter,” continued Mr. Warwick, “is that she knew the Government was paving the way for the marriage if she wanted it and it proves that she was so much more involved in the process than she ever let on.”

The Telegraph

It has been reported that Paul Burrell is about to speak out on the Queen Mother’s relationship with Diana, Princess of Wales.

Burrell, the Princess’ former butler, was said to have been disappointed that Diana was barely mentioned in William Shawcross’ official biography ‘Queen Elizabeth: The Queen Mother’.

A so-called ‘insider’ said: “To be fair, if anyone knows what really went on between Diana and the Queen Mother, it’s Paul. The Shawcross book may just force him finally to tell it how it was, as he can’t stand the idea of Diana being ignored in such a way.”

Steve Dennis, however, says otherwise.

Dennis, the ghost writer for Paul Burrell’s books “Remembering Diana” and “A Royal Duty”, has set the record straight.

“FYI, Paul Burrell’s not spilling the beans at all. Don’t so readily trust everything you read,” Dennis told me via Twitter. “I’m his media advisor. Trust me, these articles are inventions.”

So will Burrell be coming out with another yarn to earn a buck, or is he staying silent like Steve Dennis claims? I guess time will tell…

Steve Dennis is also the author of the book Britney: Inside the Dream and has been an on-air contributor on the Fox News Channel.

Nothing screams unnecessary like a photo of a princess being groped.

The Sun newspaper trailed Princess Eugenie of York while she was on her gap year holiday in Thailand. She was wearing a bikini while out on the beaches of Phuket, and the photographers went crazy snapping photo after photo. The result was a Sun headline entitled “They’re Euge!” over a photo of the Queen’s granddaughter having her breasts squeezed by a companion.

It never fails to amaze me how much the media intrudes into private royal life. Yes, being royal means you are a public figure, but sometimes people need some breathing room. A person can’t be “on” at all hours of the day and don’t want a photographer breathing down their necks when taking a rest.

As a feminine version of Robin Hood

Not only do the media show disrespect to royal privacy, but they’re crude about it, too. Are we to blame for the intrusion because of our need for royal news and scandal, or is it the media’s responsibility to walk a reasonable middle ground?

I recently obtained a copy of Kitty Kelley’s book “The Royals” on audio cassette. I’m currently listening to it in the car as I drive, and though some may think me a bit mad to listen to Kelley’s fulmination, I find many things insightful.

Kelley discusses a time when biographer Anthony Holden was writing a book about Prince Charles’ earliest years. Holden’s biography of the prince stated that Princess Elizabeth decided to breast-feed her new baby son rather than let a wet nurse do it. The Prince’s press secretary (at the time of the writing) was aghast when he read this in the manuscript and called Holden at once to admonish him.

“The sentence about breast-feeding must be deleted. Absolutely and at once.” When Holden asked why, the press secretary adamantly stated that “One never mentions the royal breasts,” and that “[...] the royal breasts must never be exposed.”

Both Anthony Holden and Kitty Kelley chuckled about the man being ‘prudish’. So what do the two authors make of The Sun newspaper trailing Princess Eugenie while she frolics in a bikini? Exposing the royal breasts, indeed.

So the press secretary was probably a little too restricted, but people like The Sun’s staff are far too crude and invasive. Will we ever have a middle ground? At this moment, Dutch Prince Willem-Alexander and his Argentine-born wife Princess Maxima are taking The Associated Press to court. They claim the news agency breached the Dutch Mediacode by distributing photos of their recent vacation in Argentina. The Dutch Royals decided to take advantage of the Argentine winter to go on a skiing holiday and catch up with Princess Maxima’s family. They gave the media their time by posing on a beach in Holland with their three daughters. In exchange, the press would leave them alone during their South American trip.

Not pleased

Suffice it to say, that didn’t happen. Now the royal family is in an uproar and there are legal proceedings. The photographers didn’t snap anything risque like the bikini-clad Eugenie, but the invasion was just as unnecessary and disrespectful.

Why can’t a compromise be honored? Think of all the aggravation that  could have been avoided for all parties had the media acquiesced to the simple royal request: take these photos now, then let us have our private time.

Since the days of Diana in the 1980s, the dynamic between photographer and royal subject has become kill or be killed; hunter and hunted. The respect is almost nil, replaced instead by an in-your-face attitude. When will it end?

Via The Telegraph: President Obama has told Republicans in Washington to stop listening to the right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh, risking a new culture war with conservative voters.

After less than a week in office, Mr Obama’s presidency is already encountering the very partisan bickering he had pledged to stamp out during his first 100 days.

He faces mounting criticism over his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, from Republican leaders who say the legislation has been drawn up without the input which Mr Obama had promised to allow them.

The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: “I won. I’m the president.”

Then:

He then told them to break free of the confrontational mindset epitomised by Mr Limbaugh, the highest paid talk show host in America. “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” Mr Obama said. (True!)

His comments followed a blunt attack on him by Mr Limbaugh, who declared on air that he hoped Mr Obama would fail as president because otherwise it will usher in socialism.

With characteristic robustness, Limbaugh said: “We are being told we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over[...]because his father was black, because he’s the first black president, we’ve got to accept this.”

The president has also reacted badly to his first taste of tougher questioning from the previously supine Washington press corps – becoming visibly irritated, during a visit to journalists’ offices in the White House, when asked a substantive question about the ethics affair.

The White House’s failure to arrange for television cameras to record Mr Obama’s second swearing in, held on Wednesday night because he and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts botched the wording at his inauguration, infuriated broadcasters.

A Democratic strategist who has run two presidential campaigns told The Sunday Telegraph: “What can I say? ‘Welcome to Washington, Mr President’.

But my favorite part is:

“The Obama people like a scrap, they’ve proved that throughout the year, none more than the president. But they know they’re in a fight now. And it probably won’t let up for eight years.”

… and it might not let up for FOUR years. Remember that the number four comes before eight? What if Obama only makes four years? Is the position and/or duration of Presidential duties already decided in advance?

Barack Obama picks a fight with Rush Limbaugh as bipartisan spirit crumbles – Telegraph.

The editors of a Belgian television website have massive quantities of egg on their faces.

After declaring that Queen Fabiola of Belgium had died, the website quickly withdrew the story, blaming a “publishing error”.

“This was human error. We are very sorry and our online news team has sent an apology to the royal family,” said a spokeswoman for the Flemish VRT television website.

The queen – who had surgery to correct a thyroid problem earlier this month – was diagnosed with pneumonia and is currently in a “serious but stable” condition.

Queen Fabiola Facts:

Consort to the late King Baudouin of Belgium
Aunt to Crown Prince Phillipe
Elected to be sedated using hypnosis during her recent surgery
Her godmother was Queen Victoria Eugenia of Spain
The Queen was born Fabiola de Mora y Aragón, a daughter of the Marquess of Casa Riera, 2nd Count of Mora