Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Queen Mum not all she was made out to be
Sydney Morning Herald ^ | April 2 2002 | Gerard Henderson

Posted on 04/01/2002 6:56:17 AM PST by dead

Never let the facts get in the way of a good send-off - especially if you're a loyal monarchist, writes Gerard Henderson.

Christopher Skase and his ilk aside, these days the dead get a pretty good send-off. Obituaries seem to occupy more space than used to be the case - perhaps reflecting the aging of the population in most Western nations.

In fact, celebrities seldom enjoy so much fame as when they make the "recently departed" list. So it came as no surprise the Queen Mother (nee Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon) achieved wall-to-wall publicity following her death at age 101 last weekend. This was accentuated by the fact that her passing occurred during the traditionally quiet news period over Easter.

The Queen Mother was among the most well-known people of the 20th century. She was remarkably popular in Britain as well as within many Commonwealth nations and the United States. She lived to a grand age without upsetting too many people. In any event, at 101 she had outlived any personal enemies by at least a generation. Little wonder that she joins the famous dead as a recipient of both praise and fawning. Fair enough.

The Queen Mother had her good points. Yet like all of us, born after The Fall, she was by no means perfect. However, you would scarcely recognise this when reading - or listening to - the news coverage over the past few days. With, no doubt, much more of the same to come.

Two comments come to mind. On Sky News Australia on Sunday, monarchist David Flint praised the Queen Mother for her stance during World War II (as Queen Elizabeth), making the point that between 1939 and 1941, Britain and the leading Commonwealth nations stood alone against Hitler and Nazi Germany - and indicated that she played a unifying role at the time. Fellow monarchist Kerry Jones praised the Queen Mother for her role as grandmother in holding the royal family together. Understandable adulation, to be sure. But what about the facts?

These days the Queen Mother and her late husband, George VI, are most often praised for rallying the British during World War II. There was the courageous Winston Churchill (as prime minister) and the King and Queen standing up against the might of Nazi totalitarianism. The task was even more difficult due to the fact that, during the early part of the war, Germany was in an alliance with the Soviet Union and the US was neutral.

The plot is accurate enough. But some of the actors are miscast. The King and Queen are famous today for the role during World War II only because their advice was rejected by a majority of British politicians. The fact is that in the late 1930s George VI and his wife were among the main cheerleaders in favour of Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasing Hitler. Had the monarchy's advice been accepted, the Nazis would have conquered continental Europe. The full (sorry) tale is spelt out by Andrew Roberts in his book Eminent Churchillians.

In recent days old footage has been shown of the King and Queen on the Buckingham Palace balcony with Churchill welcoming the end of the war in Europe in 1945. Fine pictures, indeed. There is, however, another Buckingham Palace balcony film which is rarely shown today. It depicts the King and Queen with Chamberlain on his return from the 1938 Munich conference. As Roberts said, this "was a gesture of royal approval" for Chamberlain's appeasement policy "which was as unmistakable as it was unconstitutional". The monarch is not supposed to take sides on contentious political issues, appeasement included.

The political leaders of the appeasement camp at the time were Chamberlain and Lord Halifax. When Chamberlain stepped down as prime minister in May 1940, the King and Queen let it be known that they favoured Halifax over Churchill. In Five Days in London: May 1940, John Lukacs said the Queen "disliked Churchill". The free world was fortunate the monarchy's strategic judgements and political preferences did not prevail.

The King was not very bright; he was a real live Bertie Wooster character out of a P.G. Wodehouse novel. The Queen, however, was very street smart. She was one of the first public figures in the 20th century to get into what has come to be called "spin" - well before the Kennedy family some decades later. Even today she is praised for remaining in London during the Blitz. In fact, the royal family retreated each night to Windsor Castle. The decision to avoid the German bombs was a sensible one. It's just that the mythology is in marked contrast to the documented facts.

Yet, for all her cleverness, the Queen Mother was just as flawed as her husband in assessing Hitler. As Andrew Roberts points out in his biography of Lord Halifax, titled The Holy Fox, in November 1939 she sent Halifax a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf. In her accompanying letter, the Queen Mother made reference to Hitler's "obvious sincerity". Really.

It's much the same with the Queen Mother as a family role model. It all sounds fine - until the facts are examined. For whatever reason, the Windsors are one of the more dysfunctional families in Britain. The maternal grandmother cannot fairly be blamed for this predicament. However, unlike Diana, she did not attempt to break away from the traditional royal manner of child rearing, where children saw little of their parents.

Also it is widely recognised that the Queen Mother seldom undertook a domestic chore in her life. She was dutiful in performing official tasks but for the rest, lived a life of indulgence. Sure, in life a well as in death, she was victorious. But let's save us from the all-too-familiar (post-mortem) hagiography.

Gerard Henderson is executive director of the Sydney Institute.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 04/01/2002 6:56:17 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dead
Sour Grapes.
2 posted on 04/01/2002 7:01:23 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
Also it is widely recognised that the Queen Mother seldom undertook a domestic chore in her life. She was dutiful in performing official tasks but for the rest, lived a life of indulgence..

Oh dear, what a revelation! She was British/Scottish 'royalty', born to wealth and priviledge. We can sneer and nit-pick at the old lady, but she was 101 years old at her death and such fault-finding, more than a half-century past the fact, is rather petty as it is tedious.

3 posted on 04/01/2002 7:02:24 AM PST by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
nil sed malum, Mordant, nil sed malum.
4 posted on 04/01/2002 7:02:25 AM PST by fsileeco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
This is what journalism is supposed to be. Its not Royal Family arse kissing. The guy even makes an allusion to the Kennedy spin machine. If only we had a few real reporters in the US instead of our flock of Columbia educated, pablum peddling, establishment worshipping drones.
5 posted on 04/01/2002 7:04:30 AM PST by StockAyatollah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott
Modern writing is full of revisionist history. I just chewed through a dreadful New Yorker article on Churchill that took the same slant...
6 posted on 04/01/2002 7:06:28 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dead
She lived to a grand age without upsetting too many people.

What's the definition of a pointless existence?
I think this is close.

7 posted on 04/01/2002 7:09:23 AM PST by Izzy Dunne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
Liberalism 101. Nothing and nobody should not be torn down. It is in the Liberal genes. Tear down the churches, tear down the Boy Scouts, tear down Mother Teresa, tear down the Royal Family, tear down businesses, tear down Thomas Jefferson, tear down the allied effort in WWII, tear down every civic instition not run by the state, tear down Bill Gates, tear down every tradition from Christmas to Columbus day, tear down everything noble and good and replace it with. . .er...well...something or other. They will get around to telling us what that something might be when they are finished wrecking everything.
8 posted on 04/01/2002 7:12:04 AM PST by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
It is unbecoming to speak ill of the deceased, especially the recently deceased.

Notwithstanding, one must understand that the English royal familiy is more German than English, and has been since the 18th century when the German House of Hannover was brought to the throne by Parliament. George I didn't even speak English. The revered Victoria's husband was Prince Albert von Saxe-Coeburg Gotha, as German as they come. Thus, Edward VII was fully half-German. Elizabeth II's husband Prince Phillip is a Mountbatten. The von Saxe-Coeburg Goth family changed its name to Windsor during WWI for political reasons, and the von Battenburg's became Mountbatten for the same reason. There were and are people with very deep ties in the German aristocracy.

9 posted on 04/01/2002 7:12:49 AM PST by CatoRenasci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dead
Boy talk about your cheap shots!

The King and Queen are famous today for the role during World War II only because their advice was rejected by a majority of British politicians. The fact is that in the late 1930s George VI and his wife were among the main cheerleaders in favour of Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasing Hitler.

This one bugs me the most. Most of England approved of Chamberlain's policy. Chamberlain returned to cheering crowds after he met with hitler. Most politicians approved of Chamberlain's policy. He could not have been their Prime Minister without their support.

But even if this attack was valid, think about what she is accused of? Not knowing how to respond to hitler. I guess that makes her like every other national leader at the time. (with the exception of Churchill, who was hostile to hitler even before he became the PM.) France didn't take hitler seriously until they were doomed. Chamberlain thought hitler could be dealt with by a treaty. So did Stalin. Even that evil Italian dictator(mental block) was tricked by hitler.

10 posted on 04/01/2002 7:14:53 AM PST by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
Excellent post.

It is a rare account of the 30s that accurately portrays Britain's social and political realities.

Churchill was in the wilderness, booed out of a lecture at Oxford where he said Hitler had to be confronted.

The Royals AND the American ambassador to the court of St. James, one Joseph Kennedy, were arch appeasers and defeatists.

Yet, in the glow of victory, the Royals are said to have stood up against the Nazis, and Joe Kennedy is barely a footnote in the nauseatingly fawning American histories that deified FDR.

11 posted on 04/01/2002 7:19:19 AM PST by NativeNewYorker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
It takes a special kind of person to offer up slime on someone just after they've died, even before they're planted. I remember when Conrad slimed Nixon on the day of his burial. In my opinion these types of articles say more about the writer than the target.

Life's too short to harbour this much hatred for someone. Give it a few weeks, or a month. Then remind the citizens if you must. At least it will come with less damage to yourself. People screw up in their lifetimes. Many thought Chamberlain was a great guy for making peace with Hitler. Personally I think he goes down as one of the major buffoons in history. But I'd give even him a few weeks before I'd start picking on the bones.

Only a buzzard could have written this pap.

Imagine, the Queen mum wasn't domestic. Oh my God!

12 posted on 04/01/2002 7:19:52 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Notwithstanding, one must understand that the English royal familiy is more German than English, and has been since the 18th century when the German House of Hannover was brought to the throne by Parliament.

Exactly, we Americans especially tend to forget how interconnected the European royal families were (are?).

13 posted on 04/01/2002 7:33:09 AM PST by Ward Smythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
The Queen Mum was on this earth for 101 years and this is it? This is the WORST of anything she did?

LOL! Desperate to say something nasty, I guess.

14 posted on 04/01/2002 7:40:53 AM PST by Dianna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
She lived to a grand age without upsetting too many people.

What's the definition of a pointless existence? I think this is close.

Should this become the test of a life well-lived, Marilyn Manson will be remembered as one of the luminaries of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

I pray that there is more to a worthwhile existence than tallying the people one has upset during a lifetime.

15 posted on 04/01/2002 7:48:44 AM PST by Denver Ditdat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sci Fi Guy
. As Andrew Roberts points out in his biography of Lord Halifax, titled The Holy Fox, in November 1939 she sent Halifax a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf. In her accompanying letter, the Queen Mother made reference to Hitler's "obvious sincerity". Really.

This amused me. The author seems to think "obvious sincerity" is some sort of sympathetic description of Hitler's book. I, on the other hand, think that if you take the phrase literally, it is not only accurate, but a proper foreboding: Hitler's writings were "obviously sincere", and as such needed immediate attention. Had the Queen Mother described him as "harmlessly deluded", she would have been inaccurate, and this author would have ripped her for that, too.

16 posted on 04/01/2002 7:50:24 AM PST by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dead
"...achieved wall-to-wall publicity following her death at age 101 last weekend.

Pretty big send-off for one who accomplished so much in only one weekend.

17 posted on 04/01/2002 7:51:04 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Denver Ditdat
I have a friend who says his elderly mother called the Queen Mother Elizabeth,,,,Betty Battenberg.
18 posted on 04/01/2002 7:54:37 AM PST by cajungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dianna
"The Queen Mum was on this earth for 101 years and this is it? This is the WORST of anything she did?"

Ditto!

She was beloved by her people, which was difficult considering the real heir abdicated the throne, and left Mum and hubby with a job for which he was ill suited and ill prepared.

Not a fan of royalty, but really......... Let her rest in peace.

19 posted on 04/01/2002 7:56:52 AM PST by joathome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dead
Royals pee in a pot just like the rest of us.
20 posted on 04/01/2002 7:59:47 AM PST by babylonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson