"The Queen Mother: The Official Biography" by William Shawcross (2009)
 

I just read that this bio is due to be released in the UK on September 18. I wonder if there will be any surprises. Of course, I'll be flipping forward to the parts on Wallis Simpson when I get mine.

.
.

The Queen Mother's private recorded thoughts to be published for first time - Telegraph

An article regarding the book. :flowers:

The Queen Mother: The Official Biography: Amazon.co.uk: William Shawcross: Books

Books: The Queen Mother: The Official Biography (Hardcover) by William Shawcross (Author)

You are able to pre-order it in the UK and America.

I will certainly be buying the book. :flowers:

I do hope it's rather more critical than relying on the Queen Mother's interpretation of events. I am curious as to whether there's some information as to whether she had hoped to marry the Prince of Wales (and thus had some ill-feeling toward Wallis as a result) and why there were only two children born of the marriage (okay, maybe a tasteless area but I have an "inquiring mind").

The only thing I've ever read on that subject was that George VI was not all that fertile because he'd had the mumps as a young man, which apparently can interfere.

I think the book sounds very interesting - I can't wait to hear her personal account on things.

Yes I tend to agree. It doesn't neccesarily mean it is the truth even if it is the Queen Mum's private recordings, it is her interpretation of the events which surrounded her life, her feelings and opinions

I also heard the mumps story and some story about fertility treatments.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Queen Mother was more Machiavellian than she is generally portrayed, but I don't think that's a bad thing. She lived through difficult times and was needed to bolster her husband. She probably would have made a great queen regnant if that had been her fate.

I'm suprised that the Queen gave interviews about her mother to Shawcross though I can understand the Prince of Wales doing so. Either way, I'm very excited about it - it's bound to be reliable and I'm sure fascinating.

What does "machiavellian" mean?

Cunning. And I agree with Iowabelle. She probably was. :flowers:

I think it would also be interesting to see what she had to say about the Charles and Diana debacle, and Camilla.

Cunning isn't necessarily a bad quality. I think she was a politician, a person who got things done without giving the impression of having done anything at all... cultivating the persona of the nation's granny gave her a lot of power behind the scenes. She was certainly the power in the family after her husband's death.

Yes I've always wondered how QEQM took the whole scandal. Yes cunning in a good way. She was definitely the head of the household after Bertie died. :flowers:

Good grief! Wherever did such a notion come from? I would have thought that they were polar opposites. :eek:

I have read that before she caught the less desirable Duke of York, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was trying to catch the attention of the PoW. When that didn't work out, she settled but was resentful of the lady who was eventually successful... hence the enmity toward Wallis. IMO that doesn't sound likely but it would be interesting to see if the question was asked of the QM.

I have read this many times. I have also read in more favorable portrayals that she turned down Bertie's earlier proposals because she did not want to live in a fishbowl lifestyle by marrying into the royal family. If that theory were true, then it is very contradictory the idea that she wanted to marry the heir to the throne. Again, I've heard both stories and I guess we'll never really know which one is true.

:previous: I don't know . . . if she was as Machiavelliian as some say I have no doubt she would have nailed that sucker loooooong before Wallis ship had sailed! :lol:

My money is on Bertie and the lifestyle they both obviously enjoyed right up to the abdication. :flowers:

I don't believe it either (and I doubt she would admit it if it were true). The Yorks really didn't participate in the splashy 1920s and 1930s society set, although the young Duchess did receive a lot of attention since she was the first young woman to marry into that generation of princes. My guess is she enjoyed the attention and the privilege but wanted to enjoy family life and her own agenda, whatever that was. I'm sure a lot of her energy was devoted to bolstering up her duke.

I think Queen Ingrid of Denmark was also the woman behind the man. She was called Queen of Spin. I have often read that Elizabeth Bowes Lyon wanted to hook the POW, yet she would have had to deal with his weakness for woman, and probably to deal with Wallis as a mistress. She was much happier with having Bertie faithful to her.

This is no biased view, but I think lady royals make better figureheads than those of gentleman. They exude a confident and reassuring presence, I believe. Nurturing, in a way.

I'll certainly read the book.

I can't wait to read this book. I think it'll be very interesting. There's so much we don't know about the older Royals because they lived in a time when the press wasn't so intrusive and they didn't give interviews.

Madame Royale I agree with you. I think women tend to have stronger characters and stay out of trouble (for the most part). :biggrin:

I don't think there's going to be anything about Wallis that isn't the usual party line. The Queen and Charles have read and approved the draft, and they wouldn't be thrilled about anything that doesn't show Mummie as the good guy in every respect.

Thanks for the reminder, though - I need to go and preorder it!