Posted by Damian
on 26/9/2009, 17:33:44, in reply to "Re: A different view on "eveyone's favourite granny""
195.93.21.99
Two contrasting reviews of Shawcross's book from Friday's Independent,reflecting two startlingly different views of the late Queen Mother :
Matthew Denison:
"Elizabeth's willingness to smile for ordinary people – and to do so both naturally and apparently sincerely – represents a minor revolution. It was a symbol of her ability to reach out and forge connections with those she had never met and would never know, part of a broader warmth which she deployed, for example, in the service of Britain's war effort. In Shawcross's reckoning, her radio broadcast to the women of America and conquest by charm of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt contributed to the States' eventual willingness to enter the war."
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/queen-elizabeth-the-queen-mother-by-william-shawcross-1792700.html
Johann Hari:
"She believed Britain's class system reflected a natural hierarchy, and the people below her creamy, upper tier were inferior. She told Wyatt: "I hate that classlessness. It is so unreal." At first, she was appalled by the idea of her eldest daughter marrying Phillip Mountbatten because his "bloodlines" weren't good enough: his family had fallen from power, so they weren't "really" royal. When Diana Spencer started hugging Aids victims and lepers, Elizabeth was disgusted. When Diana started rebelling, Elizabeth announced to friends that the girl was "schizophrenic", but she was bemused because Diana came from "a good family". The rest of us, by implication, come from "bad families", where you would expect schizophrenia and other lower-class disorders."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-gin-servants-and-bloodlines-for-royaltys-alf-garnett-in-a-tiara-1792793.html