Queen Mum's Words Shed New Light On Royals

(CBS)  A biography out Friday gives a unique glimpse into what is, as CBS News Correspondent Elizabeth Palmer puts it, "at once Britain's most public, and most private family."

At the core of William Shawcross' "The Queen Mother: The Official Biography" are letters from the "Queen Mum" herself, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.

She was, says Palmer, one of the most beloved, visible, yet discrete members of the British Royal Family.

From the darkest days of World War II, when she toured bombed-out London with her husband, King George VI, to her well-publicized visits to Britain's racetracks, she was ever the gracious matriarch, Palmer points out.

Bowes-Lyon, daughter of a Scottish earl, loved country life, Palmer adds, famously enjoyed a drink -- or three -- and was a faithful letter writer, recording her thoughts on more than 70 years of public life.

The letters were, Palmer observes, remarkably frank in places.

For example, on the abdication of King Edward VIII to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson, she wrote, "He must have been bemused with love, I suppose. You couldn't reason with him. Nobody could."

But on one of the most contentious, and interesting, chapters of Royal life, Lady Diana's rocky marriage to Prince Charles, there is very little: Revealing letters from Diana to the Queen Mother were destroyed by Princess Margaret.

"As a historian, obviously, it's a pity," Shawcross told CBS News, "because history loses. Bit, as an ordinary person, I can sympathize with anybody wanting to destroy letters that they thought were hurtful or about other members of their family."

Still, says Palmer, the book contains plenty more of the thoughts and deeds of a woman who was as remarkable as she was privileged until her death at 101 in 2002, despite a lack of any stunning revelations.

[imprisoncheney]

When I first read about this book on The Guardian's website, I was surprised.

I never knew this about her. I know that for years, the royals have been off-limits for Fleet Street, so this was interesting.

It's also interesting to read the comments of UK citizens -- which seem to be about evenly split.

What's the truth?

[stuart-johns]

Ask Princess Margaret.

[gmpratt]

The copy in the sidebar calls her Queen Elizabeth I.

[kmccdoc]

So it does. However QEI reigned from 7 September 1533 ? 24 March 1603, whereas Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother was not a Queen Regnant, just a Queen Consort and therefore does not get a roman numeral after her name.

[stn_sage]

Oh, honestly! Get real! The English monarchy has---for hundreds of years---been one of the most corrupt ruling bodies in human history!

In this very article, the destruction of letters from Diana to the Queen by Margaret, is cited as an example of how the Monarchy erases TRUE history to present or preserve a FALSE one to the public!

Until, the British media and public STOP putting the monarchy on a pedestal, it will remain as it is, a corrupt political entity!

[thomderr1]

Erasing true history?

Richard Nixon had the Queen Mother beat on that point.

[stn_sage]

nonewsday:

My, my, aren't we touchy! Why do YOU defend the monarchy when they hurt the people of Great Britain?!

FYI, I'm interested, but not concerned what they do! They are PUBLIC FIGURES---and as such---fall under EVERYONE'S scrutiny---so 'shove it'
friend!

thomderr1:

Yep! They've both done a pretty good job I'd say! But is erasing true history to hid your deceit, lawlessness, and/or criminality, ever good?!
Not really!!

[SadMomTX]

In all of the world, the Queen Mum was history's most elegant example of courage, of duty to humanity, of family values and public life, and will always remain as the highest standard of what is a civilized society. People do not try to be beautiful today. She was a beautiful person, most especially to those who most value what is civil. ~A.L. Lamar