That naughty little sister

Princess Margaret

Backside’s a shameless name-dropper, so when he saw today’s headline about Princess Margaret (a lunch companion many incarnations ago) he insisted I should mention that the good lady was famous for putting it about a bit (and not just the smoke from her ever-present cigarette holder). So maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that a chap in Jersey claims to be her secret son.

One question is: why should HM the Queen’s loyal subjects not be allowed know the contents of her sister’s last will and testament?  Surely in anno domini 2012 it can’t be such a problem to reveal facts about the royals’ historical behaviour (if the will is thought to be a ‘kiss and tell’ account)? Pretending to be above suspicion is hardly a trait to be waved about like a flag of convenience.

Any how! Here’s the case for the prosecution:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/11/accountant-princess-margaret-secret-son

 

Author: Janus

Hey! I'm back ...... and front

6 thoughts on “That naughty little sister”

  1. Robert Brown sounds a little obsessive to me. Wills are not normally used to disclose the birth of children – illegitimate or otherwise. And there is nothing odd about a child being registered some 3/4 weeks after the birth.

    I’m quite sure that Margaret did, as you so delicately said. ‘put it about a bit’! But, she was no fool and there’s no doubt that she didn’t marry her first love, Peter Townsend, because it would almost certainly jeopardise her standing with the ‘Establishment’ and her place in the Succession.

    I also have no doubt that, had she become pregnant, there would have any number of Royal Physicians ready to solve her ‘little’ problem discreetly without any need for her to give birth and have the child adopted in Nairobi

    Nonetheless, I do agree with your sentiments that Royal wills should be public documents as they are for the rest of the population. Even as a confirmed monarchist, I don’t think that anyone should be ‘above the law of the land’ – Royal or otherwise…

    … we did, after all, chop off the head of one guy who thought he should be exempt from the laws that governed everyone else.

  2. Boa, the royals could of course put this to bed , as it were, by stating that Margaret did not give birth to a child at the alleged time and place. But their old adage about never complaining or explaining prohibits such asolution.

  3. Madge was a nasty piece of work,

    She would regularly pick a serviceman up on his kit on parade. A move which would virtually guarantee a total stop on his career progression.

  4. I may be prejudiced but the Windsors seem to me to include more than their fair share of oafs and bounders of all genders.

  5. Janus, tis all the inbreeding, weakens the strain and the mind.
    Must say the idea of her having a kid is remote, after all not easy to conceal a growig belly. Now paternity is another matter and we only have to look at Harry to see where he came from.

  6. Rick, I don’t think that in the ’50s it was so hard for royals to go off the radar for a few months.

Add your Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s