a very unflattering portrait of the Queen Mother by Johann Hari in today's Independent.

Coinciding with the new biography by William Shawcross, it makes pretty shocking reading if it's all true.

* The Queen Mother had a staff of 83... 83???

* She was obsessed by bloodlines, believeing a good bloodline made you superior.

* She did all she could to bolster the apartheid regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia. Journalist Paul Callan, who knew her, was quoted as saying "she is not fond of black folk"

and there is more in the article.

www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentato...a-tiara-1792793.html

If it's all true, it makes the British people seem rather stupid for fawning over her, thinking she was such a sweet woman.

I never really liked her. Although probably not fair to make a judgement on looks, as she fleetingly appeared once a year to tip her head to one side and flash a mouthful of blackened ivory.

From what I have read about her she did all she could to make Diana feel mostly uncomfortable; stories of her gazing most dissaprovingly at the young Princess over the family silver at dinner at Balmoral. Onlookers decribed it as a chilling' stare that could have curdled cream at ten paces.

A forboding woman, perhaps, or perhaps simply wanting to keep the paparazzi and the media from intruding and stomping roughshod over the good name of her family?

Diana was 'glamour' personified and unlike Margaret (that other glampuss Royal) she was always going to be deeply mistrusted by the Queen Mother.

A 'sweet little old lady'? Nah!

Her persona was a media creation,even spitting image took its time before doing her.
To my mind she was a woman of her generation,and thought processes to match.
Bit like Dianna,both were considered a bit 'above' the usual royal fray.

I only met her once, taking a friend for tea at the Ritz; as we started going up the steps outside, we were politely requested to wait and down she came, aged about 100, smiling sweetly, looking straight into my eyes and said "hello".

I thought she was terrific and contributed enormously to the spirit in the war.

But yes, very much a person of that era.

It always needs one nasty spiteful old queen to recognise another one and Johann Hari fits the bill perfectly

JK is right. she was a symbol of an era now gone and meant a lot to millions of people, unlike that hateful little creep Johann Hari

I think "off the era"puts it about right. And her attitude during WW2 shouldn't be forgotten as it did bolster people's spirits.

I think her daughter has eclipsed her in being able to keep the people with Royalty apart from the dreadful slip-up just after Diana's death but I reckon that was down to advisers.

But that quote is too delicious .."Alf Garnett in a tiara"

My late grandmother was just the same, but it was plain old fashioned ignorance belonging to a bygone age. It doesn't make them racist in the modern sense. Old conditioning is difficult to break free from. I did meet the Queen Mother once and she was a truly sweet lady, but she did have a very strict, uncompromising loyalty to both her nation and her family. Book are generally written from one person's viewpoint and so give a narrow glimpse into someone's life. There is always far more to people than any book can ever tell us.

perceived racist views can be odd.

My mum was a Polish Jew who escaped the Nazis yet she had a thing about 'black' people and Asians.

Here she was living in country she really should have been so grateful for accepting her yet she could knock other races for perceived 'faults' that apparently every single member had...yet..put her out in the public and on the bus next to a black lady and she was as nice as pie..and if a black neighbour was in trouble she was first there to help.

I put it down to a common trait amongst many-when you've had a hard time it's easy to find someone else you perceive as lower down the social scale.

Intellectually I'm a republican and Willie Hamilton was always right-the Royal Family are just a bunch of scroungers. Romantically I reckon Britain would have collapsed long ago without them and they are like the glue that holds the place together.

I always thought Lord Manny Shinwell was right...socialist through and through to his very core but adored the Royals.

Just out of curiosity, what is intellectual about Republicanism. If the Royal Family are indeed the glue that holds this nation together, then why would intelligent people think we'd be better off without them? Why would a President who needs to compromise to win votes every four years provide more stability than a constant, non political, Head of State?

We are a very small nation who stand out because of the unique status of our Monarchy. With a mere politician in charge we'd soon be lost among the other small nations. Insignificant in our ordinaryness. The Royal family are our leading ambassadors on the world stage. Many truces and agreements would never have been possible without them.

Even once she'd turned 100, the Queen Mother was a major influence across the globe. This takes a lifetime of devotion which few people are capable of.

I didn't say republicanism was 'intellectual'-I am referring to my own thinking in that the Royals are nothing but a bunch of sroungers who cost a fortune and for that matter the entire aristocracy is a completely bogus concept.

These are things that have nothing to do with achievement -just privilege and in most cases, straight out theft that is passed down the line.

And a Republic is as close to a true democracy as one can get.Which doesn't mean it always works as in the USA being the great example which has only 2 very similar parties to choose from.

Call me a hypocrite but I do see that the Royal family are a great benefit...then again, who knows how Britain may have gone if they'd all been run out of town centuries ago !

The longest serving monarch-the King of Thailand commands almost universal respect in his country and runs on a fraction of the cost of the British Royal family.

then again-they don't do grand splediforous events like the Brits do which are truly magnificent even when it's just that old dope Fergie marrying into the Windsors.

Our monarchy was run out of town centuries ago, but the people were so miserable under the British Republic that they invited the monarchy back as soon as they were able. We've been there and done that. We don't really want to go there again, thanks. Australia can go republic if it chooses. Leave us Brits to enjoy our own system.

yes Madam..will do.

Actually with dual citizenship I get the best of both and I don't believe Australia will be a republic for a long time yet.

We get to bask in the glow of Royalty without the cost except for a Governor General who at the moment is a very nice lady..and costs little.

In fact I think the Commonwealth should be strengthened and Dame Edna Everage should be the next Governor General.