There’s been a lot of talk in recent weeks about Queen Elizabeth II’s legacy and what’s said about her legacy and who gets to curate information about her historic reign. Interestingly, a little while ago, there was a kerfuffle among historians about a footman being appointed to go through QEII’s personal letters and diaries. Paul Whybrew was one of QEII’s most trusted aides, and he was assigned the task of going through all of QEII’s written words. Historians are like: nope, he’s not qualified, you should get a historian to do it so that nothing gets destroyed or overlooked. I get that complaint, and I would have thought that they would simply dump everything into the archives and put a 100-year ban on ANYONE reading any of it. Speaking of, an official biography of QEII will be commissioned, except that King Charles will probably ensure that the biography will fail to include criticism of QEII’s heir.

It will be the most extraordinary biographical undertaking. The search is on to find a suitably eminent historian capable of writing Elizabeth II’s biography, with soundings currently being taken at the highest level. But many believe that such an intimate exploration of the late Queen’s innermost thoughts would not be welcomed by her eldest son and heir, who may prefer to kick the project into the long grass.

Robert Lacey, the royal historian, said: “Any serious book has to examine the more difficult aspects of the King’s relationship with his mother. That’s why I wonder whether it can possibly be published in his lifetime. The years of real crisis in the Queen’s reign revolved around the breakup of Charles’s marriage to Diana. There is the testimony of a private secretary that the Queen told Charles she wanted ‘nothing to do’ with Camilla – whom she described as ‘that wicked woman’ – and that Prince Charles himself was close to tears over this.”

He added: “I can’t see any way that the candid verdicts on Prince Charles among some very senior figures in the palace and No 10 during the monarchy’s dark days of the 1990s can possibly be published during his reign.”

There are several aspects of the project that could prove problematic for King Charles, events that can hardly be skirted over in an official biography. Chief among them is the breakdown of his own marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales but there is also the downfall of his younger brother, the Duke of York, and the noisy exit of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Other potentially sensitive topics include the late Queen’s opinions about her elder son’s lifestyle, his staff and spending habits. The Duke of Windsor’s dealings with the Nazis and Lord Mountbatten’s sexual preferences may also prove contentious.

One way of avoiding some of the more recent controversies in the shorter term would be to commission more than one volume. Some historians believe it could be divided by time, with the earlier part of her 70-year reign syphoned off to be published first. The project could also be split by theme, with separate volumes on the Commonwealth or the Queen’s love of horse racing, for example.

[From The Telegraph]

I’m sorry but it will be absolutely hilarious if Charles gives the go-ahead to an official biographer, demands a multi-volume biographical set, including one volume solely devoted to horses, and then makes the biographer completely blank out all of the Charles-critical information. Come on, no one will read any of that. Why would palace-authorized biographies even exist in the first place? This absolute groveling and sycophantic need for “access” to King Charles’s court, and then after they get access, they can’t use it to actually tell the truth about the Windsors. Anyway, I’m sure some sycophantic drivel will eventually be written and copies of the book will be carefully placed in the Buckingham Palace giftshop and that will be the end of that.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images, Instar.