DUKE OF KENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 33, 9 February 1937, Page 9

DUKE OF KENT.

MALICIOUS RUMOURS. DENIAL IN LONDON PRESS. VISIT TO PHRENOLOGIST. Ludicrous and—to members of the Royal Family and Mrs. William Allen— "extremely painful" consequences have followed a chance visit paid by the Duke of Kent to a phrenologist in Fleet Street, according to the London "Evening Standard." The Duke, said the "Standard," on January 16, paid the visit on December 31 last, and he has since been the recipient of a flood of letters, most of them anonymous, describing the occasion in terms varying from crnde innuendo to open accusation. The writers appear to have accepted the visit to the phrenolodist as evidence of an illicit romance between the Duke and Mrs. Allen. "It is easy enough," said the "Standard," "to dismiss the writers of anonymous letters ae warped and ignorant persons; but it has been found that suggestions of the same kind are being made in the form of rumours which every 3ay gain wider circulation and assume more fantastic form. Rumour's latest guiee is that, in consequence of the Duke'a relationship with Mrs. Allen, divorce proceedings have already been instituted by her husband. These rumours are a classic example of that vilest of modern tendencies,, the falsification of the most ordinary happenings in the pureuit of gossip and scandal. The Truth. "For the last three years Mr. and Mrs. 'Bill' Allen have been living almost entirely in Ireland. On one of their rare visits to London Mrs. Allen, who ha 3 been a friend of the Duke's since his midshipman days, called at Belgrave Square in the afternoon to eee the Duchess and her newly-born daughter. She told the Duke that she had arranged to 'have her head read' at a phrenologist's. The Duke, unable to be with his wife between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. because her doctors prescribed complete rest in the afternoon, offered to drive Mrs. Allen to the place of her appointment, and on arriving there, acting , on a momentary impulse, had a consultation himself.

"The fact that the place was in Fleet Street, the heart of newspaper-land, buzzing at all hours with vigilant photographers and lynx-eyed reporters, ehows up the stories of a clandestine romance in their most absurd light. But the absurdity of the story does not relieve the pain and annoyance which its repetition must be causing to the Duke and to Mrs. 'Bill' Allen, whose marriage ie a model of happiness and devotion, as is that of his Royal Highness." Who Inspired the Denial? According to the "World's Press News," newspaper men throughout the country wondered why the denial of the rumours appeared first only in the "Standard;" In some quarters it has been stated that publication came as a direct result of moves in official quarters, but the more generally accepted solution is that the story was inspired by Lord Beaverbrook himself. "The facts are these:— "Following the Duke of Kent's visit to a phrenologist in Ludgate Circus with Mrs. Allen, the 'Evening Standard' published the same day a picture of the Duke arriving, scooped by Mr. E. Bacon, staff photographer. No other evening paper used the picture that day, but the following morning it appeared in a number of national dailies, the rights being sold by Topical Press. The 'Daily Express' asked next day in a bold headline, 'Who is Mrs. Allen?' and then went on to tell that she was the wife of Mr. William Allen, ex-M.P, for Belfast.

"At the time, it seemed that the readiness of some papers to report the visit showed evidence of a new policy towards the Monarchy, following the dismal events consequent on non-publica-tion of King Edward's romance with Mrs. Wallis Simpson." "Censorship is Bad." On the following Sunday the story was taken up by the "Sunday Express," the "Referee," "Reynolds News," and the "People." Most interesting of all was the "People's" treatment. "On New Year's Day," it is stated, "a national daily newspaper published a story headed 'Duke of Kent and Woman Friend Have Their Heads Read.' . . . The following day the same newspaper printed a story in its front page headed, 'Who is Mrs. Allen?" explaining that she was the wife of Mr. William Allen, a wealthy business man ... It also pointed out that Mrs. Allen, as Miss Paula Oellibrand, was London's most beautiful mannequin in 1922; and that 'as the Marquise de Casa Maury, she became one of the best-known figures in the social circle in which the Duke and Duchess of Kent move.'

"Last night a London evening newspaper under the same control as that of the daily paper published in its diary column a story about the 'painful' consequences to members of the Royal family caused by the silly reports . . . What the evening newspaper should have asked was: 'Who started these absurd rumours?' " Next day the "Daily Express" replied to the "People" in its leader column: — "The Tory (Sunday) twin of the Socialist (daily) newspaper attacks the 'Daily Express' because we printed the name of the Duke of Kent's companion on his recent visit to a phrenologist. The charge is that we started unfounded rumours. The 'Daily Express' printed the news. We learned something from suppressing news about the Duke of Windsor and Mrs. Simpson. . . Censorship of news is bad for the people. . . The story always creeps through. And it creeps in a distorted way. . . "The Scandinavian newspapers havp been publishing untrue and distressing stories of the Duke of Kent. It's better that' the British people get their news about the Royal family in British newspapers and not, like foreign goods, imported for consumption in cafes, clubs and pubs " "Intrusions into Privacy." The same.day "The Times" printed in its 'correspondence columns a letter from Mr. W. E. D. Allen, headed "Intrusions into Privacy." "In connection with the Press persecution initiated as the result of a casual and utterly harmless visit of my wife to* a phrenologist in company with a member of the Royal family," 4e wrote, "I should like to record the fact in your columns ' that my mother-in-law, an elderly lady in weak health, living alone, has been reduced to a state of nervous exhaustion by the relentless attentions of reporters both on the telephone and at her front door. I have now arranged for her protection and a warm reception for any further visitors." ' "If 'the liberty of the Press' in thi3 country," Mr. Allen added, "is to be expressed in the form of the persecution of individuals ... it is high time that measures were taken by Parliament to put some restraint upon a license which amounts to an intolerable and ever-growing scandal. Otherwise certain individuals, who have grown rich •upon the ruthless exploitation of other people's private lives, will find that they have come into conflict with men who are not in such a helpless position as some who have recently been tortured on the wheel of the Yellow Press."