Snowdons' children not Royal, says Queen

Press, 5 October 1977, Page 8

Snowdons' children not Royal, says Queen

NZPA-Reuter London The Queen does not consider the children of Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon to be “Royal,” an English magazine claims, i In an article for : “Woman’s Own” magazine, ’the “Daily Mail” columnist, 1 Nigel Dempster, quotes the Queen as saying: “They are not Royal. They just happen to have me as an aunt.” The article disclaims theories that Princess Margaret’s friendship with Roddy Llewellyn v> as responsible

[for her marriage breaking I down. The final break came,' writes Dempster, over a cot-; tage in Sussex that Lord Snowdon was renovating. Princess Margaret wanted a, house elsewhere, and thecouple had a row. That was towards the end. of 1966, and shortly after-j wards Princess Margaretl began planning a home on [ the Caribbean island of Mustique. It was there she later [went on holiday with Roddy LlewellynA two-day reconciliation:

; I attempt in the Bahamas with (Lord Snowdon failed, and ,]she took her first holiday [without him in 1968. Though lithe Snowdons were then .'still outwardly united, their limarriage now was -: effectively over, writes , Dempster, and they had set lithe pattern for living apart. ] Dempster writes: “Tony : I would spend week-ends with ■his friends at Old House (his (country cottage in Sussex) 1 1. - . while Margaret would : stay with her usual circle or go home to the Queen : Mother, ,

I “Tony started to be seen with other women. Among I them a writer who, like iTony, contributed to 'Vogue.’ -Other girls at ‘Vogue’ would jalso accept Tony's invitations’ to lunch or dinner.” The article also claims that Lord Snowdon, while he was still Anthony Arm-strong-Jones, did not want a title. He eventually settled for an earldom with the name of Snowdon, and took the title. Viscount Linley, as ia secondary peerage for his iheir.