The reason I keep referring to the single article in a newspaper is because it seems to be what you have based your entire position on. You keep quoting from an article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph on the 20th April 2006. In my view, it is accurate to describe that article as a hit piece. It was not accurate in describing the Queen's service.
I'm aware you've also quoted from Bradford's book - I would not call that a hit piece, but Bradford is very clear in stating she is only referring to the three week initial training course, and not the Princess' entire service. You're extrapolating that as if it was the entirety of her service which is simply not true.
I'm not relying on my imagination or speculations. I have seen Her Majesty's record from the Second World War and I have had some opportunity to discuss it with her.
I have demonstrated quite clearly in my posts here that I know more about all of this than you do. I know exactly what a counsellor of state is, unlike yourself who seems to think it's some massive duty that prevents a person doing anything else despite the fact that a number of counsellors of state have served in actual combat positions while being counsellors of state (Henry, Duke of Gloucester, George, Earl of Harewood, Andrew, Duke of York, and Prince Harry), as well as other war service while being counsellors of state (George, Duke of Kent). One was a counsellor of state while in Colditz as a Prisoner of War (George, Earl of Harewood) - which rather clearly demonstrates just how little a counsellor of state normally has to do in terms of helping to run Britain. Not to mention those who have served in a peacetime capacity in the military while being a counsellor of state - Edward, Duke of Kent; The Prince of Wales, and William, Duke of Cambridge). You think that Princess Elizabeth could not have served in the military because she was a counsellor of state - more counsellors of state have been in the military during their period as counsellor of state than not, in fact.
I also have shown I have a much better knowledge of the type of security that members of the royal family have than you do. You think they have convoys of bodyguards, the way your President does, when they generally only ever one guard in fact.
You know very little - but you've turned into some huge story in your own head. That's propaganda and that's what you read in the Daily Telegraph.
No you just keep saying nothing, you just keep hacking at it, and writing longer and more flowery posts to escape the simple facts and obvious truth.
The future Queen was not an actual real life, working truck driver, and sure wasn’t a mechanic, that is why every story is merely a repeat of the same general propaganda information.
*”“If it seemed like freedom to her, it was a sheltered one. While she was driven back to spend the night at Windsor, the other women slept in dormitory huts.”*
A three week course, largely separate from the other girls, maximum publicity, escorted back to the castle each day by war time security, then you have her suddenly joining the ranks and wheeling around delivering stuff as a truck driver, doing so well that she rises to Captain in a few months, she must have been quite the truck driver/mechanic, of course we can’t seem to find anything of all those truck driving exploits.
This kind of thing is ridiculous *”In terms of photographs, there are very few candid photographs of the young Princess and Queen because photographers did not take them, because newspapers would not buy them. Even at nineteen, the Princess was still legally a minor by the standards of the day and any photographer who invaded her privacy would have been treated with contempt by society at large.”*
My God that is laughable, the whole purpose of her becoming a uniformed officer on active duty was for the newsreels and photographs, she left as a Captain, the publicity was the entire goal, and yet you try that nonsense, you have no credibility.
Publicity and Propaganda was her purpose.