To be honest WTM I only read a quarter of the article because whither what is written is true or not I don't like the way it is written and tend to agree with some of the comments listed below the article, it appears to me to be a rant by someone with an axe to grind.
As is often said on here, it is very easy to make sweeping allegations against someone but where is the evidence to support those allegations.
In this case he is, Hari attacks the Queen Mother and her Biographer but he does not give one piece of supporting evidence.
Elizabeth twice turned down George's marriage proposal, hardly consistent with Hari's claim of someone obsessed with marrying a 'Windsor'.
It has often been reported that the Queen Mother hated Edward VIII and Wallace Simpson because their decisions resulted in her husband, who was unprepared to be King, coming to the throne and that this hastened his death in 1952 at 57years old. Again inconsistent with Hari's claim of someone who "of plotted to force his abdication".
'Elizabeth's entry in Who's Who? falsely announced that they were dead'..I'm sure that was a genuine mistake on her part/ahem. This was commented on by much of the media when it occurred. On the whole I tend to side with Johann Hari but then again I have never liked the old bat and her dysfunctional brood much.