Charles and his therapist

[Curryong]

I got this from Robert Jobson Twitter. It's a DM story but it tells the story of Charles being treated by a therapist, Alan McGlasshon, during the unhappy days of his marriage. He was a very close friend of Laurens van der post, Charles's mentor. There are some fascinating bits and pieces in here about how Charles's treatment ended and of what Van der Post thought of Charles.

Charles is 'starved of affection'

[royalanthropologist]

That story pretty much debunks that ridiculous conspiracy theory that Charles authorized the DM to release his first wife's medical records in order to make himself look good. The latest article is yet another exercise in invading people's privacy but this time it is Charles. Typical of DM to spread the hate around.  Still the numpties on the DM are going on about how bad Camilla was irrespective of the article. Seriously, some people need help.

[TLLK]

^^^Someone has likely made a tidy sum by sharing this old correspondence with the media.

[sandy]

The article is sympathetic to Charles, the poor Charles and how he suffered spin.  Both those articles about medical records could be pulled at the royals' request. It still violates privacy rights. Van Der Post had a not so tidy private life.

[TLLK]

^^^But that takes time @sandy. :shrug: They(Charles/Diana's heirs-William/Harry) would still have to file with the appropriate oversight groups (ie: Press Recognition Panel) to make their protest known. Removing the articles would not happen overnight either.  Also the DM can claim that it has the right to publish the information because it is not their actual medical files.  I certainly agree that it is not pleasant to read, but it is possible that the palace would prefer not to draw attention to these stories  and would like to let them just die.

UK Press Regulation is under review in the UK following on from the Leveson Inquiry. A series of public hearings were held throughout 2011 and 2012, looking at recommendations for a new, independent, body to replace the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).

A new body was set up, called The Press Recognition Panel. It is an independent body set up to judge whether press regulators meet the Royal Charter Criteria, as recommended in the findings of the Leveson Inquiry. Also the UK Government has a new law that has not yet been activated. This rule is under Section 40, Crime and Courts Act 2013, which says that non Royal Charter regulated publishers must pay both sides' costs even if they win libel and privacy cases. [10]

In 2016 UK had two new regulatory bodies, Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and IMPRESS. IMPRESS is the only one of these formally backed by the Press Recognition Panel.

The application by IMPRESS to become the UK's first state approved press regulator was approved and it was granted a Royal Charter in October 2016.[11] That means all members of Impress will now be immune from exemplary damages in libel and privacy cases and from the cost shifting element of the Crime and Courts Act if it ever comes into force.

[sandy]

Charles was able to stop a BBC Documentary which did not show him in a favorable light. ( I don't know if it ever aired).

BBC postpones broadcast of film about Prince Charles?s former spin doctor | UK news | The Guardian

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

idk if it was seen on UK tv, but its widely available on youtube, etc. but given the way the UK freaked out over the stuff in the US docs on Diana that they just saw this year, if it wasnt on tv, a lot of the UK didnt see it, it seems.

[TLLK]

Charles was able to stop a BBC Documentary which did not show him in a favorable light. ( I don't know if it ever aired).

BBC postpones broadcast of film about Prince Charles?s former spin doctor | UK news | The Guardian

That was possible because there would have been advanced notice that the film was coming out. A newspaper article would be different as your first notice might be just 24 hours or less. Papers are trying to "scoop" their competitors.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Does anyone in the UK back when it was due to come out remember if it aired?? I also can imagine it was axed, as it talks a lot in the second part of both the RF and the BBC axing a doc on Diana that was basically going to be the one that was recently aired with the settlen tapes in the uk (not the Nat Geo one).

as well as the BBC not wanting to rock the boat post panorama and losing access to the Queens xmas message, etc.

If it hasnt gone out boy the UK is in for another shock.

[FanDianaFancy]

His records, Ds too...no of theirs should be made public. Their docs should not be talking to the media about what treatments were used, why, etc.

[TLLK]

^^^I agree @FanDianaFancy , but technically they (the press) are not releasing the actual medical records so they have some wiggle room. And they'll use any wiggle room they have to sell more papers or earn more clicks.

[royalanthropologist]

That BBC documentary was pulled because of copyright photographs which the palace refused to release. Charles insists that he will not give interviews to hostile media and must pre-approve any questions given to him. Of course the Republicans complain that he is trying to control the press when he protects himself. Harry got the same response when he did a press plea for Meghan. It is far better to let DM wallow in its hate and conspiracy theories than correcting them every time they do something against the rules.


This story debunks that outrageous accusation that it is Charles who authorized the original story. It is the typical knee jerk reaction of people who dislike Charles that no slander about him is too outrageous for them to believe. Anything good about Charles is a PR exercise planted by the palace and everything written bad about him must be true.  You can't get through such people. Better to ignore them.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Well that sounds like a typical palace/Charles move, what were they worried about, losing out on some royalties from the use of the offending copyrighted images? Both parts are not very flattering to him, especially the second part.

If ppl were upset over the settlen tapes being broadcast in Britain, theyd be even more upset over the fact they were planned to be broadcast 10 years earlier but the kibosh was put on them by the BBC and their ineptitude (original fake news) of them showing the Queen supposedly storming out in a huff, when they had used the fottage of her going in, and made it look like her leaving.

[sandy]

I think the article plays up Charles as a victim. But unlike Diana, Charles is alive to defend himself.

[TLLK]

^^^IMVHO anyone regardless if they're a private citizen or public figure who has their information regarding their physical and mental health released without their permission is the victim of a gross invasion of privacy. IMO this makes both the PoW and the late Diana,  Princess of Wales victims of this type of privacy breach.

[royalanthropologist]

Hmmm...unless an article is completely anti Charles and pro Diana it cannot be true to some people. It must be some palace PR that decided it was a wonderful idea to invade Charles' privacy by releasing his medical records.

Like I have said before, those that do not like Charles will never be convinced that he is anything but bad. It is no good trying to change their minds. I just wanted to highlight the fact that it was a nonsense to say that he must have approved an article.

[amabel]

^^^IMVHO anyone regardless if they're a private citizen or public figure who has their information regarding their physical and mental health released without their permission is the victim of a gross invasion of privacy. IMO this makes both the PoW and the late Diana,  Princess of Wales victims of this type of privacy breach.

TLLK!!  it is only invasion of privacy if it happens to Diana! 

[sandy]

Diana is dead and can't defend herself. It can't "happen" to her since she's dead.

[TLLK]

TLLK!!  it is only invasion of privacy if it happens to Diana! 

I do need to remember this @amabel! :nod: