Charles' 69th birthday-A mini biography

FanDianaFancy · November 22, 2017, 07:58:50 PM

A mini bio of PCharles would have to mention his first wife, the mother of the heirs and PWs children.
That would be Diana.

A mini bio would not have to go into detail about their bad times, divorce issues, etc.

A mini bio like this of PC would have one sentence about Diana.

Mini biography.

She lived. She birthed the two heirs. She is never going away or will be erased, faded from history.

PD is a third person NOW in PCs and Camillas? marriage.

royalanthropologist · November 23, 2017, 06:38:02 AM

Diana ceased to be a part of Charles' life in 1996. That is what divorce means. You are not married and are not obligated to one another. The only thing that united them was the children and those are covered in the biography. Nobody has ever raised questions about whether or not the children should be included in the biographies.

The question is whether or not to include a rehash of the war of Walesses. I say it is totally inappropriate to talk about such stuff on Charles' birthday. Diana will always be mentioned as his first wife whom he divorced but that is just the sum of it as far as Charles is concerned on his birthday.

Of course if you are writing a hostile biography then you may want to bring in all the nasty stuff of his first marriage. I think the person that is writing about Charles on this occasion is not looking to write a nasty biography. Only sick obsessed people give that as birthday presents to others.

sandy · November 23, 2017, 07:08:48 AM

So who appeared with Charles during William's confirmation event? Surely not Camilla. She and Charles did not divorce the children, they shared custody and she would appear at events involving them (see references to divorce settlement). No that is not what "divorce means" to bar the mother and ex wife from events involving children. That would never have happened.

What concerns Charles on his birthday is known only to him.

So Junor must have written hostile biographies because she goes over the divorce and problems chapter and verse of course blaming Diana for it all.

And Junor must be obsessed since she put out the biography of Camilla around Diana's birthday. Must have been nice for William and Harry.

royalanthropologist · November 23, 2017, 09:53:21 AM

Diana is no longer a part of Charle's life. She is not really relevant to his birthday apart from a passing reference that he was once married to her. That is what this sensible biographer has done and it is entirely appropriate. You are the one trying to rope Diana's issues where they are not relevant.

Now you are off into Junor: Wth does she have to do with this?

Then this weird sedgway into Camilla and William's confirmation: Again wth does that have to do with anything? Why would Camilla want to attend that confirmation at that time?

Who barred Diana from events? Weird

sandy · November 23, 2017, 12:33:59 PM

She is dead now. I was talking about the year after the divorce which was an indication of her involvement with their sons at royal events.

No I am not the one trying to rope DIana's issues where they are not relevant.Your words not mine.

Junor is a biographer, you complained about biographers who mentioned the events re:the divorce. I pointed out that she did.

I am not sure what you mean by out of Charles' life? After she died (well she is dead now) or after the divorce? You said she was ousted from the royal family,

No not weird.

royalanthropologist · November 23, 2017, 12:50:52 PM

The weirdness is about roping in people and event that have nothing to do with Charles 69th birthday e.g. Williams' confirmation, penny Junor, parental rights, Diana?

Diana is no longer part of Charles' life. Her place in a summary biography of his 69th birthday is very minor and could be reduced to one or two sentences.

sandy · November 23, 2017, 12:57:56 PM

It is not weirdness just because you think it is.

It is a fact that Diana was not ousted from Charles life after the divorce. Since they were co-parents. The pattern was set after the divorce and would have continued had DIana not died at a young age. It was all in the divorce terms. Airbrushing Diana out of Charles' life because he might be "upset" is not the way biographers operate. Junor DID go to the nitty gritty of his life with Diana as did other biographers. ANd no they did not "minimize" Diana or try to airbrush her out. The books would have been panned if they had a "she who will not be mentioned" attitude.

Parental rights, Penny Junor, William's confirmation, 69th birthday are all part of Charles' life. Of course they are relevant.

Diana IS a part of Charles life because William and Harry both are in possession of BOTH Charles and Diana's DNA. They did not spring from Prince CHarles' head. They had a mother. And a father.

royalanthropologist · November 23, 2017, 01:07:21 PM

All completely irrelevant to Charles 69th birthday and the subsequent mini-biography. If you want to get saturated with Diana-related stuff, there is plenty on offer. This occasion or mini-biography is not it.

Not everything that Charles does is about Diana. Quite weird to be trying to rope a dead ex wife into someone's 69th birthday, over 20 years since that person died and was divorced from him. Quite weird IMO.

These sedgways into DNA and shared custody don't make sense to me. They have no relevance to the topic or event.

Divorce means you are separate from the other person. They are not part of your life and it would be entirely inappropriate for them to show up at your events or be included in your subsequent birthday, particularly if the marriage was as unhappy as the C&D fiasco. That in no way diminishes each of your parental rights. It only means you meet to discuss things related to the children.

By this time Diana would be a 50-something woman. I cannot conceive any rational reason why she would be invited to or mentioned in Charles 69th birthday celebrations. it is not about the children. The children are grown and leading their own lives. C&D would nothing in common after that save for maybe events involving the grand children or weddings of the children.

sandy · November 23, 2017, 01:16:14 PM

Royal you can continue to make the comments about irrelevancy and it STILL does not make it true. Oh yes it is very very relevant.

The two boys are Charles AND Diana's sons not merely Charles sons. And that is a fact. SO yes, it is about Diana that he had those two children. He could not get himself cloned. Yes, they have plenty of relevance to the topic.

Divorce does not mean total separation when there are children involved. The parents unless one deserts the family are involved in the upbringing. That is a fact.

How happy or unhappy the marriage is does not erase that the couple brought two children into the world that they are responsible for co-parenting.

It IS about the children. When William and Harry are in their 80s Diana still would be their mother and Charles their father.

It would be rude, irrational, weird, and irrelevant for the royals to totally exclude DIana from any event involving her children and grandchildren and not only weddings: christenings, birthdays, graduations, engagements and so on and so on.

royalanthropologist · November 23, 2017, 01:28:03 PM

You say:

"It IS about the children"

Nope. It is about Charles 69th birthday.

sandy · November 23, 2017, 01:45:33 PM

Yes, it's about the children who are mentioned in ALL his biographies. And it's about the biography for Charles' 69th birthday. Notice title says "mini-biography."

TLLK · November 25, 2017, 02:22:25 AM

Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 20, 2017, 07:22:15 PM
Well they are definitely not co-parents today. All that ended in 1996 (over twenty years ago btw). I see no practical need for a birthday summary biography to start mulling over that mess of a marriage and yes it was most definitely a mess. That was an unhappy time and the less said about it to Charles, the happier he is in my view. Far better to make a brief mention of the marriage and divorce before moving on to happier times. Clearly this particular biographer agrees with me.

@royalanthropologist-I was curious to read what other divorced monarchs have in their official mini-biographies on their court's websites. The most recent divorced/widowed and remarried monarch that I could recall was the late King Hussein of Jordan.

Here was the paragraph regarding his marital life and children from his official mini-bio. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/biography.html

QuoteKing Hussein married Queen Noor on June 15, 1978. They have two sons -Hamzah and Hashem- and two daughters -Iman and Raiyah. His Majesty is also survived by three sons -Abdullah, Faisal and Ali- and five daughters -Alia, Zein, Aisha, Haya and Abeer- from three previous marriages. Toward the end of his life, King Hussein became the proud grandfather of a growing number of grandchildren.

I found it interesting that at the time it was written, only his then wife/widow Queen Noor and the names of his children was mentioned. His former wives: Queen Dina (divorced), Princess Muna-mother of the current King Abdullah II (divorced) and Queen Alia (died in a helicopter crash) are not recorded by name. The late King's current mini-bio does not refer to his personal life at all, though in King Abdullah's bio, the names of both of his parents-Hussein and Princess Muna is included.

So here we have an example in which authors of the mini-biographies do not always feel it necessary to include the names of previous spouses. Fortunately this is not the case with the Prince of Wales who did require that his ex-wife was mentioned. :)

royalanthropologist · November 25, 2017, 05:55:15 AM

I agree entirely with you @TLLK. It is about good taste, moving on and not gratuitously aggravating your subject. Like I have said, this is a happy time and there is no need to go into the mistakes of the past on this particular occasion.

sandy · November 25, 2017, 12:40:55 PM

Quote from: TLLK on November 25, 2017, 02:22:25 AM
@royalanthropologist-I was curious to read what other divorced monarchs have in their official mini-biographies on their court's websites. The most recent divorced/widowed and remarried monarch that I could recall was the late King Hussein of Jordan.

Here was the paragraph regarding his marital life and children from his official mini-bio. Biography - His Majesty King Hussein bin Talal

I found it interesting that at the time it was written, only his then wife/widow Queen Noor and the names of his children was mentioned. His former wives: Queen Dina (divorced), Princess Muna-mother of the current King Abdullah II (divorced) and Queen Alia (died in a helicopter crash) are not recorded by name. The late King's current mini-bio does not refer to his personal life at all, though in King Abdullah's bio, the names of both of his parents-Hussein and Princess Muna is included.

So here we have an example in which authors of the mini-biographies do not always feel it necessary to include the names of previous spouses. Fortunately this is not the case with the Prince of Wales who did require that his ex-wife was mentioned. :)

It's odd because Queen Alia got much news about her when she died in the crash. And when he courted Noor, the stories would mention Alia as the wife who tragically died.

TLLK · November 25, 2017, 07:32:04 PM

^^^@sandy-Yes I agree that Alia's tragic death did receive wide coverage, but when it came time to write King Hussein's official mini-bio, she and her predecessors (Dina and Muna) aren't even mentioned by name. :no: