Dickie Arbiter's Book: on His Time w/Prince Charles, Diana & Other Royals

Started by Limabeany, August 03, 2014, 10:16:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

amabel

Quote from: cinrit on August 18, 2014, 10:56:44 PM
I think both books I read were eye-openers.

Cindy
which ones?  I haven't read all of Charles' bio just the Diana parts.. but there was nothing new in that really. He was trying to answer Dis' cirtiicisms of him, obviously and to insist that the marriage failure was there from very early on.. and that was hardly surprising.  It was a riposte to her book.. but hs troubles with his parents were hardly unknown to Anyone interested in the RF...And after that, he shut up.  I think he realised that he was not doing himself any favours by talking about his marriage or his problems.. so he gave up trying to rebut Diana.
but more and more, it seems to me, Diana "chattered on" to people after she'd done Diana HTS.  she talked to Settlen, she did the Panorama interview.. she seemed to tell her story far too often nd talk more and more about her family problems and her marriage, and since her death nearly everyone she talked ot has made public what was said so that a lot of the stories that made her look bad, are seen to come directly from her mouth and not from her enemies...

cinrit

^^ Amabel, sorry, I meant the Dimbleby book and the Morton book.

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

sandy

Quote from: amabel on August 20, 2014, 08:50:51 AM
Quote from: cinrit on August 18, 2014, 10:56:44 PM
I think both books I read were eye-openers.

Cindy
which ones?  I haven't read all of Charles' bio just the Diana parts.. but there was nothing new in that really. He was trying to answer Dis' cirtiicisms of him, obviously and to insist that the marriage failure was there from very early on.. and that was hardly surprising.  It was a riposte to her book.. but hs troubles with his parents were hardly unknown to Anyone interested in the RF...And after that, he shut up.  I think he realised that he was not doing himself any favours by talking about his marriage or his problems.. so he gave up trying to rebut Diana.
but more and more, it seems to me, Diana "chattered on" to people after she'd done Diana HTS.  she talked to Settlen, she did the Panorama interview.. she seemed to tell her story far too often nd talk more and more about her family problems and her marriage, and since her death nearly everyone she talked ot has made public what was said so that a lot of the stories that made her look bad, are seen to come directly from her mouth and not from her enemies...

Actually I don't think Charles totally "stopped." His friends and sympathizers speak for him with his apparent condoning of it. There is his cousin who slammed Diana only this year, rather gratuitously and Charles hired spin doctor Bolland to carry his message and still has PR "people."

Charles did shoot himself in the foot with Dimbleby re: Diana. He admitted he preferred Camilla to Diana when he married Diana which did not speak well of him to put it mildly.

amabel

Quote from: cinrit on August 20, 2014, 10:46:51 AM
^^ Amabel, sorry, I meant the Dimbleby book and the Morton book.

Cindy
I thought you might mean the Bradford bio of Di and the Tina Brown one?   but while Charles was a big fool to give Dimbleby all that stuff in his bio, I think ti was mild compared with what Diana's book and talks spoke of, about HER family and her problems with her marriage.  He kept ti fairly tame...people knew he had had problems with his father, and mother.. and I think that since then he realised that it was self defeating to try and go up against Di at the time, in trying to win the love and attention of the media. so he has not done much since then.  but I think that she got  into confessional mode and spoke far more freely to people like Settlelen..

sandy

Charles book was by no means "mild." He spoke of his family issues and complained about his parents. People did not "know" the extent of his issues with his parents until he blabbed to Dimbleby.  He had "people" (including his cousin) speak for him (he never made Diana non-negotiable) and used PR after Dimbleby. I doubt Charles learned a thing.

Canuck

IMO, Charles had nothing to do with Pamela Hicks' book and was likely appalled she was dragging up the same old stories all over again.  I think Charles is smart enough to realize at this point it does no good at all for him to try to explain his perspective on his first marriage, and that the best thing for him is to hope the topic comes up in the media/with the public as little as possible. 

amabel

I think he has shut up in the past 15 years or so.  he was foolish to put out as much as he did in his book but at the time I think he was feeling that he was losing the publicity wars with Diana...He has nt talked about her now, in years.  there aer a few reports of his mentioning Di since her death briefly with friends or aides, but he probably would prefer not to hear anyting more about her in public.

gec

This book could form an important part of the historical record of the period in which he was employed by the BRF. Similarly to those published by politicians of various levels and there staff, it could provide invaluable insight into the workings of a key institution. It also may not serve this function.

I am surprised that many are passing judgement that it is wrong to publish the book, disloyal and expressing other negative sentiments. We do not know what it will include. From what I can gather, all that is known so far is a few headlines about Charles' reactions to the book. This may well be a marketing strategy to gain publicity and the book will reveal nothing personal or sordid.

If it does indeed paint a positive picture of the royal family, and provide valuable insight into the functionings of the BRF as institution, would the protest continue? Or would it be respected for as an important historical document?

sandy

Quote from: Canuck on August 20, 2014, 12:05:15 PM
IMO, Charles had nothing to do with Pamela Hicks' book and was likely appalled she was dragging up the same old stories all over again.  I think Charles is smart enough to realize at this point it does no good at all for him to try to explain his perspective on his first marriage, and that the best thing for him is to hope the topic comes up in the media/with the public as little as possible. 

Camilla was made non-negotiable by Charles and nobody but nobody among his family, friends, sympathizers criticize her. Ever. Had Charles made the mother of his sons non-negotiable I doubt his cousin would have dared slam his late ex wife. Sorry I don't buy that Charles could not have stopped it. Of course he could. It just suits his purposes to make Diana look "damaged" to try to whitewash what he did.

Actions speak louder than words and the idea that Charles thought it "OK" to escort Camilla to his late ex wife's memorial service shows he has not learned a thing.

Canuck

Of course we're all just speculating at this point about what it will contain.  If Charles really is, as reported, very upset and trying to take legal action, then I suspect it's not just a warm-and-fuzzy no-personal-details-revealed reminiscence of Arbiter's time in the job.  But we don't know for sure whether those reports are true, and maybe this will all be much ado about nothing.

I do understand the historical value of first-hand accounts from people who worked with or for public figures.  But at the same time, those public figures are people, and it must be incredibly hard for them to have personal information splashed around in tell-all books. 

cinrit

Quote from: amabel on August 20, 2014, 11:45:00 AM
I thought you might mean the Bradford bio of Di and the Tina Brown one? 

I haven't read the Tina Brown book.

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

sandy

Quote from: amabel on August 20, 2014, 12:21:22 PM
I think he has shut up in the past 15 years or so.  he was foolish to put out as much as he did in his book but at the time I think he was feeling that he was losing the publicity wars with Diana...He has nt talked about her now, in years.  there aer a few reports of his mentioning Di since her death briefly with friends or aides, but he probably would prefer not to hear anyting more about her in public.

Charles has the upper hand now since Diana is dead and gone. As I said actions speak louder than words and the fact that he wanted Camilla going with him to his late ex's memorial service speaks volumes.

And also the DM pushing Camilla as grandmother of George and airbrushing Diana out.

Charles did not "lose" he won, because some actually buy into his spin about Diana being "damaged" and the other trashing that takes place.

Double post auto-merged: August 20, 2014, 01:55:08 PM


Quote from: Canuck on August 20, 2014, 01:52:52 PM
Of course we're all just speculating at this point about what it will contain.  If Charles really is, as reported, very upset and trying to take legal action, then I suspect it's not just a warm-and-fuzzy no-personal-details-revealed reminiscence of Arbiter's time in the job.  But we don't know for sure whether those reports are true, and maybe this will all be much ado about nothing.

I do understand the historical value of first-hand accounts from people who worked with or for public figures.  But at the same time, those public figures are people, and it must be incredibly hard for them to have personal information splashed around in tell-all books. 

I doubt Charles would take legal action it would just dredge up the sordid stuff he did again.

amabel

Quote from: Canuck on August 20, 2014, 01:52:52 PM
Of course we're all just speculating at this point about what it will contain.  If Charles really is, as reported, very upset and trying to take legal action, then I suspect it's not just a warm-and-fuzzy no-personal-details-revealed reminiscence of Arbiter's time in the job. 
I
I think that Dickie A has talked to journalists etc before and has shown he's not very discreet/ in that he simply should not be talking to them at all. I'm fairly sure that he is quoted in Tina Brown's bio of Diana.  so he's a bit talkative shall we say. SoI imagined hat Charles is not happy and fears that private life details about him and/or Diana will be revealed that he does not want revealed.  And quite simply while these things DO maybe form a part of the historical record there's a huge difference betweene maybe a man like Arbiter keeping a diary which 50 years later is released to historians when everyone's dead, and writing a book for money.. which Will be published when the RF concnered are still alive..

Double post auto-merged: August 20, 2014, 04:05:57 PM


Quote from: cinrit on August 20, 2014, 01:54:08 PM
Quote from: amabel on August 20, 2014, 11:45:00 AM
I thought you might mean the Bradford bio of Di and the Tina Brown one? 

I haven't read the Tina Brown book.

Cindy
Its not very well written but I think it is worth a look...

sandy

Tina Brown put in gossip including accusing Diana of being the blonde in the royal train with Charles. Then she goes on about how Charles was disappointed on the wedding night with Diana. So if he had a preview would he be surprised? She also avoided first hand account of Diana's mother and made up a story about something Diana's mother said to Diana.


FanDianaFancy

Aye -yi-i!!!
  I jsut got finish  posting on the PD thread.

FACTS....PD, PC, and CPB told  . It is on record.  BRF  who KNEW  put out their stories then.
Actions, looks,  time line   etc  of the trio  were  all out there. Ex. last time PC and PD were seen in public, their timeline as  in she stayed at KP and he stayed at HG...Camilla the decorator, her  b-day party at HG, safehouses, etc.    All FACTS.

Dickie   and all the rest of the  "authors"   since PD's death  have  really  all  been repeating, and  adding on very mild  info  to what is already out there.  I assume there is  no new  news. I assume if anyone has  anything new  that has  not  been  out  in print,  they won't say  because it  could really  give them away.  What  Dickie has written  I assume is same ole same ole.  Cleary  a money grab.   So be it.  More dusty books  on the same subject repeated .

It is like all the books about Pres. Kennedy and all the books about Marylin. What  else is there to say? I am waiting for the book to come out that  Marylin was pregnant with JFK, JR and  Jack and  Jackie  fluffed her up  with a  pillow to  pretend  she was pregnant and when Marilyn had the  baby, Jack and Jackie took the baby. 

PC and C  , I assume could really care  less about  PD, this book by Dickie, any  new books, old bitty Hicks  slandering PD  .

PC and CPB  are  two of the  luckiest people  in the world.
Camilla won it all : jewels, tile, respect  of her counry  and the world,  rank, place  back  for her family name,  highest rank for her children who are next to  PW and PH  and  her grandkids who are next to PG,  her palce next to QEII,  and more and everything.
She even won by default, PD's death, PW adn PH, their lives and families , attention, etc.




Curryong

Sometimes life just isn't fair, FanDianaFancy. That's just the way it is!
If you wouldn't mind my querying some of the last statement on your post, I don't know how much respect and admiration Camilla garnishes from the British public. The last time I looked her popularity in the polls was way below double figures.

Similarly, her children, Tom and Laura, might be Prince Charles's stepchildren but that doesn't mean they rate status-wise equal with William and Harry. They aren't royals, they don't have titles and they aren't in the line of succession.
It is the same with Camilla's grandchildren. They aren't members of the British royal family. They are members of Camilla's family (and Charles's, as step-children and step grandchildren), but that is a very different thing.

cate1949

the whole story is so confusing - I suspect Diana exaggerated in those tapes but even with the exaggeration she surely was a terribly unhappy person in her marriage and PC surely was cheating on her.  That she is the one who cannot speak for herself now does make one feel more sympathy for her.  Charles and Camilla are alive - so it does seem they won - they got what they wanted.  Of course they did not want Diana to die to get what they wanted but here it is - this is what happened.

I thought Arbiter did not especially like Diana so I do not expect him to suddenly say awful things re: Charles.  I also think there can't possibly be very much more to say that has not already been said or hinted at.   Charles may be objecting simply because he doesn't want anymore rehashing because it inevitably makes him look bad.  I think we have to wait til the book comes out.  I won't read it - I find the constant rehashing to be so deadly boring - everyone has their opinion but no one has the real truth of the matter.  It just incites all the arguments and bad feelings again.

No matter  which side you take - it is a very sad and tragic story.

amabel

Quote from: Curryong on August 21, 2014, 09:30:02 AM
Sometimes life just isn't fair, FanDianaFancy. That's just the way it is!
If you wouldn't mind my querying some of the last statement on your post, I don't know how much respect and admiration Camilla garnishes from the British public. The last time I looked her popularity in the polls was way below double figures.

Similarly, her children, Tom and Laura, might be Prince Charles's stepchildren but that doesn't mean they rate status-wise equal with William and Harry. They aren't royals, they don't have titles and they aren't in the line of succession.
It
No of course ttehy are not equal iwht the Royals. status wise.  Cam is OK with the public, in that I think that most people don't really care that much one way or the other now.  She's not very popular Or very unpopular...

Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2014, 11:13:00 AM


Quote from: cate1949 on August 21, 2014, 10:40:30 AM
the whole story is so confusing - I suspect Diana exaggerated in those tapes but even with the exaggeration she surely was a terribly unhappy person in her marriage and PC surely was cheating on her.  That she is
Quote from: cate1949 on August 21, 2014, 10:40:30 AM

yes "for sure" Charles was cheating on her, but she too was cheating on him.  And with Ol Hoare she was sleeping with a married man and trying to get him to leave his wife and kids for her. So why is she much better than Charles or Camilla? Of course she "exaggerated" in the books and tapes, unless you believe that she deliberately threw herself down stairs, knowing that this would harm or probably kill her baby, since if she killed herself.. it was going to kill a three months or so foetus.. ?
so she exaggerated or lied, about that and probably about other things as well. She was unhappy but it doesn't really excuse telling a lot of stuff that was probably best left private and often exaggerating to the point of lying...
Cam and Charles would almost certainly have married by now, if Di had lived so I don't know why they are being accused of having "won" or that somehow Di's death got them to where they are.  Charles did not remarry till the C of E was OK with it, and his grandma was dead... but if Di had lived, I think that he would have done exactly the same thing..
If they "won" it was because of Di's refusing to remain in ethe marriage,, she wanted out, and that menat that it was likely that in the course of time, chas would be able to amrry Camilla.

sandy

I think that the percentages of how people feel about Camilla are not known. I would not say most are indifferent--there are people who loathe her and people who adore her but again it is not definitively known how many feel a specific way.

Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2014, 11:34:44 AM


Quote from: cate1949 on August 21, 2014, 10:40:30 AM
the whole story is so confusing - I suspect Diana exaggerated in those tapes but even with the exaggeration she surely was a terribly unhappy person in her marriage and PC surely was cheating on her.  That she is the one who cannot speak for herself now does make one feel more sympathy for her.  Charles and Camilla are alive - so it does seem they won - they got what they wanted.  Of course they did not want Diana to die to get what they wanted but here it is - this is what happened.

I thought Arbiter did not especially like Diana so I do not expect him to suddenly say awful things re: Charles.  I also think there can't possibly be very much more to say that has not already been said or hinted at.   Charles may be objecting simply because he doesn't want anymore rehashing because it inevitably makes him look bad.  I think we have to wait til the book comes out.  I won't read it - I find the constant rehashing to be so deadly boring - everyone has their opinion but no one has the real truth of the matter.  It just incites all the arguments and bad feelings again.

No matter  which side you take - it is a very sad and tragic story.

Realistically Charles should realize that what happened in the past is not going to go away. Arbiter is not the first to write about the past and won't be the last.

FanDianaFancy

Curry, I agree with as well. True ,life is not always fair.

Som be it.

What I mean by Camilla's children, garndchildren being part of ther BRF  is  in that their mother is, when she is Queen,  she and Kin g Cahrles will not  have her children stashed off in Balmoral's cottage  or  left at Sandringham.

Their mother ,grandmother  will be Queen Camilla.
PH  and family. PW  and family. TomPB and family. Lady Laura, when her husband becomes Duke or Lord  due to his rank in his noble family,   and their family. That will be the BRF. 

Now, suppose  PC  dies first becoming K. We none know.
How the people there feel about  C and PC, they have steadily moved up in the polls.
When ,if they becoem, K adn Q, new game! New rules!    I think they  will be just fine in popular opinion.


Curryong

Sorry, FanDianaFancy, Tom Parker Bowles and Laura Montes, will never be members of the British Royal Family, no matter whether Laura Montes's husband inherits a title from his relatives or not. Camilla will be a Queen Consort not a Queen regnant when and if Charles comes to the throne. She is and will be, bar divorce, a member of the BRF. The same does not apply to her children.

Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2014, 09:13:49 PM


Sorry, meant Laura Lopes. Her husband Harry is the grandson of a Baron, not a Duke.

FanDianaFancy

No  Curry. 
That is not want I meant.
YES, you are right.

   Yes, I understand , TPB and Lady  to be Laura  willl not  be  titled HRH, etc.  I get that. Understandable.

Keep in mind I  cannot stand the Rotweiller and her  husband PC.

HOWEVER, my  just opinion here,  when she is  Queen Camilla, common term,  her children will be with her  walking  to from Sandrigham at  Christmas,  at Balmoral August, RBox at Ascot, ....etc.  She  is not going to stash her  kids and grandkids  away .

NOW, of course, the BRF of QEII  meaning her  family:  PAndrew and B& E,  PR with  S,CofW and  their kids, PAne and her family,  etc. are   there.

I  do not like Queen Camilla -to-be, but  , I  certainly  would  NOT  blame her, Queen, for not having her children with her  at her Sandringham Castle  for Christmas  and anytime she wanted at any  of her palaces and castles  when she wanted.


The BRF  is  a game of  move  on  down the line.

I think the  BRF  family  will be  at  ceremonial things,  Queen Camilla's children , grandchildren  on Buckingham   Palace.

Maybe not to this extent, BUT her children adn grandkis will be there no doubt. Maybe not on the walk to the church  in front of cameras...going before  or  way after..things like that , BUT they will be. Maybe not  at Buck Balcony for ceremonial things, but  inside  BuckPalace, city  palace  to King Charles and Queen  Camilla (common term used by people, media). Yes, formal term  QConsort...but  the people and press do do use the formal terms.

QEII and PPhillip cannot  do anything about that. They will be good and dead , of course. PW  will not be King. When he is King and he wants  Pippa and her husband and kids to join him at Sandrigham, fine. Mom  and Dad too of course. LOL!!  Of course Mum and Dud Midds. We know how he feels  about Mum and Dud Midds.

Back to King Charles and  Queen Camilla's time....PW and PH and their families, of course   will be with King Charles and Queen Camilla and  her kids and grandkids.   

The rest of them can (PAndrew and family  of daughters, grandkids, Sarah, PE and his family, PAnne and her broad)  can eat their figgy  Christmas  pudding at  their  family estates.

The Buck Balcony  The Sandrigham Hotel  ,LOL,  and Balmoral Summer Country Club, LOL, will be  a  bit  crowded with the families of King Charles and Queen Camilla.

OF COURSE, this is just my hunch. Maybe PC adn C  will not even get to K and Q.

I  find it interesting  that  the pic  at Balmoral  with PC and C  with Laura and her kids...hmmmm..sign  of what is come when  it comes.
TPB was seen with HIS MOTHER this year  in  the  RBox at Ascot. MOTHER TRUMPS ALL!!!! 

Rumor has been that for Camilla whom is not Q yet, , she goes to RaymillH  to see her kids, grandkids during the holidays.

Fine...for now, LOL!!!!


cate1949

FanDianaFancy you definitely have a point - I had never thought of it that way.   But.....  consider Prince Phillip.  Now he had a royal family - and there have been family visits and things of that sort - yet one never saw them at  the sort of BRF events you describe.  Granted - not PP's children.

I guess we will be in for a lot of changes - what a transition this will be because people are so used - for generations now - to the Queen. 

I took Charles at his word when he said Camilla would not be Queen and it is still possible that parliamentary changes could make spouses just prince or princess consorts.  I personally think that is the better approach.  But if the law has not been changed then now I do expect she will be Queen consort and called such.  Things both of them have said suggest this.  Camilla did not hang on this long to be denied.

amabel

Quote from: Curryong on August 21, 2014, 09:10:25 PM
Sorry, FanDianaFancy, Tom Parker Bowles and Laura Montes, will never be members of the British Royal Family, no matter whether Laura Montes's husband inherits a title from his relatives or not. Camilla will be a Queen Consort not a Queen regnant when and if Charles comes to the throne. She is and will be, bar divorce, a member of the BRF. The same does not apply to her children.

Double post auto-merged: August 21, 2014, 09:13:49 PM


Sorry, meant Laura Lopes. Her husband Harry is the grandson of a Baron, not a Duke.
true and even if they are given titles which I don't believe they Will be they are still not going to be members of the British RF.

Double post auto-merged: August 22, 2014, 05:48:24 AM


Quote from: cate1949 on August 22, 2014, 03:11:54 AM
FanDianaFancy you definitely have a point - I had never thought of it that way.   But.....  consider Prince Phillip.  Now he had a royal family - and there have been family visits and things of that sort - yet one never saw them at  the sort of BRF events you describe.  Granted - not PP's children.

I guess we will be in for a lot of changes - what a transition this will be because people are so used - for generations now - to the Queen. 

I took Charles at his word when he said Camilla would not be Queen and it is still possible that parliamentary changes could make spouses just prince or princess consorts.  I personally think that is the better approach.  But if the law has not been changed then now I do expect she will be Queen consort and called such.  Things both of them have said suggest this.  Camilla did not hang on this long to be denied.
he did not say that Cam would no be queen. IIRC the Palace said that she would probably take the title of Princess Consort and that instead of being Princess of Wales, she'd be known as Duchess Of Cornwall. and IMO it would be ridiculous and difficult from an etiquette POV if Cam did not have the title Queen as is the case with monarch's wives.

cinrit

I can't find the original announcement, but in the FAQ's at the Prince of Wales website, it says:

"As was explained at the time of their wedding in April 2005, it is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne."

FAQs


Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.