Prince Charles' 'anger' as former press secretary to the Queen releases book revealing secrets about the breakdown of his marriage to Diana | Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2714552/Prince-Charles-anger-former-press-secretary-Queen-releases-book-revealing-secrets-breakdown-marriage-Diana.html)
Quote
The Sunday Mirror reports that a palace source revealed: 'Charles is furious. This man was a trusted friend.'
The book - On Duty with the Queen, published by Blink Publishing - promises to share what life was like 'behind the scenes' during the time that Mr Arbiter worked at the Palace in 'the most turbulent period in the history of the modern British monarchy'.
Mr Arbiter worked at the palace between 1988 and 2000. He witnessed the breakdown of Prince Charles' marriage to Diana and the affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles.
He has previously said the book 'is not a kiss-and-tell but an autobiography'.
He said: 'It's a candid look behind some of the most salacious and sensational royal stories of those days from the perspective of someone who was not only there, but who also had experience of the monarchy.'
QuoteThe Queen's former press secretary Dickie Arbiter is promoting his memoirs, which are believed to contain explosive insights into the inner workings of the royal family.
His book, On Duty with the Queen, is said to claim that Diana felt "humiliated" by Charles' affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles.
It is also reported to describe the reaction of Prince Charles and the Queen to Diana's sudden death in a car accident in 1997.
A palace source told the Daily Mirror: "Charles is furious. This man was a trusted friend."
More: New book by royal aide to describe Prince Charles and Princess Diana's divorce | Royal | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/495095/Prince-Charles-furious-royal-aide-Diana-divorce-book)
Naturally Charles is furious all his expensive and hard efforts to rehabilitate Camilla will probably turn back the clock. :happy15:
its disgraceful of Dickie Arbiter to do this..
Agreed, Amabel. Even if everything in the book is positive towards Charles and the Queen, I can't imagine how heartbreaking it would be for a trusted friend to do this.
I guess it is simple. I think it is incredibly disloyal and a betrayal of a friend to do this and I will not support him by buying this book.
Quote from: Trudie on August 03, 2014, 11:09:28 AM
Naturally Charles is furious all his expensive and hard efforts to rehabilitate Camilla will probably turn back the clock. :happy15:
Agree. Diana just cannot be airbrushed.
I'm buying the book.
Quote from: amabel on August 03, 2014, 12:25:00 PM
its disgraceful of Dickie Arbiter to do this..
After all his snaky criticism about Paul Burell, he spit into the wind... Dickie's fallen off the high horse... :happy15:
:no: I'm sorry that he's chosen to write and publish the book.
For some reason I doubt that this book will have too much insight on what really happened between Diana, Charles, and Camilla, but if it does, I'm always interested to read and examine a source that was actually present instead of a secondary one that's speaking as a mouthpiece for one side or the other.
Quote from: sandy on August 03, 2014, 01:58:15 PM
Quote from: Trudie on August 03, 2014, 11:09:28 AM
Naturally Charles is furious all his expensive and hard efforts to rehabilitate Camilla will probably turn back the clock. :happy15:
Agree. Diana just cannot be airbrushed.
I'm buying the book.
Of course you will, as long as it bashes Charles and Camilla. Of course, if it also paints Diana in a negative light, then you'll complain that this is just PR spin to make Charles look good.
Aren't the staff still required to sign confidentiality agreements? Do those agreements expire when someone leaves the employ of a Royal?
Cindy
Dickie stated he signed the Official Secrets Act and also a confidentiality agreement but still insists he isn't breaking the deal but it appears Charles solicitors are looking over his contract in a bid to stop publication.
I personally think what Arbiter is doing is very wrong. Show some class and keep you confidences to yourself. He could still write a book about his time at the Palace without going into the gory details of Charles and Diana.
The man should be ashamed
Here we go again AGAIN!!!
Lets take the PC-PD-C emotion out of it.
A FRIEND-----NO he was not a friend. Your employees are NOT your friends. Your employers ARE not your friends.
There can be a cordial, close, trusting, good work ethic by the employee and pay and rewards for the job well done by the employer, but is not, never will be a FRIENDSHIP between employer and employee.
Also, friendships between staff and superviors/directors, etc are NOT friendships. They are , can be, and should be good relationships. A good working relationship with respect ona professional level both ways and YES, due to the years of the working relationship, there can develop a close relationship, BUT IT IS NEVER a friendship.
People often blur the line there and I KNOW you all have seen it end very badly for people and it may have even happened to you. I KNOW many of you will say how thisclose you are to your employer and /or your director/supervisor, etc.
FINE!!! Please post when it ends badly and it WILL end badly!!!
Confidentiality agreements---- Do people in these jobs of SERVING the BRF/Monarchy/Govt. have to sign that? I guess not.
Here in the States, No. about any govt. officials on any level: local, state, federal do not have to sign that and I sure if asked , they would not and it is probably illegal. WHEN I said the local, state, federal level, I mean as in on the Mayor/Sheriff's staff as CAO, Council-at-large, etc. When I said the state level, I mean, Lt. Gov., and other and any govenor appointed and elected poisitons. Same things as local level.
When I said federal level, I mean the POTUS appointed staff members, and and elected gov. officials working with that POTUS.
Ok, I think I covered everything here and I am clear.
Con. Agree.-When people sign to be hired by people in private companies, that is different. Ex. entertainers have staff sign such. Some companies, (big, small,) too depending on persons' role and title. That is different. A private company is a private company and an entertainer another type of a private company.
You get what you give- QEII deserves respect. She has served her country and her subjects and has lived a decent life. NO, I am not talking about her massive personal wealth because of her HRH, and her other wealth which is hers too. I mean no scandals. Good speeches. Good speech writers. Correct things to say even off cuff. She watches her words and thinks before she speaks. Well studied in all her work at home and abroad. Her support of her country and subjects. Etc., that sort of thing. One cannot hold her for her adult children's choices, their wives, girlfreinds. Her grandchildren , for the most part , have done well in being poised, senesible, scandal free. YES, W, H, Z, P, E, B, and of course the other two are kids, but for the most part the adult grandchildren have been failry decent, scandal free within reason.
PC, C, PAndrew, SF, The late PD, respect ? Like I said, you get what you give. What was done was done. Death still, no pass. Actions just don't erase, vanish because of time, death, etc.
PC-PD-C--OBVIOUSLY there is palace uproar by Ears and Rotweiller camp because they are looking favorable in this book. If PD was trashed, there would be no uproar. lets be real. PD is dead. PC and Cam won!!!! Cam got it all and there has been a BIG pr campaign to present as QUEEN of England to -be. Time. Time.
It would be foolish of PC's-TPTB not to have started a massive , sublimal pr campaign of CPB. Any PR person would agree with that.
This book is a step back. Small, inconvenient step back that will last about 3-4 months. Still , itis a step back innthe direction TPTB do not want.
But then , as long as PD's sons live and their families(not yet for PH) , she lives as in she cannot be a faded piece of Englands' dreadful history like WSimpson.
There lies the real problem. How to fade PD from the minds of the Britons, the media there and abroad and people worldwide?
Never mind the ole new saying, PD has been for 20 years now. Time moves on. Most people weren't born then...blah and all that other nonsense.
The comparisons of her and her sons in their milestones keep coming up. Ex. PK, PW and their tour with baby to Aus/NZ.
Leaving the hopstial with their child. Same thing will happen when PH gets married and has a family.
Rights- I do not know what Rights people have in TheUK and citizens ' rights against the govt and the BRF. I know you all cannot have guns. As you , here we lovelove our guns. Big problem here , but everyone, regardless of soci-econ class, has a right to have a gun unless....rare reasons. Still, those exceptions can go buy off the streets. Still.
There, the regular people cannot own guns, buy a gun, BUT the nobility/aristos can buy, sell, trade, own guns. One cannot go hunting without a gun.
Big here everyone anti-gun is saying in TheUK people cannot have guns. Well, that is not true. SOME people cannot have have guns due to the class structure. I think,LOL, you can see I am pro-guns,yet I am gun control as in the lasw for guns :waiting period, insurance, owner's legal responsibility , etc.
Here, media says whatever they want about anyone. POTUS is not sacred. There, the media does not always publish things not favorable to the BRF. Ex. pics of nekked Harry. K's bottom. K's top. You know, K should just do a PlayboyCenterfold and be done with it, LOL!!!! She is already half way there, LOL!!
I thought it was totally stupid here some places did not publish nekked Harry. They publish nekked Kim Kar-trash-ian.
E! News covered nekked H's self with some art band-graphics on their report. Other media places let it fly,LOL!!!!
Money-I think the should have written the book. Maybe wait for the Q to die, but that is a long time away and he will be dead first.
How much do these kind of people earn for being BRF Chief of Staff Butler/Household manager, Private Secretary, etc.? I do not mean people in housekeeping and groundskeeping. I do not the titles of the people. I sort of mentioned a title and job description because I do not know. I mean the top people who are superviors of the staffs under them .
I would think they earn a low 6-figure salary and more salary depending on their job title and years and resume and education.
When somebody's writes a book, it is for money. Obviously he needs money and has a family he would like to live something to.
Fan that is a fabulous post what you are saying is absolutely right there is never a friendship in the true sense of the word between employers and employees and the book is not all about Charles marriage failure it is about his time in his position where he witnessed a lot of history Anne and Mark, and Andrew and Sarah's marriage failures along with the Windsor Castle fire and the death of Diana. So far there doesn't seem to be a fuss by his siblings no Charles most likely is afraid something new that had not been told before will come out and as I said all his expensive rehabilitation efforts will probably undermine the new for some respect Camilla has now that she is HRH. This time the person talking is someone who was there day to day not someone like Lady Pamela Hicks nee Mountbatten and her delightful sister who trashed Diana with Charles full blessing but were not privy to the day to day interactions that Arbiter was. Like Sandy I too will buy the book
I will have to remember to come back and read this thread again if the book is largely positive towards Charles. I think some posters will be changing their tune and suddenly extremely upset about invading Diana's privacy and the whole thing having been a PR campaign for Charles. :censored2:
For me, REGARDLESS whether the book is positive towards Charles, or towards Diana, or neutral towards both of them -- I think it's an enormous violation of privacy and real betrayal.
Unfortunately for Charles he is a very public person and with that very little privacy in the public interest. Everyone here that adores Charles call this a betrayal IMO why don't you same people call Charles Dimbleby book that he authorized a betrayal of HM and the DOE and most of all Diana, or why not denounce all his friends who betrayed his wife pretending to befriend her then leaking stories and stabbing her in the back?. Yes Canuck come back after the book is published and then lets see how many attitudes get adjusted.
Quote from: Lothwen on August 03, 2014, 04:16:09 PM
Quote from: sandy on August 03, 2014, 01:58:15 PM
Quote from: Trudie on August 03, 2014, 11:09:28 AM
Naturally Charles is furious all his expensive and hard efforts to rehabilitate Camilla will probably turn back the clock. :happy15:
Agree. Diana just cannot be airbrushed.
I'm buying the book.
Of course you will, as long as it bashes Charles and Camilla. Of course, if it also paints Diana in a negative light, then you'll complain that this is just PR spin to make Charles look good.
I am just as much as entitled to my opinion as are all the Charles and Camilla fans. I read on these very boards a Charles person being happy about how Penny Junor slams Diana. Yet the Charles people did not make critical comments. I also noticed no outrage among Charles fans when Diana is gratuitously put down by his cousins (which was very recent).
It is not "bashing" Charles and Camilla when a person does not whitewash what they did.
There is freedom on choice and I am buying the book.
Trudie, I think all of the books written by former employees/"friends" of the BRF are betrayals. I was appalled by Paul Burrell's behaviour after Diana's death, and by Tina Brown's book. They're all looking to cash in on their association with the BRF by betraying the confidence they were placed in during their employment and/or friendship, and I find the whole thing gross.
Tina Brown has no association with the RF. She had one lunch with Diana and claimed to be her "friend." Fortunately for her Diana was not around to refute this.
I think Diana was savvy enough not to confide personal stuff to Tina.
Oops, think Victoria will have to reinvent her career, royal reporting has gone out the window. Daddy messed up.
Opening up old wounds, must be dire for cash.
From the Express article:
QuoteArbiter, who was once quoted as saying "We would all have loved to rip Diana's knickers off"...
And Charles thought him to be a
trusted friend?
:hmm: :blink:
(Oh and I agree with History Girl. I love memoirs and biographies from all perspectives, and will be reading this one.)
I too agree strongly that an employee/employer relationship is not friendship. You do not pay your friends. There would be a difference between a confidentiality agreement and signing a state official secrets act compliance agreement. Quite a bit of difference. Arbiter would risk imprisonment if he revealed what are state secrets. Of course - not everything he witnessed would fall under that category.
Arbiter was privy to some serious events - the divorces and the family's dealing with Diana's death. He certainly has some interesting stuff to tell but I very much doubt he will tell. He said when he signed the book deal that he was writing an autobiography - a story about his career not a RF tell all. Since his career includes his time with the RF I am sure there would be RF content but if it really is just anecdotes about his career - I would not see that as betrayal. The RF especially PC is so sensitive about some issues and they assert all this privilege they do not really have the right to claim. PC and Camilla have a history - a very unpleasant history that includes adultery, betrayal of their marriage vows. And there is the matter that Diana is dead - not their fault of course but her death makes the whole PC-C-D story weightier. Charles is going to face some disapproval - disapproval he cannot avoid. And all his tantrum's and seeking legal advice cannot change that some of the public are not impressed with how he conducted himself in his marriage. He earns more negative opinion by making a fuss over the book. He would be wiser to just ignore it.
I would be very surprised if the book turns out to be some sort of huge expose.
So would I, cate. I think it's going to be a very different kettle of fish to the Housekeeper's Tale (written by the housekeeper at Highgrove) which really dished the dirt in the wake of the Wales' marriage. That had to be published in the States, I believe, and the author concerned feared prosecution years later when she returned to England, though in the end Charles 'forgave' her.
I think Dickie's revelations will probably turn out to be very tame.
Perhaps Charles has somehow seen an advanced copy of the book which is why he is so angry. Charles certainly wasn't from all appearances upset with Paul Burrell's or Patrick Jephson's books why because they were former employees of Diana and he probably thought they would trash Diana let us not forget Camilla is non negotiable. Charles cousins the Mountbatten sisters write books and give interviews and trash Diana the mother of his Sons that doesn't even upset him, perhaps Charles is not happy that the truth of his and Camilla's treatment of Diana will undo all the careful PR .
:blahblahblah: here we go again, we've heard it all, who cares....nothing to see here just another book like the thousands that have been written..I don't think Charles is losing sleep over this.
Charles office in the past has gotten advance copies of various books, according to various sources such as Jephson.
Quote from: Sheridan on August 04, 2014, 03:04:17 PM
:blahblahblah: here we go again, we've heard it all, who cares....nothing to see here just another book like the thousands that have been written..I don't think Charles is losing sleep over this.
I should sya he is. It is a gross betrayal of trust and it might be legally possible to stop it...
Dickie Artbiter seems a royal fan, I doubt he will write anything that would anger Charles and the Queen, but they might consider ANYthing written about them by former employees a betrayal and be angered by that.
Quote from: Sheridan on August 04, 2014, 03:04:17 PM
:blahblahblah: here we go again, we've heard it all, who cares....nothing to see here just another book like the thousands that have been written..I don't think Charles is losing sleep over this.
Well if you didn't care you wouldn't be posting :wellduh:
Guess we will find out on October 2nd Lima when the book is published :clap:
Quote from: Limabeany on August 04, 2014, 08:56:48 PM
Dickie Artbiter seems a royal fan, I doubt he will write anything that would anger Charles and the Queen, but they might consider ANYthing written about them by former employees a betrayal and be angered by that.
I agree with this. Arbiter has said, for example, that the book will cover the days immediately after Diana's death. Even if everything he says is flattering to Charles and the Queen, I think they would be very upset for him to share private details as to how the family dealt with the aftermath of that tragedy, especially if he talks about Will and Harry at all.
By virtue of their positions, the Royals will necessarily have various staff members around during very private moments -- from press secretaries to personal assistants to drivers and cleaning staff. They shouldn't have to pause in the middle of a tragedy to think about what someone writing a tell-all book might say about their tears or lack thereof, their appetite, the first things they said to one another or their staff about it, etc.
yes they do consider any book a betrayal of trust, because it is.
This story is a bit ironic if true lol
Quote from: Canuck on August 04, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on August 04, 2014, 08:56:48 PM
Dickie Artbiter seems a royal fan, I doubt he will write anything that would anger Charles and the Queen, but they might consider ANYthing written about them by former employees a betrayal and be angered by that.
I agree with this. Arbiter has said, for example, that the book will cover the days immediately after Diana's death. Even if everything he says is flattering to Charles and the Queen, I think they would be very upset for him to share private details as to how the family dealt with the aftermath of that tragedy, especially if he talks about Will and Harry at all.
By virtue of their positions, the Royals will necessarily have various staff members around during very private moments -- from press secretaries to personal assistants to drivers and cleaning staff. They shouldn't have to pause in the middle of a tragedy to think about what someone writing a tell-all book might say about their tears or lack thereof, their appetite, the first things they said to one another or their staff about it, etc.
Oh no. This is always a difficult time in any family's life. I know that I wouldn't want my words and actions shared with the public.
Quote from: Canuck on August 04, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
I agree with this. Arbiter has said, for example, that the book will cover the days immediately after Diana's death. Even if everything he says is flattering to Charles and the Queen, I think they would be very upset for him to share private details as to how the family dealt with the aftermath of that tragedy, especially if he talks about Will and Harry at all.
By virtue of their positions, the Royals will necessarily have various staff members around during very private moments -- from press secretaries to personal assistants to drivers and cleaning staff. They shouldn't have to pause in the middle of a tragedy to think about what someone writing a tell-all book might say about their tears or lack thereof, their appetite, the first things they said to one another or their staff about it, etc.
Very well said, Canuck. Everyone deserves some amount of privacy, and no one can live 24/7 under a microscope.
Quote from: amabel on August 05, 2014, 08:23:08 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 05, 2014, 12:30:51 AM
This story is a bit ironic if true lol
in what way?
The article says Prince Charles feels betrayal at a man who is supposedly going to write about a time when the Prince betrayed his wife by having a mistress.
Ah now I see the irony.
I think it would be reasonable to assume that there would be some pretty tight confidentiality / non-disclosure agreements in place. This reported displeasure of Charles could just be marketing strategy.
I don't expect it to contain any unflattering personal information pertaining to members of the royal family. If anything it will probably be more of an account of how things operate generally and then in a time of crisis eg. Diana's death.
My guess is that Charles isn't the least bit furious about this book. And, claims that he is are being made both to bolster book sales, and to legitimize yet another attack on Diana. Charles will pretend to be "outraged" that Diana is being shown in such a poor light. Dickie Arbiter has absolutely no reason to be tray the rf, so for that reason,IMO, he won't.
No matter how you spin it this man is betraying The Queen and The Prince and that tells more about him than them ... not that he will say anything earth shattering but still ...
Charles via his own authorized biographer took potshots at his parents and how he was raised. He can't get on his high horse about "betrayals."
Quote from: gec on August 06, 2014, 11:16:59 AM
I think it would be reasonable to assume that there would be some pretty tight confidentiality / non-disclosure agreements in place. This reported displeasure of Charles could just be marketing strategy.
I don't expect it to contain any unflattering personal information pertaining to members of the royal family. If anything it will probably be more of an account of how things operate generally and then in a time of crisis eg. Diana's death.
True, but I've a feeling that no one wants their private reaction to terrible news being aired. JMO
It is immaterial what Dickie Arbiter says in this book, the fact is that he should nt write it.
Well Dickie Arbiter is no worse then those unfortunate Mountbatten sisters writing memoirs and spilling what went on in the royal family. However you spin that they shouldn't have written books but I suppose it is fine since they saw Diana as damaged and Charles the victim.
^I agree, Trudie. Sauce for the goose, and all that. Once you let one person reveal their feelings and impressions and you reveal yours, you have to make room for other people to write their stories. Lots of books and articles have been written about that time, another one is coming, and more after that. And they were written by favorites and perceived enemies, by friends and relatives, servants, royal watchers, and now Arbiter. Once you yourself open the doors, other people will come in.
have to wait until the book comes out of course but right now I don't see it as some terrible betrayal. I doubt Arbiter would engage in a betrayal and I'd bet every word in that book has been vetted by the RF (staff). Arbiter is not going to bite the hand that feeds his daughter.
It is a violation of the Official Secrets Act which he signed when he took royal employemtn.
Though it may be a violation of the Official Secrets Act which he signed wouldn't you think by now nothing can really be done since think about it Charles cooperated and gave permission to Dimbleby to write about his private life since then you can't really call memoirs by former employees betrayals even family are now writing memoirs the Mountbatten sisters, Mrs Rhodes with her book The Final Curtsy about the Queen Mother and her Sunday tea and chats with her cousin the Queen so is there really a need to keep harping about Dickie Arbiter as someone betraying his friend? Have they ever been known to socialize together outside of the palace as friends? the answer is most defiantly NO.
Quote from: sandy on August 07, 2014, 11:08:54 PM
Charles via his own authorized biographer took potshots at his parents and how he was raised. He can't get on his high horse about "betrayals."
I agree, he abused them to excuse his behavior. :thumbsdown:
I think that if there is any hint of Arbiter saying unkind things about C and C he should not "dare" do this. If it is a love letter to them, Charles would keep his mouth shut and enjoy a book that trashes Diana and whitewashes the sordid thing he did. Of course it was only incompatibility that busted up C and D's marriage and Charles "had to" go back to Camilla from "damaged Diana." Same old same old propaganda.
Arbiter hates Diana and trashes her whenever he can, this will not be unflattering to PC of HM.
So why is Charles getting antsy over it? I think he may have some digs about him. Charles would not complain if it's another Diana bashing exercise.
I think he was upset about Jephson not because of Diana but because Jephson threw in some digs at Charles.
I think he is nervous about any book written about him where he has not been consulted. Given he has assisted, green lighted or remained quiet about any book trashing Diana and given that he threw his parents under the bus to gain sympathy for himself during the divorce, he has a right to be afraid, if he did that to his parents, why wouldn't a former employee do that to him? He is judging based on who he is...
Your so right Limabeany unless Charles sees and approves manuscripts in his sneaky way to make himself and Camilla look good he gets so antsy because the real truth may come out and his true character may be revealed.
Quote from: Lothwen on August 03, 2014, 04:16:09 PM
Quote from: sandy on August 03, 2014, 01:58:15 PM
Quote from: Trudie on August 03, 2014, 11:09:28 AM
Naturally Charles is furious all his expensive and hard efforts to rehabilitate Camilla will probably turn back the clock. :happy15:
Agree. Diana just cannot be airbrushed.
I'm buying the book.
Of course you will, as long as it bashes Charles and Camilla. Of course, if it also paints Diana in a negative light, then you'll complain that this is just PR spin to make Charles look good.
:goodpost:
As for the book, I am so sick of this crap! Whyare so many who work for the RF unable to keep their mouths shut! What has happened to loyalty and the respect for peoples privacy? No wonder William and Harry don't like servants around them.
^^ Honestly, the palace is notorious for not paying well. Thus, their staff end up leaving and can, at that time, write books. :shrug: They'd rather pay for leasing new helicopters.
Yeah jeez I mean how dare those peasants not know their place....don't they know that only those in high places are allowed to do as they please...
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 13, 2014, 04:06:37 AM
Yeah jeez I mean how dare those peasants not know their place....don't they know that only those in high places are allowed to do as they please...
true Royal service pays badly but people sign confidentiality agreements and if they did that, they should IMO stick ot them. Many people who worked for Diana have broken that implicit loyalty agreement and written about her, often unkindly.
^If those people signed a legally binding contract that stated that they would never speak of the royal family, why are they not facing charges for breach of contract? A person that is an employee only owes that employer their service for the allotted time that they are employed, whatever happens after they leave is up to them since they aren't slaves. If this man broke the rules stipulated in a contract then he should be dealt with by the legal system, otherwise I'm not quite sure what he "owes" anyone.
Diana's secretary, Patrick Jephson, who wrote a book critical of Diana called 'Shadows of a Princess' escaped prosecution because senior members of the Royal Household had reportedly encouraged him to write it, and he had not signed a confidentiality agreement for part of the time he was employed.
On the other hand the housekeeper at Highgrove who wrote a book 'the Housekeeper's Diary', did break her confidentiality agreement when she wrote about what she witnessed during the breakdown of the Wales's marriage.
The book had to be published in the US as Charles had obtained an injunction against author Wendy Berry. He would have been able to seize all profits.
In the end, several years later, Charles did not prosecute because of her age and the fact she had returned to the UK to live because her adult son was desperately ill. That was years after the book's publication.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 13, 2014, 05:28:29 AM
^If those people signed a legally binding contract that stated that they would never speak of the royal family, why are they not facing charges for breach of contract? A person that is an employee only owes that employer their service for the allotted time that they are employed, whatever happens after they leave is up to them since they aren't slaves. If this man broke the rules stipulated in a contract then he should be dealt with by the legal system, otherwise I'm not quite sure what he "owes" anyone.
Exactly HistoryGirl. Patrick Jephson was the first of Diana' s employees to write about his time and Charles instead of doing anything about it, had William denouncing the book as a betrayal in a press conference with Harry and himself standing behind. Charles could on behalf of William and Harry could have prosecuted but instead chose not to and others followed. So really I don't understand why Charles is so furious unless the book is not flattering to him at all.
The Queen and Charles issued statements condemning Jephson's book (and Will issued his own) but they couldn't take legal action because Jephson had only signed a confidentiality agreement for the last year he worked for Diana and legal action doesn't prevent the book being published abroad or online. That was the same reason they didn't go after Stephen Barry, since he published in the U.S.
Quote from: Canuck on August 13, 2014, 01:39:07 PM
The Queen and Charles issued statements condemning Jephson's book (and Will issued his own) but they couldn't take legal action because Jephson had only signed a confidentiality agreement for the last year he worked for Diana and legal action doesn't prevent the book being published abroad or online. That was the same reason they didn't go after Stephen Barry, since he published in the U.S.
Stephen Barry never signed a confidentiality agreement and it was because of this the palace instrumented that practice of having one signed upon employment.
Right. So if the man is legally binded to remain quiet then that's what he must do, but all this oh he owes the family so much more is just weak. If this "servant" wants to write a book about his life that includes his time with the royals and he's not breaking the law then he may do what he likes.
I disagree, HistoryGirl. No, he might not be breaking the law. That doesn't mean it isn't hurtful and tacky.
As I've said before, the Royals can't avoid having employees (like press officers, personal assistants, and even drivers) around at various times in their life that are immensely private (like the period directly after Diana's death). That doesn't mean those times are any less private, or that it's any more okay to exploit them to make a buck.
And that's different from Charles and Diana publicizing their affairs how?
Maybe it's just me, but I see a pretty big difference between a person disclosing things about their own life and a person disclosing things about someone else's life. :shrug:
And his time spent during those hectic moments at the Palace are somehow not valid? Where did it say that he would discuss how many lovers Diana took or how long Charles was sleeping with Camilla for? Why is it that he can't speak about how he viewed an obviously changing atmosphere at his work place?
If describing his time at the palace means describing personal information about Charles, Diana, and other members of the BRF, then no, I don't think that's okay.
We don't know what exactly the book will say, but given that Arbiter has said it will cover the period immediately after Diana's death and given reports that Charles is extremely upset about it and views it as a betrayal, I think it's a safe bet that it involves personal information about members of the BRF.
So what about the writers that Charles, Camilla, and Diana have given information to in order to get "their story out there"? I'm going to assume they profited from it. Is that tacky? Or is it okay because the royals approved it? And what exactly is personal only to the royal family when other persons are there to care for them? I've read a book about a cook who told stories about the peculiarities of her employers when it pertained to what they asked her to cook and what it was like when they entered her sphere, is that tacky too?
Frankly, I think much of the information leaked by Charles and Diana was tacky as well. But I think there's a rather large difference between spreading information about yourself, or about someone else with their consent, and spreading private information about someone else that they *haven't* consented to being made public.
If a former employee is just telling funny little anecdotes, then I doubt anyone would be too upset about it. If a former employee is telling stories that involve personal, sensitive information then I consider that a different thing. Where the line is will depend on the circumstances in every case.
So freedom of speech is based on how it makes certain subjects involved look?
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you from saying things -- and even then, there are limits (like laws about libeling people, and in some places invasion of privacy).
We're talking about cases where it's *legal* to publish these books but, IMO, tacky and hurtful. You don't have to be breaking the law to be doing something wrong.
Wrong based on whose standard? The people involved felt the need to let the entire world into their private lives, but all of a sudden, a person decides to write about what his time was like during an event and all of a sudden it's "wrong". And as far as I know unless a law is broken, individuals may not restrict other individuals' freedom of speech either.
Quote from: Canuck on August 13, 2014, 06:29:08 PM
If describing his time at the palace means describing personal information about Charles, Diana, and other members of the BRF, then no, I don't think that's okay.
We don't know what exactly the book will say, but given that Arbiter has said it will cover the period immediately after Diana's death and given reports that Charles is extremely upset about it and views it as a betrayal, I think it's a safe bet that it involves personal information about members of the BRF.
Why be so upset it is already out there that there was some arguments between the family regarding arrangements for Diana so what would be so upsetting Charles on the phone with Camilla every few hours at day before Diana's funeral? I believe it is out there that Camilla was one of the first he telephoned as soon as he received word of Diana's death.
Wrong in my opinion, as I've said several times.
Again, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means the government stops you from saying something. Me saying I don't like these books being published doesn't restrict anyone's freedom of speech; it's me exercising my own free speech to give my opinion.
I wasn't referring to your opinion stopping the man from writing it since nothing we say here will. Freedom of speech is moderated by the government, but does not necessarily have to have the government as a party involved. I suppose Voltaire was also wrong to write negative stories mocking the very Jesuits that educated him and profiting from it.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 13, 2014, 06:06:05 PM
Right. So if the man is legally binded to remain quiet then that's what he must do, but all this oh he owes the family so much more is just weak. If this "servant" wants to write a book about his life that includes his time with the royals and he's not breaking the law then he may do what he likes.
I completely agree, History Girl. You raise great points.
Quote from: Canuck on August 13, 2014, 07:40:57 PM
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you from saying things -- and even then, there are limits (like laws about libeling people, and in some places invasion of privacy).
We're talking about cases where it's *legal* to publish these books but, IMO, tacky and hurtful. You don't have to be breaking the law to be doing something wrong.
In my opinion, the way Royal Family treats their employees is hurtful and tacky (like after they all worked like crazy in 1992, and the Queen rewarded them with the "privilege" to borrow books from the library instead of a bonus). I can't blame the staff for not having an immense amount of loyalty.
^I know. I love how when they're working for them it's a "servant" that must address them with HRH then when they leave the job, the employee has to have loyalty as if they were BFFs.
Therein is the difference, HG. Bowing down to an accident of the fanny lottery and calling him HRH - years of servitude and stuff 'n' nonsense. Good luck to Dickie! Why shouldn't he make some money? The RF ponses have been living off us for years......
Anyone who doesn't want to refer to Charles as HRH or bow to him is free not to take a job where Charles is his boss and one of the expectations is that he be referred to by his title. But having taken that job, I find it distasteful that someone would then turn around and use private information about his employer to make a buck. It's not about being BFFs, it's about having common human decency.
Common human decency; yes...such a wonderful, little concept. And how exactly is something "private" if the people involved themselves felt the need to let everyone know?
Dickie Arbiter has said how he swam every day at Buckingham Palace, but had to time his swims not to correspond with any of the royal family.
I find it distasteful that staff are allowed to use the BP swimming pool, but are required to leave if any royal comes (unless they invite them to stay). If they arrive to swim and a royal family member is in the pool, they may not get in. That sounds belittling and distasteful.
I'm just confused really. Why is it that the royal doesn't owe the employee any other type of respect as an equal (basic human decency?) but the employee owes the royal life-long "loyalty"? Is it because the royal deserves better? I'm genuinely curious. You're right, the employee must do what the employer decides while in service like I said prior, but loyalty is something that is only truly owed between friends who respect each other as equals. If an employee *chooses* not to speak about their employment as a sign of "loyalty" that's fine; however, how is it something that is "owed"?
Quote from: Canuck on August 13, 2014, 07:40:57 PM
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you from saying things -- and even then, there are limits (like laws about libeling people, and in some places invasion of privacy).
We're talking about cases where it's *legal* to publish these books but, IMO, tacky and hurtful. You don't have to be breaking the law to be doing something wrong.
You're slowly becoming g my new favorite poster. Just because you can do something g doesn't mean you should. I have no loyalty the the RF, they could fall into the ocean for all I care; my issue is the lack of respect for other people's privavcy.
Double post auto-merged: August 14, 2014, 12:24:12 AM
Quote from: Lady Adams on August 13, 2014, 11:54:10 PM
Dickie Arbiter has said how he swam every day at Buckingham Palace, but had to time his swims not to correspond with any of the royal family.
I find it distasteful that staff are allowed to use the BP swimming pool, but are required to leave if any royal comes (unless they invite them to stay). If they arrive to swim and a royal family member is in the pool, they may not get in. That sounds belittling and distasteful.
It's not their pool! You're swimming in someone else's pool you play by their rules.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 14, 2014, 12:13:41 AM
I'm just confused really. Why is it that the royal doesn't owe the employee any other type of respect as an equal (basic human decency?) but the employee owes the royal life-long "loyalty"? Is it because the royal deserves better? I'm genuinely curious. You're right, the employee must do what the employer decides while in service like I said prior, but loyalty is something that is only truly owed between friends who respect each other as equals. If an employee *chooses* not to speak about their employment as a sign of "loyalty" that's fine; however, how is it something that is "owed"?
Of course the Royal owes their employees basic human decency. If Charles published a tell-all book about Arbiter's personal life, I would be equally (in fact, even more) outraged about that.
I don't understand the relevance of the fact that Royals are referred to by titles, set their own swimming pool's rules, etc. to this conversation. If Charles made Arbiter crawl around on all fours like a dog for his amusement, I would agree that shows such a huge amount of disrespect for Arbiter that no loyalty could be expected. But everyone who works in government is expected to refer to members of the BRF by their titles and to bow or curtsy.
Maybe you disagree with those conventions, but they're not something being imposed on Arbiter as a sign of disrespect and they're something he voluntarily signed up for when he took a job working for the family. Do you think that because White House employees have to refer to Obama as "Mr. President" or "sir", or because British government employees have to refer to Cameron as "Mr. Prime Minister" or "sir", that they're being so disrespected that it's totally fine for them to write books about the time that (by virtue of their employment, which necessarily meant they were around during very private moments) they saw those people fight with their wives or cry about a death in the family?
If you do, you're free to that opinion. But I find it incredibly distasteful.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 13, 2014, 08:10:02 PM
I suppose Voltaire was also wrong to write negative stories mocking the very Jesuits that educated him and profiting from it.
Traumas revisited. We called my youngest brother Candide for complaining bitterly about his Loyola School days... :hehe: Those were the days...
^ :teehee: hilarious
Double post auto-merged: August 14, 2014, 12:47:45 AM
Quote from: Canuck on August 14, 2014, 12:31:12 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 14, 2014, 12:13:41 AM
I'm just confused really. Why is it that the royal doesn't owe the employee any other type of respect as an equal (basic human decency?) but the employee owes the royal life-long "loyalty"? Is it because the royal deserves better? I'm genuinely curious. You're right, the employee must do what the employer decides while in service like I said prior, but loyalty is something that is only truly owed between friends who respect each other as equals. If an employee *chooses* not to speak about their employment as a sign of "loyalty" that's fine; however, how is it something that is "owed"?
Of course the Royal owes their employees basic human decency. If Charles published a tell-all book about Arbiter's personal life, I would be equally (in fact, even more) outraged about that.
I don't understand the relevance of the fact that Royals are referred to by titles, set their own swimming pool's rules, etc. to this conversation. If Charles made Arbiter crawl around on all fours like a dog for his amusement, I would agree that shows such a huge amount of disrespect for Arbiter that no loyalty could be expected. But everyone who works in government is expected to refer to members of the BRF by their titles and to bow or curtsy.
Maybe you disagree with those conventions, but they're not something being imposed on Arbiter as a sign of disrespect and they're something he voluntarily signed up for when he took a job working for the family. Do you think that because White House employees have to refer to Obama as "Mr. President" or "sir", or because British government employees have to refer to Cameron as "Mr. Prime Minister" or "sir", that they're being so disrespected that it's totally fine for them to write books about the time that (by virtue of their employment, which necessarily meant they were around during very private moments) they saw those people fight with their wives or cry about a death in the family?
If you do, you're free to that opinion. But I find it incredibly distasteful.
No, but then again Cameron and Obama both earned their titles and do not have the connotation of implying that one person is superior based on birth. That being said, I didn't use the use of HRH as proof of anything other than the fact that it is simply an employee-employer relationship. The man owes Charles nothing more than the service that he provided in exchange for a fee...which to my knowledge he provided. He is not Charles' friend, he was an employee. Loyalty is *owed* to friends or family; it may be given to others if the person so chooses, but it is not owed.
Many people have written about their time working for both presidents and other celebrities and I don't find that to be an issue at all. In fact, we would not have a great deal of knowledge about the true feelings of some presidents during important moments in our country's history were it not for memoirs of former employers.
:happy15: The other two had no complains... :shrug:
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 14, 2014, 12:38:04 AM
Many people have written about their time working for both presidents and other celebrities and I don't find that to be an issue at all. In fact, we would not have a great deal of knowledge about the true feelings of some presidents during important moments in our country's history were it not for memoirs of former employers.
This is an excellent point. I had not considered it from a broader perspective. :goodpost:
:) thanks. With me that's what it usually boils down to lol it's not just for current knowledge, but hundreds of years from now someone might wanna hear the perspective of someone who was there but not directly involved. Many of the current memoirs/works of literature we think of as indispensable when studying a particular time period or event may once have been viewed as "tacky" and "wrong" by some contemporaries...ie. Voltaire lol
^ Off topic-ish, but if anyone wants a great book about behind-the-scenes life at the White House, I recommend this memoir by a butler who was there from 1941–1969:
Upstairs at the White House: My Life with the First Ladies
Amazon.com: Upstairs at the White House: My Life with the First Ladies eBook: J. B. West, Mary Lynn Kotz: Kindle Store (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00F3QYL06/ref=oh_d__o00_details_o00__i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
^You know that reminds me, I'm ashamed to say I've never seen Lee Daniel's The Butler with Forest Whitaker, looked liked a great movie.
^Neither have I, even though it's on my list!
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on August 14, 2014, 12:21:36 AM
Quote from: Canuck on August 13, 2014, 07:40:57 PM
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you from saying things -- and even then, there are limits (like laws about libeling people, and in some places invasion of privacy).
We're talking about cases where it's *legal* to publish these books but, IMO, tacky and hurtful. You don't have to be breaking the law to be doing something wrong.
You're slowly becoming g my new favorite poster. Just because you can do something g doesn't mean you should. I have no loyalty the the RF, they could fall into the ocean for all I care; my issue is the lack of respect for other people's privavcy.
Double post auto-merged: August 14, 2014, 12:24:12 AM
While you are holding a mutual adoration here I believe the Royal Family invaded their own privacy in 1969 allowing the documentary A Royal family to be made. Charles invaded his own privacy in allowing his own biography to be written by Dimbleby and his subsequent interview. Did they ask for the permission of their employees if they minded being on film? or in the case of Charles did he ask permission from his inner circle of friends and employees if they minded?
Quote from: Lady Adams on August 14, 2014, 01:23:04 AM
^Neither have I, even though it's on my list!
HistoryGirl and Lady Adams, I have a list that is growing horribly of such films, as I have been so busy that any time I have a couple of hours to spend on tv I crave something distracting be it action, fantasy or something similar... And, the must-see list keeps growing....
Quote from: Lady Adams on August 13, 2014, 11:54:10 PM
I find it distasteful that staff are allowed to use the BP swimming pool, but are required to leave if any royal comes (unless they invite them to stay). If they arrive to swim and a royal family member is in the pool, they may not get in. That sounds belittling and distasteful.
Beyond, distastefull! Tell you what, if I was in the pool when a member of the RF dained to take a dip - I'd have refused to get out...what they gonna do about it? We are not living in North Korea.
They really are on another planet, considering there would be no BP pool worth swimming in - without the staff paying their taxes for the upkeep.
Quote from: Canuck on August 13, 2014, 11:19:06 PM
Anyone who doesn't want to refer to Charles as HRH or bow to him is free not to take a job where Charles is his boss and one of the expectations is that he be referred to by his title. But having taken that job, I find it distasteful that someone would then turn around and use private information about his employer to make a buck. It's not about being BFFs, it's about having common human decency.
Does nobody feel that the Official secrets act means anything? That if you take a job which means you have to sign it, that you owe it to yourself to stick with what you have signed? I agree that if someone takes a job working for a royal then they should stick with the rules of the job... no one is forcing them to do it
Payback time. Good for Dickie!
Listen - I am the most trusted friend you will ever wish to have....Dickie was a servant no more, no less. Why should he not add to his children/grandchildren's funds?
QuoteOfficial secrets act means anything?
What are they hiding?
Unless it is for the security of the Country - why would any employee need to sign that?
Because while doing their jobs they are very likely to learn things that are entirely personal--not state business in any sense--and shouldn't be allowed to profit from them? The BRF can't avoid having various employees around during private moments, does that mean that it's totally fine for a former employee to reveal BRF medical information, how they grieved a death, what they look like naked (the Queen's dresser and seamstress would certainly know!), whether they breastfeed, every personal disagreement between family members, that they dislike a particular actor, how messy their bedrooms are, etc.
I understand that many of you don't like the BRF, but they are still human beings and it's not okay to splash that kind of information around to profit off of their most intimate moments.
Quote from: Canuck on August 14, 2014, 09:23:41 PM
I understand that many of you don't like the BRF, but they are still human beings and it's not okay to splash that kind of information around to profit off of their most intimate moments.
Someone not liking someone's actions and positions should not give those who approve of their actions and admire their positions carte blanche to accuse them of thinking them inhuman... I read biographies, and, questionable information and personal perspectives and privileged information, if not illegal, is, whether we approve or not, fair game to share. As a reader of biographies, I would find it hypocritical to criticize this author until I read his book to know what my thoughts are specifically on what he is sharing, and I certainly don't think anyone who does not agree with you about his right to write this or whether he was right to write this is treating the royals as less than human beings... :shrug:
I didn't say you didn't think they were human beings. I said that because the members of the BRF are human beings, it's not okay to splash around their most intimate information for profit.
I don't think Dickie will reveal anything intimate... :coy:
I hope you're right.
Quote from: Limabeany on August 14, 2014, 10:19:42 PM
Quote from: Canuck on August 14, 2014, 09:23:41 PM
I understand that many of you don't like the BRF, but they are still human beings and it's not okay to splash that kind of information around to profit off of their most intimate moments.
Someone not liking someone's actions and positions should not give those who approve of their actions and admire their positions carte blanche to accuse them of thinking them inhuman... I read biographies, and, questionable information and personal perspectives and privileged information, if not illegal, is, whether we approve or not, fair game to share. As a reader of biographies, I would find it hypocritical to criticize this author until I read his book to know what my thoughts are specifically on what he is sharing, and I certainly don't think anyone who does not agree with you about his right to write this or whether he was right to write this is treating the royals as less than human beings... :shrug:
Totally. I can't sit here and pretend that I don't read biographies and accounts that reveal private moments while crying foul about the people who write them. My moral compass may be ridiculously skewed, but a hypocrite I am not. Never have I thought that the writer of an account that I've been told to analyze is a bad individual for doing so and I certainly won't apply a different standard simply because it is happening in the present.
Quote from: Canuck on August 14, 2014, 09:23:41 PM
.
I understand that many of you don't like the BRF, but they are still human beings and it's not okay to splash that kind of information around to profit off of their most intimate moments.
exactly. It shows IMO a poor sort of person who takes a job, knowing that they are supposed to keep the details of the job private.. and who then violates that trust, for money.
:blahblahblah: Well amabel you and Canuck and others may condemn Dickie for writing his memoirs and including his time with the RF but, I am willing to bet you all will be reading it or looking at a copy.
I've actually never read any of the tell-alls about the BRF. Sometimes the information makes its way into newspaper articles and you can't really avoid it, but no, I won't be reading the book.
Nor will I.
Cindy
Really? if none of you read tell all books then why are you all the most vocal in trashing Diana? or is it only tell all books about her that you read?
I can only speak for myself, but I don't "trash" Diana and I haven't read tell-all books about her, either. Some of the material from those books has made its way into newspaper articles, which is generally where I get my information from, but I don't seek that out.
Quote from: Trudie on August 15, 2014, 04:18:49 PM
Really? if none of you read tell all books then why are you all the most vocal in trashing Diana? or is it only tell all books about her that you read?
Not just Diana, but with stories to do with anyone. I don't work at a slaughterhouse, but I eat the meat they provide so I'm still supporting said industry.
The only "tell-all" books about Diana that I've read is the one she helped Andrew Morton write, and Sarah Bradford's book which was recommended to me here as being the most factual. Talking about Diana and pointing out what she could have done differently isn't "trashing" her, just as pointing out what Charles could have done differently isn't trashing him. And as Canuck says, many of the stories about Diana have found their way into newspaper articles, so obviously I've seen many of those.
Cindy
Most of the trashing Diana stories have come from Penny Junor and Ingrid Seward. Both are friends of Prince Charles. Many of the newspaper quotes come from people like these writers and Charles cousin in her own "tell all" takes a gratuitous slap at Diana (their book excerpts are often published). Other tell all books include Diana bashing. Some take the Seward/Junor stories as gospel.
Quote from: Canuck on August 15, 2014, 12:09:10 PM
I've actually never read any of the tell-alls about the BRF. Sometimes the information makes its way into newspaper articles and you can't really avoid it, but no, I won't be reading the book.
Me neither. I have nto watched Diana's tapes of her talks with Settelene either...
Double post auto-merged: August 16, 2014, 02:57:46 PM
Quote from: cinrit on August 15, 2014, 05:48:08 PM
The only "tell-all" books about Diana that I've read is the one she helped Andrew Morton write, and Sarah Bradford's book which was recommended to me here as being the most factual. Talking about Diana and pointing out what she could have done differently isn't "trashing" her, just as pointing out what Charles could have done differently isn't trashing him.
Cindy
I have tried to read bits of one or 2 books that I dd not entirely approve of, which were very critical of Diana, such as Jephson or Wharfe, but I found them hard to read. I though that they were generally unfair In their attitude to her and that they were written from bad motives, such as making money and from a certain spite against Di because they had had their quarrels with her. But you're right Cindy in saying that most of the materials that seems to show DI in a bad light came from her own lips such as the Settelen tapes or the Diana book and her tapes for Morton that were the main source of that book. She was her own wrost enemy in "shooting her mouth off" and talking bout things that she had done or at least said she'd Don, that made her seem crazy or out of control. Such as the "throwing herself down the stairs to scare Charles or to hurt herself" story.. that's her own lips saying it. Or slapping her father or pushing Raine Spencer. nearly all these tales came from her own mouth and she was either showng herself up as someone with a very hot temper who could not control it, or in the case of the throwing herself downstairs, probably she was exaggerating but did not seem to realise that it made her look crazy and selfish.
Jephson was critical of both Charles and Diana. He related a rather damning incident of Charles putting down Diana.
Charles shot his mouth off and even trashed his parents via his authorized biographer. It caused quite a stir back then in addition to the public confession of adultery on television. So how come Charles is not mentioned as being indiscreet. Charles own lips got him in some trouble. I think that made Charles look out of control. Charles had numerous occasions where he looked crazy and selfish.
Diana did not say she "threw herself down the stairs" to "scare" Charles. They had had a row and she tripped and did not fall "down the stairs"--it was one or two steps.
Settelen tapes were not meant for public consumption Diana had no idea she'd die young and the man would play them on TV.
Charles OTOH deliberately spilled his guts and whined to his authorized biographer.
Obviously you knew the contents of the Settelen tapes even though you did not watch them. There are threads of the continued going after Diana for pushing her stepmother down the stairs, etc etc.
The Jephson book needed a serious editor and rewrite, darn thing jumped all over the place. I guess the only way the member of the RF can prevent tell all books is if they outlive everyone they know or who has worked for them.
Charles deliberately spilled his gust and Diana did the same, quite convenient to forget her personal tell all. And it doesn't matter if she didn't t mean for those tapes to be released, what she talked about doing on them was immature among many other things.
well Charles certainly did not think that those phone tapes would go public. The dirty talk was not what some people paid attention to but that Charles and Camilla did not want an ambulance strike to end otherwise APB would have returned and spoiled their fun. I call that immature and rather cold blooded.
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on August 17, 2014, 04:06:46 PM
The Jephson book needed a serious editor and rewrite, darn thing jumped all over the place. I guess the only way the member of the RF can prevent tell all books is if they outlive everyone they know or who has worked for them.
Charles deliberately spilled his gust and Diana did the same, quite convenient to forget her personal tell all. And it doesn't matter if she didn't t mean for those tapes to be released, what she talked about doing on them was immature among many other things.
I wouldn't say that Charles "spilled his guts". he was certainly too open about his marriage, but he didn't say nearly as much to Dimbelby as Di said to Morton or Settelen. I agree obviously she didn't intend them for public consumption,but they weren't the sort of stuff that any sensible person would tell except to a close firend or a therapist or professional of some kind.
and the official secrets act IS supposed to protect the Royals form their employees writing books.
I read Dimbleby and it was an endless series of complaints and even trashing his parents. If it were so "tame" why would his siblings have spoken out of the treatment of Philip and Elizabeth in Charles' book?
Quote from: amabel on August 16, 2014, 08:51:42 AM
Quote from: Canuck on August 15, 2014, 12:09:10 PM
I've actually never read any of the tell-alls about the BRF. Sometimes the information makes its way into newspaper articles and you can't really avoid it, but no, I won't be reading the book.
Me neither. I have nto watched Diana's tapes of her talks with Settelene either...
Double post auto-merged: August 16, 2014, 02:57:46 PM
Quote from: cinrit on August 15, 2014, 05:48:08 PM
The only "tell-all" books about Diana that I've read is the one she helped Andrew Morton write, and Sarah Bradford's book which was recommended to me here as being the most factual. Talking about Diana and pointing out what she could have done differently isn't "trashing" her, just as pointing out what Charles could have done differently isn't trashing him.
Cindy
I have tried to read bits of one or 2 books that I dd not entirely approve of, which were very critical of Diana, such as Jephson or Wharfe, but I found them hard to read. I though that they were generally unfair In their attitude to her and that they were written from bad motives, such as making money and from a certain spite against Di because they had had their quarrels with her. But you're right Cindy in saying that most of the materials that seems to show DI in a bad light came from her own lips such as the Settelen tapes or the Diana book and her tapes for Morton that were the main source of that book. She was her own wrost enemy in "shooting her mouth off" and talking bout things that she had done or at least said she'd Don, that made her seem crazy or out of control. Such as the "throwing herself down the stairs to scare Charles or to hurt herself" story.. that's her own lips saying it. Or slapping her father or pushing Raine Spencer. nearly all these tales came from her own mouth and she was either showng herself up as someone with a very hot temper who could not control it, or in the case of the throwing herself downstairs, probably she was exaggerating but did not seem to realise that it made her look crazy and selfish.
Good points Amabel. :goodpost:
Quote from: amabel on August 17, 2014, 05:21:05 PM
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on August 17, 2014, 04:06:46 PM
The Jephson book needed a serious editor and rewrite, darn thing jumped all over the place. I guess the only way the member of the RF can prevent tell all books is if they outlive everyone they know or who has worked for them.
Charles deliberately spilled his gust and Diana did the same, quite convenient to forget her personal tell all. And it doesn't matter if she didn't t mean for those tapes to be released, what she talked about doing on them was immature among many other things.
I wouldn't say that Charles "spilled his guts". he was certainly too open about his marriage, but he didn't say nearly as much to Dimbelby as Di said to Morton or Settelen. I agree obviously she didn't intend them for public consumption,but they weren't the sort of stuff that any sensible person would tell except to a close firend or a therapist or professional of some kind.
and the official secrets act IS supposed to protect the Royals form their employees writing books.
So What parts did you read Amabel the synopsis on the book jacket? Charles spilled more then Diana ever thought about. Diana complained mostly about her loveless marriage and Charles affair but she made it clear she loved him. Charles on the other hand whined endlessly about his lot in life his parents apparent disinterest how he wasn't treated special, he was forced to marry etc. If his book wasn't as bad why did his siblings call him out on it.
Maybe this has been brought up before, but what are the chances the book will be banned in Britain?
I think Dickie is too much of a royalist to write a book that would be banned. But it may depend on what Charles thinks...
Out of curiosity does anyone know how many of these types of books on the BRF have been banned in the UK?
Quote from: amabel on August 17, 2014, 05:21:05 PM
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on August 17, 2014, 04:06:46 PM
The Jephson book needed a serious editor and rewrite, darn thing jumped all over the place. I guess the only way the member of the RF can prevent tell all books is if they outlive everyone they know or who has worked for them.
Charles deliberately spilled his gust and Diana did the same, quite convenient to forget her personal tell all. And it doesn't matter if she didn't t mean for those tapes to be released, what she talked about doing on them was immature among many other things.
I wouldn't say that Charles "spilled his guts". he was certainly too open about his marriage, but he didn't say nearly as much to Dimbelby as Di said to Morton or Settelen. I agree obviously she didn't intend them for public consumption,but they weren't the sort of stuff that any sensible person would tell except to a close firend or a therapist or professional of some kind.
and the official secrets act IS supposed to protect the Royals form their employees writing books.
I've never read the Charles biography so I honestly donot know what he said or how much he said. I haven't read the Morton book in years, since I jumped off the diana was a saint train.
If Charles does not want to read bad things about him...then HE should have behaved better! Go on Dickie!
Talk about rubbish-footing around this pampered Prince... :ahhh:
Quote from: TLLK on August 18, 2014, 02:39:29 PM
Out of curiosity does anyone know how many of these types of books on the BRF have been banned in the UK?
I only know of the Kitty Kelly book that was banned.
and the Housekeepers Diary.
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on August 18, 2014, 10:43:54 PM
Quote from: amabel on August 17, 2014, 05:21:05 PM
Quote from: KaTerina Montague on August 17, 2014, 04:06:46 PM
The Jephson book needed a serious editor and rewrite, darn thing jumped all over the place. I guess the only way the member of the RF can prevent tell all books is if they outlive everyone they know or who has worked for them.
Charles deliberately spilled his gust and Diana did the same, quite convenient to forget her personal tell all. And it doesn't matter if she didn't t mean for those tapes to be released, what she talked about doing on them was immature among many other things.
I wouldn't say that Charles "spilled his guts". he was certainly too open about his marriage, but he didn't say nearly as much to Dimbelby as Di said to Morton or Settelen. I agree obviously she didn't intend them for public consumption,but they weren't the sort of stuff that any sensible person would tell except to a close firend or a therapist or professional of some kind.
and the official secrets act IS supposed to protect the Royals form their employees writing books.
I've never read the Charles biography so I honestly donot know what he said or how much he said. I haven't read the Morton book in years, since I jumped off the diana was a saint train.
The book is an eye opener. When I read it a second time (just last year) it seemed he was even harsher with his parents. I did not notice anybody on the threads (even her fans) calling Diana a Saint.
I think both books I read were eye-openers.
Cindy
Dimbleby actually used Morton's book as a reference. Even Carolyn Bartholomew's quotes were used. But the most shocking part was Charles via his biographer slamming his parents and collecting it seemed every grievance he had from young childhood on.
It genuinely frightens me that books can be banned.
Thank you Katerina and Sophie Chloe for sharing your answers. I'd read before that some were banned in the UK.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 18, 2014, 11:06:02 PM
It genuinely frightens me that books can be banned.
It is frightening. Other countries do it too, and not just for books... and let me tell you-- nothing I hate more than reading a magazine that has been blacked out!
I can't even believe it would occur in seemingly democratic country. I just can't.
I am wondering why Kitty Kelly's book was banned yet Lady Colin Campbell's book about the Queen Mother (which claimed she was the illegitimate daughter the result of a liaison her father had with a cook among other rather bizarre contentions) did not. Kelly also had the same story about the Queen Mum but Lady C. did not get banned.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 19, 2014, 12:24:37 AM
I can't even believe it would occur in seemingly democratic country. I just can't.
Unbelievable, hey?
Quote from: Lady Adams on August 19, 2014, 12:21:06 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 18, 2014, 11:06:02 PM
It genuinely frightens me that books can be banned.
It is frightening. Other countries do it too, and not just for books... and let me tell you-- nothing I hate more than reading a magazine that has been blacked out!
Out of curiosity which country were you visiting when you read this magazine? This sounds like war time censorship. :o
Quote from: sandy on August 19, 2014, 12:26:42 AM
I am wondering why Kitty Kelly's book was banned yet Lady Colin Campbell's book about the Queen Mother (which claimed she was the illegitimate daughter the result of a liaison her father had with a cook among other rather bizarre contentions) did not. Kelly also had the same story about the Queen Mum but Lady C. did not get banned.
Connections in high places? (I don't mean the royal family but in government circles.)
I have to say, I can't stand Lady Colin. She seems to get hold of the most grotesque gossip and run with it. The Queen Mother reputedly had the same colouring as her mother, Lady Strathmore, and often in these huge Victorian families there would be one or two late births.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 19, 2014, 12:24:37 AM
I can't even believe it would occur in seemingly democratic country. I just can't.
Well, it's not that books are banned per se -- just that the authors choose not to publish there because they'd be subject to lawsuits if they did. I don't really see the problem with that. If someone libels you, you should be able to sue; if someone breaches a confidentiality agreement they signed, ditto.
Yeah, we've discussed this topic before. Sorry we just don't have the same values when it comes to that. Agree to disagree.
We may disagree on whether it's right or wrong, but I wanted to clarify the facts -- people were talking like the government was banning books, which isn't what's happening.
You can say whatever you'd like.
Double post auto-merged: August 19, 2014, 04:57:00 AM
For some reason, Charles has always struck me as a very whiny man.
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 19, 2014, 04:22:27 AM
You can say whatever you'd like.
Double post auto-merged: August 19, 2014, 04:57:00 AM
For some reason, Charles has always struck me as a very whiny man.
Not just you! The wells of self-pity in Charles's persona have always been full to overflowing, IMO. He also seems to have a distressing tendency to blame others for his own mistakes.
^Yeah, I can't handle individuals like that. It's pathetic and spineless. It's ridiculous for me to think that since I don't know him, but that's my impression.
Quote from: Curryong on August 19, 2014, 05:30:34 AM
Quote from: HistoryGirl on August 19, 2014, 04:22:27 AM
You can say whatever you'd like.
Double post auto-merged: August 19, 2014, 04:57:00 AM
For some reason, Charles has always struck me as a very whiny man.
Not just you! The wells of self-pity in Charles's persona have always been full to overflowing, IMO. He also seems to have a distressing tendency to blame others for his own mistakes.
I agree with both of you :nod:
Just to clarify are certain books banned or just not published in certain places.
An institution that is tongue in cheekly referred to as "The Firm" should not feel entitled to employee confidentiality or loyalty if they're not willing to set a standard of good morale among their employees. They are not above reproach, despite what others may insist.
Monarchy, as an extension of government and the church, should always be evaluated by the same regulatory cheques and balances of corporations and government. If that mean insider information is leaked, so be it. Granted, there will inevitably be a slant, especially in terms of a first-hand, singular account of the details, I really don't think this more abhorrent, ethically speaking, than the wire-tapping exposes of the 1990s during The War of the Wales's or the recent phone hacking incidents. People can make up their own minds as to Arbiter's perspective.
As for legal repercussions, "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear," seems apt to this situation.
Also, it's been many moons ago, but LOLKittyKelly! An interpretation of the Windsors that may as well be a dollar bin buy. Paperback smut "writer".
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...
^^ Amabel, sorry, I meant the Dimbleby book and the Morton book.
Cindy
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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.
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.
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 (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/faqs?page=1)
Cindy
I personally think Charles will rue the day he put that up on his website about The Princess Consort.
^^ I think so, too. :unsure:
Cindy
Quote from: cinrit on August 22, 2014, 10:35:56 AM
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 (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/faqs?page=1)
Cindy
I have BEEN INTENDING to lose weight for the past 5 years. :teehee:
I INTENDED to be rich.
I INTENED today to do everything my Things-to-do list.
I INTENED to be placed in a better work position this year.
Intend. Intended.
OK.
Word, EXCELLENT wording on their part as they, TPTB, pr team, the writers, legal dept, etc.
I have said before, princess to King. No.
BRF- The King is married to the Queen. :windsor1: :Jen:
The Queen is married to the Prince.
Charles is the husband who will be King and Camilla , his wife, will be Queen.
As we discussed on the other threads about PD's lost of HRH and The...major parts of being styled and titled. It is very big in their world.
Camilla will be styled and titled Queen (common term) and nothing less.
amabel, yes, I am sure PC, I mean King C will not bestow on his stepkids any kind of HRH title because even though he can do whatever he likes, that during these times would be a bit much. If PC and CBP lived say, 200 years, even that recently, he could ahve done this. Titles and lands were given out by the Monarch like candy during history . Taken away too. Sometimes the line just ended.
HOWEVER, I would not be surpirsed if KC gave some things to his godson and stepson, TBP like Order of the Garter or Sir. Celebs Mick and Paul and other people have that. TPB is a celeb sort of in his profession.
LPC-Lopes will be one when her father-in-law dies, Lady and whatnot of that line.
Titles,styling mean everything in their world.
Queen Camilla is on her way.
I do NOT , DO not like her.
I always say I am unbiased, but she rightfully ,legally, must be Queen Camila and deserves to be Queen Camilla......................................QUEEN OF THE ROTWEILLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, you have just have to take a negative comment at her. LOL!!
Also, and I do not blame, but no way are her kids and grandkids going to shutted away to her , their RMHouse house and and she can sneak , go off like now and see them there. They will be with her.
Yes, amabel, you are correct about PPhillip. Well, he is not king Phillip. He can just sit his old butt down and accept it.
His son, King Charles, overules him. PPhillip has no power and would have no right nor power .
Yes, amabel, the people and changes. I think the PC and CPB controversy is not over. It is quiet for now.
When QEII dies, the last phase will start.
Yes, the will surely some controversy and much media reports for and against C being called Q and more when her children are there at Buck Balcony and Sandringham Christmas walk. Like with all things BRF, it will blow over and the people will accept it as they always do and have done for centruries. From Henry marrying and declaring next wife up watever he wanted to chopping their heads of for whatever reason he thought of . To PC marrying CPB. To the big media repeorts about WnK and the cost of KP to decorate to AH to decorate to his doing whatever he wants and it is now, S&R. To PAndrew dating Koo. To PC and PD divorce.
To the people , slowly accepting, when the time times, for PAndrew to take Sarah back, in MY opinion there. I believe when QEII dies, they will get back together. I would PPhillip, but he is not King. They waited for QEII to die. Ahhhh. Thta showed respect. PC married CPB, so why was PAndrew denied. Awww.... Sarah was never the mistress..awwwww. See where I am going with this.
The only thing the people could not accept and TPTB, BRF, politicans, etc. simply could not make right due to the times and just everything about her , was the WSimpson. I have said, I think if she were a pretty, young, fertile , never married American heiress, ok. A titled unmarreid girl from Italy, France, any Europoean nation, ok. A rich unmarried, Canadian or from So.Africa all British descent, ok. Anything but what she was: several times married and divorced, reputation as party girl soicalite with unscruplelous jet set, ugly, manly looking and so it says infertile, threatenting in that PE said , him or her or not and gave it all up for the likes of her.
Charles will certainly provide trust funds to Camilla's grandchildren. He was said to have given trust funds to Tom and Laura and employment to Camilla's sister Anabel. I would not be surprised if he conferred titles on Tom and Laura.
Quote from: cinrit on August 22, 2014, 10:35:56 AM
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 (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/faqs?page=1)
Cindy
well that just says "It is intneded" but I think when the queen goes, it will be decided formally that she'll be crowned queen. At the time of their wedding, ti was announced that she'd probably be Princess Consort but they were being cautious. I don't believe that people will care very much in another say 10 years...
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.
well I agree with that. I think he is indifferent though at this stage. he knows that He's come back from a very low place in popularity to a modest approval rating, and that he is on track for being King I due course. I would say he knows it would not look good to trash Diana, but he knows that there will be people out there, who will do so for various reasons.. certainly from about 3 years after her death most bios of her that appeared were a LOT less sympathetic than might be expected ( such as Jepshson, Wharfe etc), and I should say that he feels that there's nothing he can do about them, it si best to stay silent. I think that the Pam Hicks book is what the RF mostly feel about Diana and while he'd prefer it if they all stayed stchum, he just says nothing, and does not want to give them impression of more family rows going on.
I thinkt that if he CAN do soemting like with Arbiter, he will make a small effort but it does not look too good if he and the RF are seen as trying to interfere too much with what people publish...
Charles was always on track to be King.
Well let's see the recent biographies about Diana were written by Charles sympathizers: Penny Junor and Ingrid Seward so any guesses about how Diana is going to be portrayed. Tina Brown's was just gossipy.
Diana: The Story of a princess and Sarah Bradford's books were sympathetic and then there was the book which paid tribute to Diana's charities.
Wharfe and Jephson were not exactly kind to Prince Charles.
Charles could have made Diana non negotiable and his minions would have never dared to bash Diana posthumously. Funny how Charles is able to make a fuss only when it suits his purposes. But with Diana he is totally helpless to discourage the bashing. More free passes for Prince Charles.
Quote from: amabel on August 31, 2014, 12:15:33 PM
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.
well I agree with that. I think he is indifferent though at this stage. he knows that He's come back from a very low place in popularity to a modest approval rating, and that he is on track for being King I due course. I would say he knows it would not look good to trash Diana, but he knows that there will be people out there, who will do so for various reasons.. certainly from about 3 years after her death most bios of her that appeared were a LOT less sympathetic than might be expected ( such as Jepshson, Wharfe etc), and I should say that he feels that there's nothing he can do about them, it si best to stay silent. I think that the Pam Hicks book is what the RF mostly feel about Diana and while he'd prefer it if they all stayed stchum, he just says nothing, and does not want to give them impression of more family rows going on.
I thinkt that if he CAN do soemting like with Arbiter, he will make a small effort but it does not look too good if he and the RF are seen as trying to interfere too much with what people publish...
See Amabel you just hit the nail on the head. He stayed silent on the books written by Jephson and Wharfe knowing they might be critical especially since they departed her employ though they were a bit critical about him. He could have done something about the Hicks book after all she is his relative but chose not to because she is totally sympathetic to him and trashes Diana but this book by Arbiter He feels he can do something because he is totally afraid that the real truth about his marriage to Diana and the fact that Camilla crowded the marriage and his demeaning treatment of Diana is something he will want to have forever hidden. When it comes to self preservation that is when Charles makes an effort when it comes to the memory of his ex wife well trashing her makes Camilla look a lot better in his eyes.
"It is understood" that "officials" are trying to stop the book from being published sounds cagey to me. Are we even sure that Charles is angry? "The prince is said to be furious...it is reported" sounds cagey, too. Who reported it? No source named.
Cindy
I'm sure he's not pleased. Whether it is a good idea to try and take legal action is another matter.
Well, he can't be very pleased, that's for sure. But the original report was that "Charles is furious". Is he? There's a vast difference between being furious and not being pleased.
Cindy
Charles is known to be tantrum like... Even throwing things at his employees. So furious would sound like him...
Charles was known to be tantrum prone in his younger years. I haven't heard anything like that about him the past couple of decades, though. Benefit of the doubt.....
Cindy
There is no evidence he has changed, is he practicing yoga now? :happy15:
I actually wouldn't be surprised if I found out he meditates (and maybe yoga, too). The Dalai Lama counts him as a friend, so maybe he's taught him control.
Cindy
The Dalai Lama counts anyone who can give him a higher profile and can raise money for him as a friend... :happy15:
I think the Dalai Lama is better than that.
Cindy
I have no doubt Charles is knowledgeable about such issues and interested in deep issues, but also no doubt he is tantrum prone, although. I doubt in front of the DL. The DL is also someone who very much needs money and friends in high places...
I agree with you Lima a leopard also doesn't change it 's spots
I would this book but I feel like I probably know everything it says.
His position was unique and different from anyone else who has written books about them and about this time. It could be interesting. :sigh:
well he just played a relatively prominent role in the recent Harry documentary and you know everyone in that docu was vetted by the RF before they were chosen to appear so I'd say there is little danger of Dicky saying anything controversial in his book. He also put a huge gloss on Harry's youthful indiscretions - the usual boys will be boys sort of thing. So I don't buy that PC is all that upset or that the book will bare all. Few tidbits here and there maybe but nothing of substance.
It really will shed light into the whole issue, but I am certain it won't be damaging to anyone. I can't see him trashing the people he worked for so long and so closely with.
I see him as a royalist, so I agree, but they could not have felt comfortable at the thought of,another book written about this time by an insider, however respectful Dickie may be in his account.
Trust me, these people are past all that! It was all about 20+ years ago, the Royal Family have moved on and are confident that nothing will ever come from any "new" revelation, regardless of who may publish it. Are they worried? NO! Are they disappointed? Probably yes, you wouldn't want a former employee of yours to go about telling people about you and your private life... Regardless of whether its good or bad... :shrug:
They may be confident about Dickie, but when they spend their entire lives presenting a facade to the world they can't not worry someone will feel the urge to blab.
:thumbsup: Excellent point, Limabeany. There will always be a human need to expose the fallacy of a persons' "face to the world".
I really don't think that this publication will be that damaging. I imagine the Dicky will focus on HIS career inside the palace and will most likely convey his reaction to things that he experienced there, his point of view of all the things that have been in the media for decades.
I also really wonder just what is so terrible that might be behind the façade. There are probably things they would prefer not come out - certainly a batch of stuff from the last 100 years about the wider family but while there probably is stuff re: Andrew and Fergie and what binds that relationship stuff about money perhaps and maybe some interesting things about PP - I rather doubt we'd find huge scandals. Perhaps naïve of me.
Quote from: cate1949 on September 05, 2014, 05:50:24 PM
I also really wonder just what is so terrible that might be behind the façade. There are probably things they would prefer not come out - certainly a batch of stuff from the last 100 years about the wider family but while there probably is stuff re: Andrew and Fergie and what binds that relationship stuff about money perhaps and maybe some interesting things about PP - I rather doubt we'd find huge scandals. Perhaps naïve of me.
its not a case of what's so terrible, albeit there may be things the RF would prefer not to come out. the point is that he's violating the Official secrets act and the promises he gave in taking employemnet. But that seesm to mean nothing to people nowadays
The violating of the Official secrets act was violated long ago by the royals themselves starting with the 69 documentary onwards. Charles violated his own privacy with Dimbleby both in print and his interview. That ship sailed long ago amabel.
There's a difference between talking about yourself, and someone else talking about you. Especially if they've made an agreement of confidentiality.
Cindy
Well I guess I should rephrase it that Charles expects confidentiality from his friends but that didn't stop them from talking about Diana to the press leaking stories with no consequences during and after the marriage. Again that ship sailed long ago Cindy.
Quote from: cinrit on September 06, 2014, 12:15:59 AM
There's a difference between talking about yourself, and someone else talking about you. Especially if they've made an agreement of confidentiality.
Cindy
yes of course. I simply can't understand this. I've signed the official secrets act, and for me to violate that, for money, would simply be incomprehsenible to me
Quote from: Trudie on September 06, 2014, 02:56:21 AM
Well I guess I should rephrase it that Charles expects confidentiality from his friends but that didn't stop them from talking about Diana to the press leaking stories with no consequences during and after the marriage. Again that ship sailed long ago Cindy.
Again, that was a situation that he was personally involved in. It doesn't have much bearing on Arbiter's book, as I see it.
Cindy
^ Well at least you finally admit that Charles was the one responsible for what his friends leaked to the press. As for Arbiter this is his memoir and I think he is telling what his job was like from the inside and how he performed I highly doubt anything will come out of it and he already covered himself legally with regards to the Official Secrets act. Though I am amused at the thought of Charles squirming at what he has to say. :happy15:
^^ If you mean me, no, I don't know that Charles is responsible for what anyone does. Nor do I believe that Charles is "furious", though I do believe he's at the very least disappointed.
Cindy
The problem with Charles' disappointment/anger/whatever is the same I see with Angelina and Brad's wedding pictures, you can't claim a moral high ground when you have sold your story for money or to get back at your ex-wife is irrelevant, the Queen however can believably claim disappointment.
Quote from: cinrit on September 06, 2014, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: Trudie on September 06, 2014, 02:56:21 AM
Well I guess I should rephrase it that Charles expects confidentiality from his friends but that didn't stop them from talking about Diana to the press leaking stories with no consequences during and after the marriage. Again that ship sailed long ago Cindy.
Again, that was a situation that he was personally involved in. It doesn't have much bearing on Arbiter's book, as I see it.
Cindy
Quote from: cinrit on September 06, 2014, 09:15:00 PM
^^ If you mean me, no, I don't know that Charles is responsible for what anyone does. Nor do I believe that Charles is "furious", though I do believe he's at the very least disappointed.
Cindy
Really Cindy I thought I would remind you of your first post about Charles friends leaking to the media and you replied "Again that was a situation he was personally involved in" reread above please Second post " I don't know that Charles is responsible for what anyone does". I personally get amused at your little game in many of the threads where you say one thing then flip with a version of words being twisted. Charles most probably is furious as he has not been consulted on what is in the book and bringing up the 90's by Arbiter and his role just might make Camilla's rehabilitation suffer a bit. But I assume there will be a serialization in one or more of the papers before the publication in a few weeks. :mad7: :lmao:
Sorry, Trudie, but you're attributing meanings to my words that aren't there and pretending that I'm playing some game. But that's okay. I'm glad I amuse you. :flower:
Cindy
Amusing... :orchid:
I understood and agree with you, Cindy. Big difference about talking about your own situation vs. spilling other people's personal information.
Quote from: Canuck on September 07, 2014, 03:24:46 AM
I understood and agree with you, Cindy. Big difference about talking about your own situation vs. spilling other people's personal information.
of course there is. How can anyone not see that? If you tell something to someone in confidence, you Hope and expect for them to keep it a secret.. just between you. If someone is employed by you, and they are bound o know things about your private life, and they sign an agreement to keep those things confidential, then you expect them to keep these things to themselves
if you choose to talk to the world about your private life that's your choice. it is your life and your are entitled to tell about ti what you wish.
Double post auto-merged: September 07, 2014, 07:08:16 AM
Quote from: cinrit on September 06, 2014, 09:15:00 PM
^^ If you mean me, no, I don't know that Charles is responsible for what anyone does. Nor do I believe that Charles is "furious", though I do believe he's at the very least disappointed.
Cindy
I'd agree he's rpobalby not furious but that he's certainly probably annoyed and disappointed. He msut know that social deference and the official secrets act don't seem to mean much nowadays. But usually for a royal to take action against an employee or ex employee, looks like a rich person being mean spiirtied, so they rarely do It now...
I think human beings have a right to speak about their lives if they wish. If the man wants to write about his time spent working for the royals it's his business. I hardly doubt they spent their Saturdays braiding each other's hair gabbing about their relationships. He'll speak about his experience and view on events, which I personally believe should be entitled to any human being.
Does the fact that he made a promise in writing not to do so, mean NOTHNING?
Not to me. Charles also made a promise to his young bride. If he had kept that promise, maybe Dickie would have nothing to write about?
He's not divulging state secrets or putting their security at stake. He's going to discuss his life which happens to include the time around Diana's death as one is entitled to do in a memoir.
Quote from: SophieChloe on September 07, 2014, 06:07:32 PM
Not to me. Charles also made a promise to his young bride. If he had kept that promise, maybe Dickie would have nothing to write about?
I love you SophieChloe Touche!!!
However much you blame Charles for his marriage, I don't see what that has to do with a staff member selling his personal information to the world. Just like Diana making bad decisions in her personal life didn't make it okay for her staff to sell her information, as so many of them regrettably did.
Quote from: Canuck on September 07, 2014, 08:43:54 PM
However much you blame Charles for his marriage, I don't see what that has to do with a staff member selling his personal information to the world. Just like Diana making bad decisions in her personal life didn't make it okay for her staff to sell her information, as so many of them regrettably did.
exaclty. All these people are doing ti for money. they don't have the freedom to write about their jobs, because that is the nature of such jobs.
Quote from: Canuck on September 07, 2014, 08:43:54 PM
However much you blame Charles for his marriage, I don't see what that has to do with a staff member selling his personal information to the world. Just like Diana making bad decisions in her personal life didn't make it okay for her staff to sell her information, as so many of them regrettably did.
Just like Charles making bad decisions about his personal life, it didn't make it ok for his friends to say what he wanted tehm to say, in my eyes, only the Queen is above all this.
? his friends are his Friends. If he was OK with them saying things about his personal life, then there's nothing wrong with them talking to the press though it might have been wiser not to. Diana used her friends to brief the press as well.. and in sourcing Diana her True Story. If you give your friends permission to tell things that you told them in confidence it is not the same as an employee, using his psostion to make money for himself in telling things that you did NOT give him permission to say.
He is "angered" by this while authorizing Penny Junor's vicious biography on his own son? What a self-absorbed hypocrite. Charles has no moral high ground to be upset, none.
Quote from: Limabeany on September 08, 2014, 05:45:57 AM
He is "angered" by this while authorizing Penny Junor's vicious biography on his own son? He has no moral high ground to be angry, none.
sorry you've lost me? What vicious biography? which son? How has he authorised it? Surely only WIll or Harry could do that?
According to @EmilyAndrews, "KP co-operated so as close to authorised bio asposs" on Penny Junor's Prince Harry bio, there is no way Prince Harry did this to himself.
I don't believe that Harry authorised anyone to speak to Junor on his behalf. (If he did we wouldn't be getting this second hand trash that she's been peddling in her serialisation.) Nor do I believe that Harry saw any drafts before they went to the publishers or otherwise he'd be asking her to change her particular take on his mother.
Co-operated may well mean authorized some people to talk to her, but j highly doubt it involved having editorial control over drafts of the book. All of the Royal bios that got co-operation still say some things I'm sure the subject would rather they not -- they aren't ghostwritten autobiographies, with full control of the content.
Quote from: amabel on September 08, 2014, 05:47:17 AM
Quote from: Limabeany on September 08, 2014, 05:45:57 AM
He is "angered" by this while authorizing Penny Junor's vicious biography on his own son? He has no moral high ground to be angry, none.
sorry you've lost me? What vicious biography? which son? How has he authorised it? Surely only WIll or Harry could do that?
Go to the Harry thread or the Daily mail that is serializing the book. Harry is thrown under the bus. Clarence House has approved the book.
Clarence House didn't approve the book. KP co-operated with it. As in Harry, not Charles.
Quote from: Canuck on September 07, 2014, 08:43:54 PM
However much you blame Charles for his marriage, I don't see what that has to do with a staff member selling his personal information to the world. Just like Diana making bad decisions in her personal life didn't make it okay for her staff to sell her information, as so many of them regrettably did.
:goodpost:
Quote from: Canuck on September 08, 2014, 11:41:55 AM
Clarence House didn't approve the book. KP co-operated with it. As in Harry, not Charles.
If Harry was agreeable to his friends, colleagues etc... working with Ms. Juror then he had to be aware of what type of information about his youth going to be shared.
Do you honestly think Harry would have signed up to have his mother bashed? This has Charles fingerprints all over it. Camilla is probably cackling over the Diana bashing by the Hatchet Woman.
Jephson said that a MS of Charles Victim or Villain arrived at Charles' offices at St. James Palace. I would suspect Charles knew all about this but of course he could not do a thing about the hatchet woman. Yeah right.
Do you honestly think that Harry's friends or personal staff would have talked to PJ against Harry's wishes?
This book does not appear any different than the one PJ wrote about Will when he turned 30 -- it contained the same type of information about Diana, and the same basically positive view of its subject (then Will, and now Harry).
Quote from: Canuck on September 08, 2014, 05:50:19 PM
Do you honestly think that Harry's friends or personal staff would have talked to PJ against Harry's wishes?
This book does not appear any different than the one PJ wrote about Will when he turned 30 -- it contained the same type of information about Diana, and the same basically positive view of its subject (then Will, and now Harry).
I'm not so sure that royal friends and servants show tehs same kind of loyalty these days but I don't really think that they are likely to rubbish their friend/employer all that much, at least while still in favour.
Double post auto-merged: September 09, 2014, 05:10:59 AM
Quote from: Canuck on September 08, 2014, 11:41:55 AM
Clarence House didn't approve the book. KP co-operated with it. As in Harry, not Charles.
why does publicity say tht Clarence House gave "the nod" to the book?
Quote from: TLLK on September 08, 2014, 03:36:14 PM
Quote from: Canuck on September 08, 2014, 11:41:55 AM
Clarence House didn't approve the book. KP co-operated with it. As in Harry, not Charles.
If Harry was agreeable to his friends, colleagues etc... working with Ms. Juror then he had to be aware of what type of information about his youth going to be shared.
Given Harry's capacity to hold grudges, the fact that the only person who has consistently benefitted from her books is Charles, given she consistently trashes the mother he dedicates his work to publicly many times, never to Charles by the way, I don't see why he would select Junor unless he wasn't given a choice.
does Harry hold grudges? He doesn't seme that way to me.
I've never heard that Harry holds grudges, either. I think he's a positive sort of person.
I agree. Not that I can eget up much interest in him but he is IMO too jolly and lively to be thinking about the past or holding a grudge. And while he is not the brightest, I assume htat he's OK with Penny Junor writing a biography or he might have commissioned someone else. So I doubt if he was going to let soemoen write a bio of him if they were so hostile to him as people seem to be claiming...
How do you know amabel?. The nod for the book came from Clarence House and there is not much Harry can do about it since Charles pays for their office and engagements.
Well, saying the book came from Clarence House is kind of pushing it. Is there anything in the book that is untrue? If not, then what are the complaints? I doubt Charles would throw his own son to the lions.
Cindy
I would say there's very little chance that Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton would have spoken with PJ on the record -- letting her use his name in quoting him -- if Harry hadn't agreed to it. JLP still works as an advisor to Harry (and Will and Kate) and has been very close to the boys for a long time. Do people really think he would turn on Harry by publicly co-operating (again, actually attaching his name to it) with a book Harry hadn't authorized him to take part in?
^ totally agree -
Quote from: cinrit on September 12, 2014, 09:31:27 PM
Well, saying the book came from Clarence House is kind of pushing it. Is there anything in the book that is untrue? If not, then what are the complaints? I doubt Charles would throw his own son to the lions.
Cindy
I assume that Harry is OK with the book. If he weren't, he'd probably have commissioned a book from a tame author which would pump him up, if this book is highly ciritcial of him. Is it? has anyone read Any of it?
Quote from: cinrit on September 12, 2014, 09:31:27 PM
Well, saying the book came from Clarence House is kind of pushing it. Is there anything in the book that is untrue? If not, then what are the complaints? I doubt Charles would throw his own son to the lions.
Cindy
Cindy I said the NOD for the book came from Clarence House this was published along with the serialization look it up in the Harry thread and yes Harry has been thrown before with the rehab story after it was revealed he smoked cannabis aka marijuana.
Quote from: amabel on September 13, 2014, 06:22:47 AM
Quote from: cinrit on September 12, 2014, 09:31:27 PM
Well, saying the book came from Clarence House is kind of pushing it. Is there anything in the book that is untrue? If not, then what are the complaints? I doubt Charles would throw his own son to the lions.
Cindy
I assume that Harry is OK with the book. If he weren't, he'd probably have commissioned a book from a tame author which would pump him up, if this book is highly ciritcial of him. Is it? has anyone read Any of it?
I doubt Harry commissioned the book. Choosing a woman who loathes his deceased mother. No way!
Penny Junor writes the books of her own volition and is a C and C person. She is pushing her own agenda and is obviously trying to make C and C pleased raising the two of them to sainthood.
Harry is only 30 and there have been other books about him and he does not have to "commission them."
I can't imagine Harry would choose a hatchet woman who constantly attacks his mother
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2014, 11:48:27 AM
Quote from: Canuck on September 08, 2014, 05:50:19 PM
Do you honestly think that Harry's friends or personal staff would have talked to PJ against Harry's wishes?
This book does not appear any different than the one PJ wrote about Will when he turned 30 -- it contained the same type of information about Diana, and the same basically positive view of its subject (then Will, and now Harry).
The same type of information about Diana? The same type of bashing is more accurate.
Junor goes on like a broken record about Diana and makes C and C look like living Saints. Maybe she should get them canonized.
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2014, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Canuck on September 12, 2014, 09:38:54 PM
I would say there's very little chance that Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton would have spoken with PJ on the record -- letting her use his name in quoting him -- if Harry hadn't agreed to it. JLP still works as an advisor to Harry (and Will and Kate) and has been very close to the boys for a long time. Do people really think he would turn on Harry by publicly co-operating (again, actually attaching his name to it) with a book Harry hadn't authorized him to take part in?
There's nothing wrong with people being interviewed about Harry. The wrong part is that Junor clearly has an agenda and a lot of the book is about praising C and C to the skies and condemning Diana.
Double post auto-merged: September 13, 2014, 11:50:41 AM
Quote from: cinrit on September 12, 2014, 09:31:27 PM
Well, saying the book came from Clarence House is kind of pushing it. Is there anything in the book that is untrue? If not, then what are the complaints? I doubt Charles would throw his own son to the lions.
Cindy
There are many things untrue in the book--Junor is skewing things to get honors from C and C. Nobody but Junor puts out the Diana makes threatening calls to Camilla rubbish. It sounds like something out of a cheap melodrama.
Quote from: cinrit on September 12, 2014, 09:31:27 PM
Well, saying the book came from Clarence House is kind of pushing it. Is there anything in the book that is untrue? If not, then what are the complaints? I doubt Charles would throw his own son to the lions.
Cindy
Perhaps no one's supposed to criticise Harry for anything? and if the book has some negative stuff about him, it is considered bad? certainly there has been plenty of "bad press" for Harry over the years sicne he was a teenager, it was well known that he was drinking under age, trying drugs etc. And since he grew up, while he has done well in the army, He's also been pretty foolish at times outside his work. I can't see how any responsible biography can ignore these things.
Harry was drinking underage because he was left to his own devices at Highgrove and for some reason had access to the liquor cabinet. A lock would have solved some of the problems.
I don't call Junor a responsible biographer.
William went through plenty of antics including commandeering a military copter to go to a stag party and he did not look like he just drank malted milks.
Harry drank underage because he wanted to and had the opportunity. If the only reason was opportunity, where did he get the drugs he tried out? Certainly not from Charles. You know, you can't write a biography and leave out the bits that aren't flattering. If Harry did such-and-such, why shouldn't it be in his biography?
Cindy
Locking the liquor cabinet would help or putting the liquor away. Teenagers are not the wisest people in the world. why put liquor in front of a teen left to his own devices anyway? Harry also was able to invite friends to Highgrove without adult supervision. Certainly some would bring drugs.
WIlliam did such and such too but his biography was more whitewashed. Even the Uncle Gary controversy was left out of Junor's bio of William.
Why on earth would Junor include Uncle Gary in William's biography? William is not responsible for anything his wife's uncle does. And what does William have to do with Harry's biography? And what does either of them have to do with Charles being upset/angry/furious with Arbiter's upcoming book? :P
Cindy
Why wouldn't she? This was covered at length in the media.
I would like to point out Cindy that I was not the first to bring up Harry and william's biography so why do you select me for these questions?
Quote from: cinrit on September 13, 2014, 11:46:51 PM
Harry drank underage because he wanted to and had the opportunity. If the only reason was opportunity, where did he get the drugs he tried out? Certainly not from Charles. You know, you can't write a biography and leave out the bits that aren't flattering. If Harry did such-and-such, why shouldn't it be in his biography?
Cindy
Poor old Guy Pelly got the blame for Harry's experimentation with drugs, didn't he? In reality Harry in his mid-teens hung out with a slightly older crowd, including William's older friends. There were probably plenty of drugs around in their circles.
Harry supposedly drank under-age at the local pub and there was probably weed etc among patrons there. Charles was too often away when Harry was on holiday from Eton. Yes, the Prince of Wales was a busy man, but too often in Harry's teens things were left to Tiggy, Mark Dyer and various others to sort out, even when it was clear that he needed his father's attention.
[mod] Small fix to your HTML to properly close Cindy's quote. :hug: :hug: [/mod]
Tiggy though very supportive was a bit scatterbrained and let Harry and Will "rappel" down a hill with no helmets. That and Camilla's not liking her caused her to be sacked. Though Harry and William continued to be in touch with her.
I don't think Mark Dyer was the best "chaperone" for Harry.
I did read about Harry having free access to the liquor cabinet at Highgrove.
Quote from: cinrit on September 13, 2014, 11:59:05 PM
Why on earth would Junor include Uncle Gary in William's biography? William is not responsible for anything his wife's uncle does. And what does William have to do with Harry's biography? And what does either of them have to do with Charles being upset/angry/furious with Arbiter's upcoming book? :P
Cindy
Didn't William accept gifts (vacations namely) from Uncle Gary? That makes him fair game for discussion, in my opinion.
Quote from: cinrit on September 13, 2014, 11:46:51 PM
Harry drank underage because he wanted to and had the opportunity. If the only reason was opportunity, where did he get the drugs he tried out? Certainly not from Charles. You know, you can't write a biography and leave out the bits that aren't flattering. If Harry did such-and-such, why shouldn't it be in his biography?
Cindy
He also drank in a pub, was seen in public being drunk and abusive to the barman when he was under age.
Will was not the epitome of politeness either. He sped around some estate upsetting the owner and Charles had to apologize for his behavior.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 14, 2014, 12:52:57 AM
Quote from: cinrit on September 13, 2014, 11:59:05 PM
Why on earth would Junor include Uncle Gary in William's biography? William is not responsible for anything his wife's uncle does. And what does William have to do with Harry's biography? And what does either of them have to do with Charles being upset/angry/furious with Arbiter's upcoming book? :P
Cindy
Didn't William accept gifts (vacations namely) from Uncle Gary? That makes him fair game for discussion, in my opinion.
Good point Lady Adams but what did Diana and her feelings and supposed poison phone call to Camilla have to do with Harry? Junor is doing a cut and paste from her previous books at Harry's expense.
Quote from: Lady Adams on September 14, 2014, 12:52:57 AM
Quote from: cinrit on September 13, 2014, 11:59:05 PM
Why on earth would Junor include Uncle Gary in William's biography? William is not responsible for anything his wife's uncle does. And what does William have to do with Harry's biography? And what does either of them have to do with Charles being upset/angry/furious with Arbiter's upcoming book? :P
Cindy
Didn't William accept gifts (vacations namely) from Uncle Gary? That makes him fair game for discussion, in my opinion.
Yes, it does, if William's accepting gifts from him is what is discussed. But surely William accepted gifts from other people (Christmas? birthdays? just cuz?). But including Uncle Gary because of Uncle Gary's lifestyle, not in my opinion. Or if he were, then all of Kate's relatives should be included, good as well as not-so-good.
Cindy
God DID William accept gifts from Uncle Gary? I have never fully read a bio of Will so I don't know... whether this is something that biographers mention.
There was much media time on Uncle Gary. William and Kate spent time with Uncle Gary who made some indiscreet comments about conversations he had with William and Kate (one with William involving her bra size to put it gently). Junor certainly did not mention it in her Prince William book (too much time was spent on Diana and the bashing) but others did. William IMO even staged a PDA photo op with Kate showing the Uncle Gary stories "did not matter." Will and Kate stayed with Uncle Gary at his Case De Bang Bang. Will did accept presents.
Surely there's nothing amiss with accepting presents from a SO's relative? If so, I've got a lot of things I need to return that were given to me by my husband's relatives before we were married. As long as the gifts that Uncle Gary gave William (first I've heard of it, too) were legal, I see nothing wrong about it.
Cindy
If he's a controversial figure (I admit that I know nothing about him other than that he is a bit of black sheep) then it would probably have been wiser if Will had not accepted gifts from him. however, I don't know if he DID accept gifts... But then most royals do this sometimes.
How do you not accept a gift if it is offered on your birthday, or Christmas, or something brought back from a vacation trip? As long as the gifts were within the guidelines of what Royals can accept, I see nothing wrong with it.
Cindy
Someone said holidays, and I'd say that tis possible to say "No thanks, we can pay for our own hols"!
He gave rather embarrassing interviews and in effect made Will look somewhat of a fool.
Kate Middleton Uncle: Gary Goldsmith reveals intimate details on the family of Duchess of Cambridge | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2295233/Kate-Middleton-Uncle-Gary-Goldsmith-reveals-intimate-details-family-Duchess-Cambridge.html)
It seems Arbiter is taking Junor's approach, and providing snippets to the DM:
The real story behind the photos that laid bare Diana's despair: For 12 years he guarded the most intimate secrets of Charles, Diana (and Camilla). (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2762971/The-real-story-photos-laid-bare-Diana-s-despair-For-12-years-guarded-intimate-secrets-Charles-Diana-Camilla-Now-former-press-officer-reveals-all.html)
The perspective that Arbiter is serving up doesn't seem as scathing as people feared, just my opinion though. Much ado about details that have been made known by previous authors and biographers.
^^ Yes, from that article there's nothing very startling or new. The Prince and Princess of Wales had a bad marriage and could barely stand each other at the end. Whoah, stop the Presses!
puhlese - this family accepts gifts - serious gifts - from the Saudi's - Gary Goldsmith is not even close to their league
there is a difference between accepting gifts if they are from another Royal family or Head of state with whom Britain has a relationship, - they are not personal gifts, and accepting private gifts such as holidays etc from a private individual. If Gary is a bit of a black sheep then he should know enough not to offer expensive gifts that might cause controversy for his niece and William. If he still goes on offering them, then he should be gently refused...
^^You're right about the difference between official and personal gifts.
But if quibble a bit with the latter part of your post: Gary can offer gifts all he wants. William, being the public figure and member of the BRF, should be careful about the gift he accepts.
Yes I quite agree. I think that if he ahs accepted large gifts from Gary, he's foolsh.
I think if he'd accepted large gifts from Uncle Gary, we'd have heard about it. The only thing I've ever heard of him/them "accepting" was a stay at Uncle Gary's place. But does that come under the heading of "gift" (vacation) or "visiting a relative" (which is quite common)?
Cindy
I want to be very clear, so that I'm sure that I understand. William should have been very careful and not accepted gifts (namely a vacation at Gary's villa.. in 2006) because Gary was going to be caught in an embarrassing scandal... in 2009.
So, basically, William's biggest sin in this matter is that he's... not actually psychic?
Or perhaps I'm mistaken, and there were vacations after 2009, or GaryGaffes before 2006?
I don't know because frankly Will does not interest me much. but it sounds like he has accepted stuff form Gary and G is a bit of a black sheep and not someone he should really be seen spending much time with or taking freebies from
Double post auto-merged: September 20, 2014, 07:11:07 PM
Quote from: cinrit on September 20, 2014, 02:11:10 PM
I think if he'd accepted large gifts from Uncle Gary, we'd have heard about it. The only thing I've ever heard of him/them "accepting" was a stay at Uncle Gary's place. But does that come under the heading of "gift" (vacation) or "visiting a relative" (which is quite common)?
Cindy
Well holidays are tricky. Diana's taking holiday from Moh Al Fayed didn't look good. Fergie accepting a lot of freebies from rich friends, ditto. IIRC Charles was criticised for accepting hospitality from people who were maybe not that controversial but just enough to make it look like he should be careful with them. And while I simply cant' find it very interesting to follow Will's life I'm assuming he DID take holidays from Gary because there has been talk about it?
The Queen could have vetoed the Fayed cruise but approved it.
Kate probably told Will about the "cool" place her Uncle had and William went there.
Quote from: Adrienne on September 20, 2014, 02:38:46 PM
I want to be very clear, so that I'm sure that I understand. William should have been very careful and not accepted gifts (namely a vacation at Gary's villa.. in 2006) because Gary was going to be caught in an embarrassing scandal... in 2009.
So, basically, William's biggest sin in this matter is that he's... not actually psychic?
Or perhaps I'm mistaken, and there were vacations after 2009, or GaryGaffes before 2006?
I'm sure there is more than one public figure who wishes that they were psychic. :wink:
So, Gary was an upstanding citizen when Kate introduced William to him with no shady past? If he was, then the "psychic" bit presented by you two would hold much weight. Otherwise, it doesn't take a psychic to know that William and the Middletons should have known better than to put him in that position.
Latest Installment (2nd): Diana and Charles's ex-press chief reveals advice he gave her on morning kiss-and-tell was published | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764442/Princess-Diana-Charles-s-ex-press-chief-reveals-advice-gave-morning-explosive-kiss-tell-published.html)
Quote from: Limabeany on September 23, 2014, 12:37:43 AM
So, Gary was an upstanding citizen when Kate introduced William to him with no shady past? If he was, then the "psychic" bit presented by you two would hold much weight. Otherwise, it doesn't take a psychic to know that William and the Middletons should have known better than to put him in that position.
I didn't mention William in my post. I said that there would be more than one public figure that wished they were psychic and that I do believe is true.
It read like William was included in that group. But, back on Le Topic, pliiiiiiz... :happy15:
You are right we do need to steer it back on track. Fasten your seatbelt! I'm going to make a hard right turn. VVVRRROOOMMM!!!
Meep Meep! :happy15: :hug:
Latest Installment (2nd): Diana and Charles's ex-press chief reveals advice he gave her on morning kiss-and-tell was published | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764442/Princess-Diana-Charles-s-ex-press-chief-reveals-advice-gave-morning-explosive-kiss-tell-published.html)
Quote
I was also deeply saddened by what I saw and heard in the Panorama piece. I knew from my own split from my first wife in 1977 how difficult a crumbling marriage could be. It is something I can't imagine having to endure under a global spotlight.
Granted, Diana delivered a masterful performance, but I also couldn't help but be moved by the authentic vulnerability and pain exhibited throughout the interview.
At the end of the day, the woman who had sat down with Martin Bashir was a devoted young mother who had suffered the prolonged and heartbreaking disintegration of her marriage, and who now seemed to be above all lonely.
I had always had my doubts that Prince Andrew's marriage was going to last, but the breakdown of the Waleses' union upset me greatly. I knew with certainty that at one point there had not only been a strong connection between the two, but genuine love and adoration.
More than once, Diana told me that she had never wanted a divorce. She had, after all, been a child of divorce herself.
Unfortunately, their marriage was insatiable scrutiny from day one.
No doubt this contributed to its very public 'he said/she said' deterioration which sadly forced them to call an end to their marriage once and for all.
pretty innocuous - no big revelations - really not bashing Di or Charles.
Must not have been so great working for them under these circumstances
story about the Queen - note he does not reveal the conversations - and it is a nice bit of a story
Next Installment:
What really happened behind Palace doors in royalty's darkest hour: A prince too frightened to view Diana's condolence book. The Queen gripped with (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2765708/What-really-happened-Palace-doors-royalty-s-darkest-hour-A-prince-frightened-view-Diana-s-condolence-book-The-Queen-gripped-anxiety-An-insider-reveals-torment-princess-s-death.html)
he could not be more discrete - more respectful - he reveals nothing but his own feelings - a minor story about Edward which reveals that the RF did not quite understand how to respond to all this - while they themselves must have been in shock. Certainly nothing shocking at all or anything really new.
I admit that reading it I felt this utter disgust with the media - who clearly hyped and deliberately manipulated the public creating an atmosphere of hysteria - and they still do it - the exaggeration - the manipulation all to boost their earnings. It is so obnoxious and destructive -
I think you are right, he is quite respectful and considerate in his judgements, however, having witnessed the mood back then, the media was, as it rarely does, reflecting the mood of the people, more than manipulating it.
I trust your assessment Limeabeany - I was under the impression that everyone later felt manipulated - so it is interesting to read your comment. Not having been there - I accepted that the reaction against the RF and especially the Queen was a media thing. But you would say there was an honest unhappiness with the RF's response among the people?
Quote from: Limabeany on September 23, 2014, 11:13:51 AM
I think you are right, he is quite respectful and considerate in his judgements, however, having witnessed the mood back then, the media was, as it rarely does, reflecting the mood of the people, more than manipulating it.
Limabeany what do you remember from that time?
Quote from: cate1949 on September 23, 2014, 11:00:41 AM
he could not be more discrete - more respectful - he reveals nothing but his own feelings - a minor story about Edward which reveals that the RF did not quite understand how to respond to all this - while they themselves must have been in shock. Certainly nothing shocking at all or anything really new.
I admit that reading it I felt this utter disgust with the media - who clearly hyped and deliberately manipulated the public creating an atmosphere of hysteria - and they still do it - the exaggeration - the manipulation all to boost their earnings. It is so obnoxious and destructive -
Regarding his account of those days, I agree that he focuses more on his own reaction. The story with Edward is interesting as it appears the BRF was unsure of how to proceed with the nation's mood. Prior to Diana's death unless the individual was a very senior royal (monarch/consort) most funeral arrangements would have been more private and low key. Diana was no longer married to Charles so I can see why the BRF was ready to have the Spencer family take care of arrangements.
It would have been entirely proper for the Spencers to have organised the funeral, as indeed tey wanted to do, but clearly the public mood was such that it was not going to work out, they had to allow Di a public funeral...As for the media, I don't believe at the time of Di's death they were "creating the mood". People not all but a lot WERE genuinely hyped up and emotional. The media may have encouraged that, but hardly could be said to create it.
After I recovered from hearing the news about Diana's death, I recall expecting the Spencers, or more particularly Lord Charles, to hold a press conference regarding the funeral arrangements. I also believed that Diana's family would take control of the proceedings. I was somewhat amazed at the outpouring of grief from the people of Britian. I never even entertained the thought that it was not real. It was real alright. The whole world was grieving and in the end I think having a public royal funeral was the right thing to do.
I think that was what the Spencers wanted, a private funeral but when they saw the reaction to Di's death, they felt it was not fair to deprive the public of the chance to say goodbye to her.. However the grief mood while intense didn't really last....
Seeing to the funeral would have been a normal family response to such a tragedy. I think this was the attitude of the Queen, who viewed Diana as her divorced-daughter-in law and naturally expected the Spencers to take over. I think she got the shock of her life.
Agreed lillbet.
PD and the "mode didn't last," well, when QEII dies, there will be outpouring of sorrow from her subjects in that she did well as Qof their country and sacrifiice.
It will not last ...time YES goes on.
The media did not create the PD sorrow. The people of her country generally felt that. No doubt most people did.
I was just about to leave for college (US speak for Uni) when it happened and we were actually packing the trunk when I heard the news - all that excitement in my young life - I barely paid attention to any of it - did not even know she was in Paris did not watch the funeral etc. So my knowledge is all from watching the video of the funeral and what people write but - many years later - listening to Brit colleagues who seemed to have been a little embarrassed by it all.
I do think that it is interesting to see how public opinion about the RF and HM's behavior in particular has changed from some anger at the lack of RF presence to an understanding that HM was really where she needed to be - with her grandson's. I do think that movie - The Queen - really did change public opinion on that.
QE could have done both things . She needed to address her subjects, her country, and the world about PD.
It took her, what about 30 mins to read the script.
When PKennedy died, JBK had two young children to tend to who were both aged about under 6 years old.
She also went through with having a birthday party for her son. It was his birthday. HIS birthday. Even she then in 1963 , way ahead the times, knew that young children, even in times of personal or national tragedy , need some type of stability, routine, etc.
Rumor was people were against that. Take it ,it was a scaled down celebration of his birth. That child and her daughter were a great comfort to her to get through her personal tragedy and that of the nation. FL, JBK also ,in her role, addressed the nation or something like or lead by example the country and world in mourning.
Arbitor, Burnell, and others, ehhh, to write about to me is their right, but cheap. I am surprised, I said this before, that in the world of the monarchy, there is not a confidentiality clause for former staff.
Even though they are who they are and do not have the same privacy as regular people, their closest staff are privy to a lot of really persoanl stuff. Be it PD, Camilla, PC, PW, H all of them is there any trust any of them, you would, would ahve with anyone. When QEII dies, will that dresser/designer write her book?
With U.S. Pres., they always have cabinent members, former SS staff, etc. write books but it is a free world here! They all work for the U.S. and not some people for life. See what I am saying.
The POTUS and FL write their book and write about ecerybody and everything too.
Arbitor 's book, so far, really has no Earth shaking news. Same ol same ole:knocking PD. She is dead so alls the writers are free to write whatever . Saintify Camilla and PC or , from what we read, briefly mentions them but then they are alive. QE at the time of PD's funeral and the BRF 's public response....all old news and known facts FACTS . See Tony Blair's book, wahtever.
Nothing new here.
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on September 23, 2014, 11:11:29 PM
Agreed lillbet.
PD and the "mode didn't last," well, when QEII dies, there will be outpouring of sorrow from her subjects in that she did well as Qof their country and sacrifiice.
It will not last ...time YES goes on.
The media did not create the PD sorrow. The people of her country generally felt that. No doubt most people did.
I wouldn't' say most people. But a large number did feel sorrow, because of the suddenness of Dis's death and her youth. but I think it did not last that long... Oly people who were real fans, continued to feel sorry sometime later. Its not the same as the queen dying, sicne while ti would be sad, its in the course of nature that a woman of her age should pass away...
Double post auto-merged: September 24, 2014, 05:54:01 AM
Quote from: FanDianaFancy on September 24, 2014, 04:57:35 AM
QE could have done both things . She needed to address her subjects, her country, and the world about PD.
It took her, what about 30 mins to read the script.
When PKennedy died, JBK had two young children to tend to who were both aged about under 6 years old.
She also went through with having a birthday party for her son. It was his birthday. HIS birthday. Even she then in 1963 , way ahead the times, knew that young children, even in times of personal or national tragedy , need some type of stability, routine, etc.
Rumor was people were against that. Take it ,it was a scaled down celebration of his birth. That child and her daughter were a great comfort to her to get through her personal tragedy and that of the nation. FL, JBK also ,in her role, addressed the nation or something like or lead by example the country and world in mourning.
Arbitor, Burnell, and others, ehhh, to write about to me is their right, but cheap. I am surprised, I said this before, that in the world of the monarchy, there is not a confidentiality clause for former staff.
Even though they are who they are and do not have the same privacy as regular people, their closest staff are privy to a lot of really persoanl stuff. Be it PD, Camilla, PC, PW, H all of them is there any trust any of them, you would, would ahve with anyone. When QEII dies, will that dresser/designer write her book?
With U.S. Pres., they always have cabinent members, former SS staff, etc. write books but it is a free world here! They all work for the U.S. and not some people for life. See what I am saying.
The POTUS and FL write their book and write about ecerybody and everything too.
Arbitor 's book, so far, really has no Earth shaking news. Same ol same ole:knocking PD. She is dead so alls the writers are free to write whatever . Saintify Camilla and PC or , from what we read, briefly mentions them but then they are alive. QE at the time of PD's funeral and the BRF 's public response....all old news and known facts FACTS . See Tony Blair's book, wahtever.
Nothing new here.
I haven't read the whole book but the bit that I've seen, certainly wasn't knocking Diana. OTOH it was rather sickly and unpleasant reading.. and IMO should not have been published.
Nobody knows the percentages it could very well be "most people" felt sorrow for Diana.
Double post auto-merged: September 24, 2014, 01:43:26 PM
Quote from: cate1949 on September 24, 2014, 12:38:05 AM
I was just about to leave for college (US speak for Uni) when it happened and we were actually packing the trunk when I heard the news - all that excitement in my young life - I barely paid attention to any of it - did not even know she was in Paris did not watch the funeral etc. So my knowledge is all from watching the video of the funeral and what people write but - many years later - listening to Brit colleagues who seemed to have been a little embarrassed by it all.
I do think that it is interesting to see how public opinion about the RF and HM's behavior in particular has changed from some anger at the lack of RF presence to an understanding that HM was really where she needed to be - with her grandson's. I do think that movie - The Queen - really did change public opinion on that.
The Queen had some fictional elements in it. I don't think it swayed opinion all that much.
What rankled with some was the boys being taken to Church the morning after their mother died and not one mention of her during the service. Now that's cold blooded IMO.
I've received numerous emails from Amazon that Arbiter's book is delayed. Delayed how exactly they don't say, but I cancelled my order.
Its out,as far as I know,
I just checked amazon.com, and they're selling both new and used, as well as the Kindle edition.
Cindy
I haven't been to a bookshop this week (rare for me not to walk into one!) but I'm still bug ridden,but I assume it is out in the shops?
I read the whole thing (on my Kindle), and was not impressed. Very little new information, and Dickie seems to think quite highly of himself.
Reviews on Amazon are not good, either.
Sounds about right. I've no intention fo buying it sicne he has no right to do it...