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

[Canuck]

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.

[Limabeany]

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:

[Canuck]

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.

[Limabeany]

I don't think Dickie will reveal anything intimate...  :coy:

[Canuck]

I hope you're right.

[HistoryGirl]

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. 

[amabel]

.

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.

[Trudie]

 :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.

[Canuck]

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.

[cinrit]

Nor will I.

Cindy

[Trudie]

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?

[Canuck]

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.

[HistoryGirl]

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.

[cinrit]

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

[sandy]

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.

[amabel]

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

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.

[sandy]

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.

[KaTerina Montague]

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.

[sandy]

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.

[amabel]

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. 

[sandy]

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?

[TLLK]

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

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:

[Trudie]

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.

[Mike]

Maybe this has been brought up before, but what are the chances the book will be banned in Britain?

[Limabeany]

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...