Camilla \'Broke Prince Charles\'s heart\' books claim says

[FanDianaFancy]

 :hi:     Curry, thank  you   :hug?:     for the  great summaries  :goodpost:       reviews.
Great  journalistic  skills  there  girl :notworthy:

[sandy]

Junor keeps writing the same things over and over. I wonder if she will become a Dame and get honors by C and C. Probably.

[Curryong]

Thanks FanDianaFancy.  :blowkiss: I have a busy couple of days coming up but if there is anything else pertinent and interesting in the book I'll post it.

[sandy]

There is a pattern in her royal books. She has about 100 pages each time consisting of trashing Diana and she has a "sensational" revelation that makes the headlines that Diana did this or that. She just repeated the same thing about the "threatening" phone call to Camilla in a book published 5 years ago. I guess she hopes people have short memories.

[SophieChloe]

I agree that these Authors are adding to their coffers, but these books will be points of reference long after we are gone.   

[sara8150]

The making of a royal mistress and why opposites have rarely been so attracted: How Camilla was confident, flirty and adored at home while Charles was tortured, miserable and never felt truly loved by his parents
How Camilla was confident, flirty and adored at home | Daily Mail Online

[royalanthropologist]

@Trudie. To be honest I am kinda bored with the whole War of the Waleses stuff now. It happened decades ago and really has no relevance to the current royal family. I asked for a review and was interested in the post 2005 era because much of it is speculative since no royal is ever going to open up again to the press in the style of "Diana, Her True Story" or even Panorama. I assumed that since Junor is a friend of C&C, she would have better access to the royals and what they were really like in private. The likes of Bashir, Morton or Holden or Burchill will never ever get any royal access again. They are effectively on a banned list of media non-grata. The other old stuff about who did, said, through what etc. is made up of the same arguments, the same squabbles, the same recriminations, the same excuses, the same compromises. I find it boring and repetitive so I am just detaching from it. Those who enjoy raking over the coals are quite welcome to do so, I am now focusing on the modern royal family in my commentary.

[Trudie]

^@royalanthropologist while it may be boring and repetitive to you it is a shame that Diana was killed not even a year after her divorce and one cannot talk about her, Charles and Camilla without bringing up the war of the Wales and Charles and Camilla's part in it.

I have to say that Junor is somewhat rewriting the royal love story first Charles and Camilla have been in love for 40 years now she is saying Camilla broke the Princes heart well what is the real story? Camilla didn't want to get out of bed on her wedding day? ridiculous I say she couldn't wait IMO especially when you look at her flashing the ring when they got engaged the story regarding that too she needed to see a familiar face that night? again from the look of her she was excited.

The only thing Junor has not rewritten is her hatred for Diana and lets face it does she have to devote so much time to trashing Diana in a book designated to learning something new about Camilla and who she supposedly really is?. Much of the book is just bringing up the war of the Wales and using the same old tired passages from previous books and those of Lady Colin Cambell another Diana detractor word for word. If you want to check out from it all then why are you on these threads ? after all there are many threads that are not boring or repetitive you need to remember it was Charles and Camilla who caused the war of the Wales in the first place so therefore any discussion of Diana or Camilla is going to bring this up.

Naturally the likes of Bashir, Morton Holden etc will never get access to the royals again they were sympathetic to Diana . This goes to show just how petty these people really are if you are not yessing and agreeing with them.

[royalanthropologist]

@Trudie. In my view it is ridiculous to suggest that Diana was a neutral and objective commentator on matters pertaining to her marriage. Clearly that is without any basis given the fact that she was caught out on many occasions either exaggerating, mis-characterizing or outright lying about events. That is normal. Warring couples do  that. The difference here is that a section of the public thinks they know it all based on the biased accounts of one party.

People may like or dislike any of the parties involved (Charles, Camilla and Diana). Logic suggests that they will write according to their partisan slants. The public are then free to read and make what they will of it. The thing that disturbs me is yet that same section of the public that seems to be intent on ensuring that only the Diana version is heard and that everybody should just let it go unchallenged. That is not how the world works. There will be many, many more books about each party. Some will be positive, some will be negative. You just have to lump it or ignore it if it is not to your tastes. Complaining that an author is not writing what you want to hear is hardly going to change her mind or even the attitudes of any of the principals involved. They just do not care any longer (one because she is dead and the other because they have moved on with their lives).

Who is to blame for Diana's death? It is neither Charles nor Camilla nor the royal family. The word accident comes to mind. Those people she found so boring and insulated were actually protected by their boring and insulated lives. As Diana was being chased by the paparazzi in Paris; dull old needy Charles and his stuffy family were safely ensconced in boring old Scotland. Camilla was at home with her family. It is nothing to do with them.

Then you have these frankly ridiculous assumptions that had he loved her, she would not be looking for love in all the wrong places. Simultaneously that she stood up for herself. Yes, she said she was not going to accept Charles as he is and decided to move on. Even the actual divorce was precipitated by her horrendous Panorama interview which was a direct attack on Charles. Before that the family had allowed her a separation, access to her children and a home. She was not satisfied and still wanted to have the last word. Well, she had the last word and in her attempt to revenge on Charles; Diana ended up destroying herself.

Any decisions that she made after the divorce were entirely up to her. This was a grown up woman in her 30s.  She gave up her title and dismissed the royal protection officers. Those two decisions turned out to be disastrous for her own safety but nobody forced her to make them (although yet that same section of the public wants to make out that the queen stripped of her title, removed her body guards and arranged for her to be killed).

I find it boring because there is nothing new. Same old, same old. "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". Never any variation, insight or introspection. You can only repeat that mantra for so long before it puts people off.  I am one of those that have checked out of that particular paradigm. The people that consider themselves to be super fans of Diana are quite free to send messages to one another on forums saying how "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them".  I have nothing more contribute to that which I consider to be a groundhog day echo chamber.

Naturally the likes of Bashir, Morton Holden were not objective journalists but partisans who tried to destroy Charles and his family. The royals would be absolute fools to let them anywhere near. It would be as silly as getting your sworn enemy to cook your food. I find it logical and entirely justified that those people were frozen out. The royal family has enough enemies without inviting them to their doorstep. Let them continue writing about how "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". Those who are interested can continue buying their books.

There is a very simple solution to Penny Junor if you find her work distasteful. Do not buy or read it. I am sure if she does not have readers, she will close shop. The fact that she hasn't closed shop by now indicates that there are clearly many people that believe in her work and want to read it. Just like many bought into Diana's account.

[Trudie]

@royalanthropologist I never said Charles and Camilla were responsible for Diana's death. I said that Diana died one year after her divorce so there will never be anything new regarding her life and to talk about Diana her whole adult life was that of POW. One cannot help in a conversation of all three about bringing up the war of the Wales and Charles and Camilla's part in it.

For the record I have read Junor's books and instead of learning about William I felt like I was rereading Charles victim or villain as it was the same trashing of Diana that I am now reading in the excerpts of this new book. So what is the point of buying this book if I am going to read the same exact things?. As for enemies there is an old saying keep your friends close and your enemies even closer the RF would do well to remember that.

[royalanthropologist]

I agree with you on one thing @Trudie. The pre 2005 stuff is just repeated stuff, that is why I wanted some real insight into what the royals are really like. But the same can be said about Morton. He has simply pulled out an old book and added bits to it to resale. Those who find it distasteful and wasteful, might be well advised to give it a miss. I am grateful for Curryong's reviews because they save me the trouble of having to read the same book twice. She has highlighted a few things I did not know about so I am grateful for that. If there is anything new in the book, I am more than happy to discuss or even read it.

[sandy]

I was disappointed in the William and Harry books. For one thing in her zest to bash Diana she left out the  story of another falling out where Carole got Kate and William back together at a bonfire party and in the Harry book she barely mentioned anything about his girlfriends Cressida and Chelsy and reasons he broke up with each one.  Junor seems to have a cottage industry of bashing DIana after Charles Victim or Villain came out. She has personal issues against Diana.
Double post auto-merged: June 30, 2017, 11:27:38 AM

@Trudie. In my view it is ridiculous to suggest that Diana was a neutral and objective commentator on matters pertaining to her marriage. Clearly that is without any basis given the fact that she was caught out on many occasions either exaggerating, mis-characterizing or outright lying about events. That is normal. Warring couples do  that. The difference here is that a section of the public thinks they know it all based on the biased accounts of one party.

People may like or dislike any of the parties involved (Charles, Camilla and Diana). Logic suggests that they will write according to their partisan slants. The public are then free to read and make what they will of it. The thing that disturbs me is yet that same section of the public that seems to be intent on ensuring that only the Diana version is heard and that everybody should just let it go unchallenged. That is not how the world works. There will be many, many more books about each party. Some will be positive, some will be negative. You just have to lump it or ignore it if it is not to your tastes. Complaining that an author is not writing what you want to hear is hardly going to change her mind or even the attitudes of any of the principals involved. They just do not care any longer (one because she is dead and the other because they have moved on with their lives).

Who is to blame for Diana's death? It is neither Charles nor Camilla nor the royal family. The word accident comes to mind. Those people she found so boring and insulated were actually protected by their boring and insulated lives. As Diana was being chased by the paparazzi in Paris; dull old needy Charles and his stuffy family were safely ensconced in boring old Scotland. Camilla was at home with her family. It is nothing to do with them.

Then you have these frankly ridiculous assumptions that had he loved her, she would not be looking for love in all the wrong places. Simultaneously that she stood up for herself. Yes, she said she was not going to accept Charles as he is and decided to move on. Even the actual divorce was precipitated by her horrendous Panorama interview which was a direct attack on Charles. Before that the family had allowed her a separation, access to her children and a home. She was not satisfied and still wanted to have the last word. Well, she had the last word and in her attempt to revenge on Charles; Diana ended up destroying herself.

Any decisions that she made after the divorce were entirely up to her. This was a grown up woman in her 30s.  She gave up her title and dismissed the royal protection officers. Those two decisions turned out to be disastrous for her own safety but nobody forced her to make them (although yet that same section of the public wants to make out that the queen stripped of her title, removed her body guards and arranged for her to be killed).

I find it boring because there is nothing new. Same old, same old. "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". Never any variation, insight or introspection. You can only repeat that mantra for so long before it puts people off.  I am one of those that have checked out of that particular paradigm. The people that consider themselves to be super fans of Diana are quite free to send messages to one another on forums saying how "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them".  I have nothing more contribute to that which I consider to be a groundhog day echo chamber.

Naturally the likes of Bashir, Morton Holden were not objective journalists but partisans who tried to destroy Charles and his family. The royals would be absolute fools to let them anywhere near. It would be as silly as getting your sworn enemy to cook your food. I find it logical and entirely justified that those people were frozen out. The royal family has enough enemies without inviting them to their doorstep. Let them continue writing about how "Charles and Camilla are terrible people and Diana was a wonderful person whose entire life was messed up by them". Those who are interested can continue buying their books.

There is a very simple solution to Penny Junor if you find her work distasteful. Do not buy or read it. I am sure if she does not have readers, she will close shop. The fact that she hasn't closed shop by now indicates that there are clearly many people that believe in her work and want to read it. Just like many bought into Diana's account.

No, DIana did not give up her title. Charles and the Queen wanted the HRH removed though she kept her title Princess of Wales. No way would the QUeen have let her keep that title. DIana was dependent on what the royals want. IT is just trying to cast blame on Diana for "giving up" the title. THe Queen took it from her and no way would she have let her have that title no matter what Diana said to the press.

I don't think "many" people believe Junor's work. Some people read it for curiosity and some really wanted to read about WIlliam and Harry but got a lot of Diana bashing. The Harry book got bad reviews, people who are not naive or are not ardent Charles fans will not believe what she writes.

As long as she has that axe to grind about Diana, Junor will continue the books. Until she ages out or retires.

When WIlliam becomes King I think there will be books praising Diana.

Junor makes a mistake by not making Camilla look like a flawed human being (like everybody else) but instead tries to make her  a plaster saint. Junor must have a bit of a crush on Camilla or maybe envies her for bagging her idol Charles.
Double post auto-merged: June 30, 2017, 11:31:14 AM

The making of a royal mistress and why opposites have rarely been so attracted: How Camilla was confident, flirty and adored at home while Charles was tortured, miserable and never felt truly loved by his parents
How Camilla was confident, flirty and adored at home | Daily Mail Online

This article is so sweetly saccharine. Junor must be losing it. Trying to depict Camilla as a saint is not a good idea. And so tired of Charles whining about his childhood. He made his point hundreds of times. It's like beating a dead horse.

[Curryong]

Now you all know that I am a great admirer of Diana, not of Camilla or Charles. Therefore I had great feelings of trepidation when I bought The Duchess that I was (a) going to read a whole heap of re-hashing of The War of the Wales's retold from Junor/Camilla's point of view, and (b) that I was going to be seriously annoyed by her partisanship and would end up throwing the book out of the window!

While there are in some later chapters a lot of the same old, same old, and PJ certainly loves her Camilla and thinks she is absolutely marvellous, there are also some early chapters and several later ones where Junor goes into her charities, rape victims, abused animals, domestic violence etc and her friendship with an artist who was commissioned to paint her portrait that are genuinely quite interesting. There is some Diana-bashing, and Camilla and Charles-worshipping (and frustratingly little on Charles and Camilla's years at St James with William and Harry.)

However-- the first eight chapters don't mention Diana at all. In Chapter 1 The Problem. PJ visits Poundbury, Charles's personal vision of community town planning and observes his parents' noncommittal visit to it. This sets the narrative for Charles for the rest of the book, actually, that Charles's parents never encouraged him, never really appreciated him, were never demonstrative, the Queen was detached and Philip a bully. This stunted Charles's emotional growth, making him disconcertingly weak, and insecure, according to Junor, until he settled down with Camilla who has been balm to a wounded soul. (This is PJ's take on the POW, remember, not mine!)

Chapter 2 Debs Delight sets a cracking pace, beginning with C and C's introduction in the summer of 1971 by Lucia Santa Cruz, who was a great friend to both, but not a girlfriend to Charles it seems. Then there is a description of Andrew Parker Bowles and his meeting with Camilla in London when he was a Debs Delight, and she 'came out' as a deb at Queen Charlotte's Ball. His womanising around town is covered but Camilla becomes, at least nominally, his girlfriend.

In the same chapter we get Charles's exploits as Action Man, his devotion to Mountbatten, who gives advice about women, and we also read about Charles's naval career. Charles sees Cam again at the polo and, while APB is away in Northern Ireland begins to date her late in 1972. Camilla is in love with Andrew and is determined to land him but early in 1973 Andrew is elusive, he's dating Princess Anne. Charles falls in love with Cam but does not propose. Anne goes on to date Mark Phillips and in March 1973, Andrew proposes. Charles is away with his ship in the West Indies and is heartbroken when he hears the news, writes to Camilla begging her to reconsider, but she goes ahead and marries APB.

Chapter 3 Medals not Money is all about Camilla's father, his distinguished military record and his very strange family background with a much married father, well known in Society circles, that he doesn't really get to know until he's an adult.

Chapter 4 History. This chapter goes into the family background of Cam's mother Rosalind Cubitt, whose family had a property fortune. There is info, most of which I knew already, on Alice Keppel and her daughter Violet Trefusis, who loved Vita Sackville-West.

Chapter 5. The Foundation Years. This deals with Camilla's parents, their happy marriage and home in the country, their sociability, Camilla's closeness to her sister, and her devotion to ponies. Her father hunted.

Chapter 6. The Stuffed Stoat. Camilla attended a small boarding school with an eccentric headmistress. She liked it there but the education except for English Lit was only passable.

Chapter 7. Swinging Sixties. This reveals later years as a boarder in a girls school at Kensington. As Camilla grew up PJ states that she had no desire to go to University. She wished to be like her mother, an upper middleclass wife and mother in the country with horses and dogs. She discovered boys. There was a cookery course, then a finishing school in Switzerland, then time in Paris perfecting her French. PJ says that although she and her friends partied and drank they weren't part of the Swinging Sixties. She had boyfriends and temporary jobs, one of which she lost within days after partying late the night before and falling asleep. There are descriptions of a colourful Cubitt uncle.

Chapter 8. Mrs PB. Rosalind Shand doesn't like APB's offhand manner with her daughter, but Camilla finally nabs him and they marry. We learn of the Parker Bowles family background. Bolehyde, their first marital,home, is described. The children are born. AJB continues extra marital activities. Camilla becomes increasingly unhappy.

You see from this that there is nothing of Diana for eight chapters and very little of Charles. It is only in Chapter 9 The Attentions of A Prince: that he comes back into the story once more. There is the story of his life and girlfriends following Camilla's marriage, the gradual orbits of the Parker Bowles and of Charles coming together, with other mutual friends in  the polo and hunting crowd, and the story of girlfriends and Amanda Knatchbull, Dale Tryon and Sarah Spencer and the others that we know so well.

So I think that with at least four chapters in the second half of the book dealing with charitable enterprises and the people that run them, and at least eight chapters not going over old territory if one didn't know about Alice, Violet and Vita, I don't think there is too much beating of dead horses! 

[Trudie]

@Curryong Thank you if that is the case I just may read the book it would be interesting to see just what makes Camilla tick as it is obvious given her ambitions Mark Bolland just may have been right when he said she was essentially the most lazy woman.

[sandy]

Now you all know that I am a great admirer of Diana, not of Camilla or Charles. Therefore I had great feelings of trepidation when I bought The Duchess that I was (a) going to read a whole heap of re-hashing of The War of the Wales's retold from Junor/Camilla's point of view, and (b) that I was going to be seriously annoyed by her partisanship and would end up throwing the book out of the window!

While there are in some later chapters a lot of the same old, same old, and PJ certainly loves her Camilla and thinks she is absolutely marvellous, there are also some early chapters and several later ones where Junor goes into her charities, rape victims, abused animals, domestic violence etc and her friendship with an artist who was commissioned to paint her portrait that are genuinely quite interesting. There is some Diana-bashing, and Camilla and Charles-worshipping (and frustratingly little on Charles and Camilla's years at St James with William and Harry.)

However-- the first eight chapters don't mention Diana at all. In Chapter 1 The Problem. PJ visits Poundbury, Charles's personal vision of community town planning and observes his parents' noncommittal visit to it. This sets the narrative for Charles for the rest of the book, actually, that Charles's parents never encouraged him, never really appreciated him, were never demonstrative, the Queen was detached and Philip a bully. This stunted Charles's emotional growth, making him disconcertingly weak, and insecure, according to Junor, until he settled down with Camilla who has been balm to a wounded soul. (This is PJ's take on the POW, remember, not mine!)

Chapter 2 Debs Delight sets a cracking pace, beginning with C and C's introduction in the summer of 1971 by Lucia Santa Cruz, who was a great friend to both, but not a girlfriend to Charles it seems. Then there is a description of Andrew Parker Bowles and his meeting with Camilla in London when he was a Debs Delight, and she 'came out' as a deb at Queen Charlotte's Ball. His womanising around town is covered but Camilla becomes, at least nominally, his girlfriend.

In the same chapter we get Charles's exploits as Action Man, his devotion to Mountbatten, who gives advice about women, and we also read about Charles's naval career. Charles sees Cam again at the polo and, while APB is away in Northern Ireland begins to date her late in 1972. Camilla is in love with Andrew and is determined to land him but early in 1973 Andrew is elusive, he's dating Princess Anne. Charles falls in love with Cam but does not propose. Anne goes on to date Mark Phillips and in March 1973, Andrew proposes. Charles is away with his ship in the West Indies and is heartbroken when he hears the news, writes to Camilla begging her to reconsider, but she goes ahead and marries APB.

Chapter 3 Medals not Money is all about Camilla's father, his distinguished military record and his very strange family background with a much married father, well known in Society circles, that he doesn't really get to know until he's an adult.

Chapter 4 History. This chapter goes into the family background of Cam's mother Rosalind Cubitt, whose family had a property fortune. There is info, most of which I knew already, on Alice Keppel and her daughter Violet Trefusis, who loved Vita Sackville-West.

Chapter 5. The Foundation Years. This deals with Camilla's parents, their happy marriage and home in the country, their sociability, Camilla's closeness to her sister, and her devotion to ponies. Her father hunted.

Chapter 6. The Stuffed Stoat. Camilla attended a small boarding school with an eccentric headmistress. She liked it there but the education except for English Lit was only passable.

Chapter 7. Swinging Sixties. This reveals later years as a boarder in a girls school at Kensington. As Camilla grew up PJ states that she had no desire to go to University. She wished to be like her mother, an upper middleclass wife and mother in the country with horses and dogs. She discovered boys. There was a cookery course, then a finishing school in Switzerland, then time in Paris perfecting her French. PJ says that although she and her friends partied and drank they weren't part of the Swinging Sixties. She had boyfriends and temporary jobs, one of which she lost within days after partying late the night before and falling asleep. There are descriptions of a colourful Cubitt uncle.

Chapter 8. Mrs PB. Rosalind Shand doesn't like APB's offhand manner with her daughter, but Camilla finally nabs him and they marry. We learn of the Parker Bowles family background. Bolehyde, their first marital,home, is described. The children are born. AJB continues extra marital activities. Camilla becomes increasingly unhappy.

You see from this that there is nothing of Diana for eight chapters and very little of Charles. It is only in Chapter 9 The Attentions of A Prince: that he comes back into the story once more. There is the story of his life and girlfriends following Camilla's marriage, the gradual orbits of the Parker Bowles and of Charles coming together, with other mutual friends in  the polo and hunting crowd, and the story of girlfriends and Amanda Knatchbull, Dale Tryon and Sarah Spencer and the others that we know so well.

So I think that with at least four chapters in the second half of the book dealing with charitable enterprises and the people that run them, and at least eight chapters not going over old territory if one didn't know about Alice, Violet and Vita, I don't think there is too much beating of dead horses! 

I already read quite a bit about Camilla in two biographies that came out in the late nineties. Plus I read Alice Keppel and her Daughters which was a detailed account of that family. And Andrew and Camilla cheated on each other when they dated. So it should have been no surprise to the couple after they exchanged vows that they would stray. Charles is rather strange. He never told Dimbleby he wanted to marry Camilla back then, he just said he was "too young" to marry when he first met Camilla. So if he knew that Camilla was interested in Andrew, then it makes no sense that he did not tell her to wait for him when he boarded the ship.

The details about Charles' complaints are in the Dimbleby book.

So this seems like a rehash, plus the anti Diana spin.

If Camilla had merely "dated" then there would have been no controversy about her as a choice. But her first lover did come forward and she did  have relationships with men other than Andrew. Though her intense relationship with Andrew alone may well have caused the controversy.  I don't think Camilla loathed Andrew, I think the two still have affection for one another and it was not that the two could not stand each other.

[royalanthropologist]

@Curryong you have done a great service to those of use who are unable to find time to peruse the book. I have to say that I find Rosalind Cubbitt and even Shand to be very interesting parents. Another side to the upper class, very different from the cold indifferent sorts of things.

As for the queen and prince Phillip, I have always felt that each in their own ways was a terrible parent to Charles. Without the QM, he would have had a horrendous childhood. The queen is cold even at this late stage. Phillip likes to bully and hector but age has caught up with him. They do not come across as the warmest parents who imbue their children with confidence and support. 

I was also rather interested in the idea that Diana used to actually do housework when she visited the Parker Bowles home and was good with the children. That is not something that I would have expected of an  Earl's daughter. That side of her was sometimes drowned out by all the victimhood stuff. It would be nice if a good biography by a distinguished and objective person was done to bring out those parts of her life that were not sensationalist but nevertheless helped to explain her character.

As per usual, the DM has picked out the click bait and virtually ignored the rest of the book knowing that its gullible readers will take the bait and spill their bile. I know the commercial reasoning behind it so perhaps it is to be expected.

[sandy]

The Queen  gave permission for Charles (a divorced man) to marry Camilla (a divorced woman). Queen Mary would not even receive Wallis after her son married her. Plus oddly enough, there was a PBS special where Charles wiped away  a tear of joy and chuckled at home movies taken when he and Anne were toddlers. The Queen, Philip, and Margaret and the Queen Mum looked quite affectionate with Charles and Anne. So was Charles trying to retract the "bad parenting" story then? It was on PBS a short time ago. So it gave evidence that Charles was not treated 'badly" during the private time of the royals. Charles thanked his father for sending him to that school in Australia he is on record saying he very much enjoyed it there. So again it could not have been "all bad." I don't see the Queen as "cold" and none of Charles siblings claimed she was. And their father was not considered "cold" by Charles siblings. THe Queen MUM IMO overly indulged Charles to the point where he had a sense of entitlement and was "special." She went too far in the other direction.

Diana did not do housework for the Parker Bowleses--she never said she did. She did housework for her sister Sarah when they briefly shared a flat, did housework in the flat she shared with her friends. THe Parker Bowleses were hosts to her so I doubt they would expect her to work. Diana never really mentioned at any length the PB children and Tom never talked about DIana being in the home (Laura would probably have been too young to remember.

The part about Diana still is there as it has been in the last few books by Junor. If she had only toned this down and not gone on the bashing the book I think would have been much better. Also, making Camilla appear to be saintly is really biased reporting. I don't think readers are gullible people are allowed to form their own opinions about a book. I see a lot of bile from Junor who admits she does not like Diana.

It would have been better had Junor also reached out to DIana's friends (although they might not have returned her phone calls) to talk about Diana and not make her look like a walking basket case. I am very leery about the story of Diana destroying Charles art supplies. Stephen Barry was very candid about what went on with Charles and Diana but never mentioned this episode. I think Diana would have mentioned it to Morton if it had happened.

[royalanthropologist]

There is one thing that I will agree with. When doing a biography about someone, it is a good idea to consider and even incorporate the views of both supporters and detractors. Otherwise it becomes a partisan hagiography or alternatively a hatchet job. That is a criticism that all biographers (including Junor and Morton) might want to take on board.

[sara8150]

Did Britain's most hated woman SAVE the monarchy? Biographer PENNY JUNOR says Camilla is far from being the mistress who destroyed the Royal Family - and is actually their salvation
Penny Junor: Camilla the mistress who was the salvation | Daily Mail Online

[Curryong]

Penny waxes large in her book about Cam being the glue between Charles and his sons, (It's seems to me the super adhesiveness seems to be wearing off) her perfection at Royal engagements, putting everyone she meets at ease, including the journalists, and about being THE GREAT MAN's saviour, his help, balm, encouragement and support, and the one person who can laugh with him, bring him up when he's down, (actually I believe that last bit, as Charles still indulges in anguished moods and C apparently can bring him out of them.)

The most important bit to Charles of course is that his wife doesn't outshine him on engagements. This must be because she artfully turns her giant charisma lamp to OFF when they have joint engagements so the spotlight remains firmly on HIM, lol. Because of course, according to Penny, who never met a Diana follower she didn't loathe on sight, Camilla has ten times the warmth and understanding of her predecessor and people understand that.

[sandy]

Camilla was never the glue that held the monarchy together. Ever. She was darn lucky to get into the family. Junor admits she spoke to Camilla so no doubt she is trying to flatter Camillla (and Charles) to the nth degree. If Camilla is truly the glue she would have told Junor to wait until after her stepsons William and Harry pay tribute to their mother instead of butting in like she usually does. If Camilla is truly the glue, then why did WIlliam start spending so much time with his in-laws. Charles even complains that he does not see much of his grandchildren. So how come "Super Camilla" did not  glue the family together so Charles would see them often and WIlliam would not spend most of the time with the Middletons. This book in itself is really making the divisions even worse and opening up old wounds. Junor's mistake is trying to make Camilla this superior being. Camilla was darn lucky as I said to even get in. Wallis Simpson and her royal husband were practically exiled. I don't think there was even a  tiny bit of glue.  I doubt Will and Harry spent much time with Camilla. And I have to laugh when Junor talks about all the "sacrifices" Camilla made, I must have missed something, what sacrifices did she make? She got bling and perks and could manipulate the heir to the throne. What planet does JUnor live on. All this and Diana bashing too. How can she be the glue when she obviously has absolute contempt for her stepsons's mother. This sounds like a joke now. Junor's hyperbole to me is hugely counterproductive. I think even Camilla's parents had they been around today would be embarrassed.  And how come if Camilla was such "glue" did the Queen Mum make it clear she wanted no C and C wedding in her lifetime.

[Trudie]

In thee earlier part of the week the serialization part talked how the Queen wanted her gone a few days later she is super glue? which is it Penny? Sorry but Camilla never sacrificed anything all she ever wanted she has had.

[royalanthropologist]

Well the proof is in the pudding about the impact of Camilla on the royal family. The great thing is that there are actually two "reigns" as wives of the current prince of wales which make it easier to do a comparative analysis. Specifically we can compare 13 years from 1981 to 1992 then from 2005 to 2017. The things that might give us a clue are as follows:

a) What is the state of the monarchy?
b) How do members interact with one another?
c) How effective are the members in their work?

My own view is that the monarchy has settled down considerably since 2005. There are less press briefings against one another and competitions as to who is getting the most publicity for their work. The queen is visibly less stressed and this is no annus horribilis.

Perhaps the person that has benefited most is Charles. He has a wife who loves him unconditionally and wants to support him. He has blossomed and is visibly happy. There are no more glares and public spats that embarrass hosts at state visits. The likes of Morton and Bashir do not have any chance of ever getting an interview from any member of the royal family again.

On balance I think that Camilla's reign is very peaceful when compared to what happened in the past. So peaceful in fact that those who were caught up in the heady days of royal scandal are finding it hard to cope without juicy stories of family discord. In their absence, they just make up the stories; looking for any sign that the royal family is at as dysfunctional as it was once portrayed in the 1980s and 1990s.

At the same time it is very easy to say that all the problems in the royal family were caused by Diana or that all the solutions in the royal family were provided by Camilla. That is not true. There are many members that contribute to the well being of the firm. It is just that the personalities of the two women had very opposite effects on the family dynamics. In Diana's case, what was wrong with the family was more magnified and more publicized. In the case of Camilla, what was wrong with the family was minimized and hidden or mitigated, instead promoting what was good about the family.

In my view two of Charles' biggest mistakes were: 1) not marrying Camilla when he first met her 2) Proposing to and marrying Diana Spencer. Those two mistakes have brought him and his family grief for many, many years.  I think in hindsight, even he would admit that he should have married Camilla and never proposed to Diana. It all ended up being a disaster that has divided his people and caused his family untold stress, let alone his own unhappiness.

As for Diana, those two mistakes meant that she spent the better part of her adult life trying to fight for a man and marriage that was forever beyond her reach. One can only imagine the torment and feelings of rejection; knowing that Charles did not love her, had never loved her, would never love her and was in love with someone else.

[Curryong]

The Mark Bolland period, in which there were constant spats, jealousies and disputes between the different Royal households, some of which leaked to the public, occurred until Bolland's resignation as consultant to the POW's staff in 2002. Charles was solely responsible for employing that mischief maker in the late 1990s and keeping him on a a special consultant, simply because he had worked at rehabilitating Charles's reputation and building up Camilla's.

[royalanthropologist]

Admittedly Mark Bolland was very aggressive, sometimes too aggressive. However, he had to be in order to do the job that he was hired for. Charles had been repeatedly traduced and ostracized by Diana and her allies. He was ineffective in the PR game and loathed to engage with the press which he (quite rightly in my view) considered to be the scum of the earth.

His family was never really supportive of him in his difficulties with the exception of the QM. Hence the decision to hire Bolland. Bolland did what he had to do. His tactics were aggressive, manipulative and ruthless. However, those are the very same tactics that Diana and her allies had used to try and destroy Charles. He would have been a fool to let their charges go unanswered.

For all its worth, I think that Charles made a big strategic mistake (after the monumental one of marrying Diana in the first place)...he dithered about the divorce. The time when the marriage "irretrievably broke down" was the time he should have told his mother and Diana that he wanted out of the marriage. I imagine that if they had divorced in 1985, Bolland and his ilk would not have been necessary. Diana would have gone on with her life and Charles with his. It is the dithering and indecision that allowed a situation to fester when it should have been nipped in the bud right from the word go. I think in hindsight, the queen too realizes that preventing or discouraging a divorce was a very bad idea especially when the couple in question were so incompatible as to make any compromise arrangement impossible.