The Prince of Wales – a biography of his life – Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/charlesandcamilla/a-look-back-at-the-prince-of-waless-life-75481) :windsor1:
Lots of spin. Not mentioning Charles' involvement with Camilla before he married Diana. It was not as simple as "both having affairs." Charles told Dimbleby he preferred the other woman when he married Diana. The incompatibility was about Diana not accepting Camilla.
It also leaves out Charles' serious relationships with other women including Davina Sheffield.
Lots of gaps and lots of spin.
I truly believe that because it is his birthday that the writer wanted to present a brief biography of the man's entire life and not one that was heavily focused upon his personal life. There are plenty of pieces that have been written about his first and second marriages.
I hope Charles had a happy birthday today. He and Camilla might be up in Scotland at Birkhall for a little while, relaxing a bit after the tour. His father looked very frail at the Cenotaph ceremony but I expect all the family will gather for the all-important 70th wedding anniversary celebrations. I actually thought that the Queen has looked in excellent spirits and even better health than she has for some time over that weekend.
I am wondering if Junor will contribute a new biography of Charles next year.
^ She might wait until his eightieth birthday. The Queen could still be reigning till then.
Happy Birthday Prince Charles! 69 facts about the 69-year-old Prince – Royal Central (http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/charlesandcamilla/happy-birthday-prince-charles-68-facts-about-the-68-year-old-prince-71415)
I know this is from the Fail, but there are some quite interesting little nuggets on Charles's early childhood and Philip's attitude to him, brought out in the article which has little extracts from Ingrid Seward's latest book.
Philip really was appallingly insensitive and too fond of teasing and it's probably just as well there was nursery staff around.
What Philip exclaimed to Queen after Charles was born | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5082919/What-Philip-exclaimed-Queen-Charles-born.html)
couldnt help but notice there was a big span of time danced around on that list...oh lets say 1981 to 1997 maybe LOL
54. Though known as an animal-lover, he dislikes cats.
Yet another reason to dislike him :lol:
It's amazing how many of the BRF are dog persons and don't own a cat. Princess Michael is the only one I know who seems to like cats. Maybe it's just the country lifestyle and pursuits they follow which a dog fits into better. The Cambridges have Lupo of course, and even Harry's girlfriend Meghan has two dogs, Guy and Bogart, from a rescue shelter, so the situation's unlikely to improve.
A cat of ours, dead now, had the most beautiful temperament of any animal I've ever known. Placid, gentle though an excellent mouser (we lived in a rural area) and very affectionate. Even so, I'm afraid I'm more a dog than a cat person. Sorry!
QuoteIt's amazing how many of the BRF are dog persons and don't own a cat. Princess Michael is the only one I know who seems to like cats.
Yes it is amazing how few of them like cats. Perhaps they have adopted the country attitude that cats are working animals who should earn their keep.
I just can't get over the appalling parenting skills on both sides. I mean the kids were "very polite" because they did not really know their parents. I would be ashamed if such a thing happened to me.
The guys that noted the gaps were spot on but that was an unpleasant time for Charles and I am sure his friends do not like to remind him of it. He certainly does a very good job of "forgetting" it. Most biographies are likely to skip over the period from 1985-1996. Maybe just say he married and divorced.
Indeed for many of the photos celebrating his life or in the home, Diana tends not to make much of an appearance. I remember at the Jubilee there was just one fleeting image, understandable perhaps when you consider how it all ended.
I don't think biographies could sell if there are "gaps." If he did not have the first marriage, there would be no William and Harry. It would be a big empty space. The first wife was the mother of his only children. For instance, Ronald Reagan had a much briefer marriage to his first wife but Jane Wyman will always be part of his life history no matter what, she was the mother of his two oldest children.
Why would he 'forget' the marriage that produced the children?
Diana surely is not "forgettable" to William and Harry.
I disagree that "most" biographies will skip over the period. That IMO would be like censorship and would make Charles look very petty if it is "his" idea.
How is it known what Charles forgets or remembers?
I think some royals must own cats. There are many royals around cousins and so forth.
QuoteThe guys that noted the gaps were spot on but that was an unpleasant time for Charles and I am sure his friends do not like to remind him of it. He certainly does a very good job of "forgetting" it. Most biographies are likely to skip over the period from 1985-1996. Maybe just say he married and divorced.
I agree that the shorter biographies ie: website bios do keep that period in time limited to their engagement, wedding, birth of their sons, and then wrap it up with the separation, divorce and her death. This is the information on their marriage from the official Prince of Wales website. Biography (https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/the-prince-of-wales/biography)
QuoteOn 29th July 1981, The Prince of Wales married Lady Diana Spencer in St Paul's Cathedral who became HRH The Princess of Wales.
The Princess was born on 1st July 1961, at Park House on The Queen's estate at Sandringham, Norfolk. She lived there until the death in 1975 of her grandfather, the 7th Earl, when the family moved to the Spencer family seat at Althorp House in Northamptonshire.
Lady Diana's father, then Viscount Althorp and later the eighth Earl Spencer, had been an equerry to both George VI and The Queen. Her maternal grandmother, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, was a close friend and lady in waiting to The Queen Mother.
The Prince and Princess of Wales had two sons: Prince William, born on 21st June 1982; and Prince Harry, born on 15th September 1984.
From the time of their marriage, The Prince and Princess of Wales went on overseas tours and carried out many engagements together in the UK.
On 9th December 1992, The Prime Minister, John Major, announced to the House of Commons that The Prince and Princess of Wales had agreed to separate.
The marriage was dissolved on 28th August, 1996. The Princess was still regarded as a member of the Royal Family. She continued to live at Kensington Palace and to carry out her public work for a number of charities.
When The Princess was killed in a car crash in Paris on 31st August 1997, The Prince of Wales flew to Paris with her two sisters to bring her body back to London. The Princess lay in the Chapel Royal at St James's Palace until the night before the funeral.
On the day of the funeral, The Prince of Wales accompanied his two sons, aged 15 and 12 at the time, as they walked behind the coffin from The Mall to Westminster Abbey. With them were The Duke of Edinburgh and The Princess's brother, Earl Spencer.
The lengthy biographical books however do go into more depth regarding their marriage and divorce. :)
The late Diana, Princess of Wales does have her own biography on the British Royal Family Website. Diana, Princess of Wales | The Royal Family (https://www.royal.uk/diana-princess-wales)
Double post auto-merged: November 20, 2017, 06:16:59 PM
Diana's royal family website biography is IMVHO a complimentary and is generous in praising her during her tenure as Princess of Wales. There is no mention of her affairs and only mentions that she gave a televised interview in 1995.
A birthday is a time of joy and celebrating. I totally understand why Charles would not want to be reminded of the mess that was his first marriage. Sensitive biographers who wish to remain in good terms with their subject would not cause offense for gratuitous reasons.
In this case a lengthy review of Charles' first marriage is totally unwarranted since it is a brief biography of Charles at 69. We all like to forget bad things and Charles is no exception.
Kudos to the BRF for putting up a tasteful and decent summary of Diana's life with them. No need to go over affairs and other rubbish that happened during that period.
BTW
@sandy I don't think Charles has ever mentioned Diana even once in public since 1992 when he did his biography. That is what I base my comment on about forgetting. Quite clearly he does not like to be reminded of that period of his life and I doubt any of his friends will be mentioning it to him.
Children or no children; Diana ceased to be part of his life in 1996. W&H quite rightly have fond memories of their mother; but that is an entirely different matter from an ex that has since remarried.
The "mess" created the only children of Prince Charles. If the "mess" had not occurred, there would be no Will or Harry. Harry and Will could find it offensive that the marriage that created them is called a "mess." I think Charles' love life was very messy to say the least. Of course they want to remain on good terms with Charles especially the sycophantic writers who want to be rewarded.
Charles biography was in 1994. Not 1992. Are you talking about Dimbleby. Diana was mentioned in the book quite a few times also.
Diana would always have been a part of his life as co-parent to the two children and they appeared together at events concerning the children and both were involved in decisions involving them. So you think he would have exiled Diana and not let her near the boys. No chance of that! They were seen as a group together during the year after the divorce.
Well they are definitely not co-parents today. All that ended in 1996 (over twenty years ago btw). I see no practical need for a birthday summary biography to start mulling over that mess of a marriage and yes it was most definitely a mess. That was an unhappy time and the less said about it to Charles, the happier he is in my view. Far better to make a brief mention of the marriage and divorce before moving on to happier times. Clearly this particular biographer agrees with me.
Well she of course died in 1997. No it ended in 1997, during that year she was seen with Charles and the boys at an event involving William.
I would not call a marriage that produces two children a "mess." The children for one might find it offensive it's like saying it was better if they were never born.
How is it known what not to say or to say to Charles. I would say he likes to be flattered a lot.
Charles must be a bitter man if he is "unhappy" over people talking about his first marriage. Maybe he needs counseling of some kind if this is true.
At William's Confirmation in 1997.
https://www.google.com/search?q=diana+and+charles+at+william%27s+confirmation&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV44G78c3XAhUC6yYKHYkUDu0QsAQILA&biw=1280&bih=912#imgrc=ohlbd1kC8qdTyM:
Charles is happy and celebrating his 69th birthday. He does not any any counselling to do that and definitely does not need to be reminded of the mess of his first marriage.
Those confirmation pictures are very nice but they do not make Diana a co-parent today. Neither are they particularly relevant to Charles' celebration of his birthday. Only a petty and vindictive biography would want to go over the nasty details of that marriage and divorce.
A polite and brief acknowledgement that Charles was once married to Diana is sufficient. No need to aggravate and annoy your subject for no reason than to rope in someone who is no longer part of his life.
I think it just possible that Charles himself would not consider a marriage that brought him two children a "mess." I think that is rather harsh.
How can Diana be a co-parent today? She's deceased. She was a co-parent after the divorce.
well then Junor's biographies must be petty and vindictive since they go over the C and D marriage and divorce.
Why is that "sufficient." Shouldn't the children of the marriage be mentioned. How do you know what annoys Charles?
QuoteKudos to the BRF for putting up a tasteful and decent summary of Diana's life with them. No need to go over affairs and other rubbish that happened during that period.
Yes. There is no reason to bring up the unpleasantness that led to the end of their marriage. Diana deserves to be recognized by the BRF for her many contributions during her tenure as Princess of Wales. There are plenty of other biographies that can detail the other aspects of her life.
QuoteWhy is that "sufficient." Shouldn't the children of the marriage be mentioned. How do you know what annoys Charles?
The original mini biography that I shared certainly mentions William and Harry. I have yet to read a biography of Charles that doesn't include them. :unsure:
QuoteFollowing the wedding, Charles and Diana made Kensington Palace their new home, but they also had a home in Highgrove. Not too long after the wedding, the world would find out Diana was pregnant with the couple?s first child, a boy they would name William. Soon to follow was a red-headed child that was playfully named Harry
I was just refuting the calling of the marriage a "mess". Judging from your quote, the couple WERE blessed with two children.
^^^Well I'd say that "mess" perfectly describes the state of the Wales' marriage especially at the end :shrug: However I do agree that the couple were blessed with the arrival of William and later Harry. :)
Correct. Few other words can accurately describe that marriage and its end other than "mess".
The children have never been in dispute as Charles never regretted, divorced or rejected them. They are the only joy he got from that marriage and in hindsight the only retrospective justification for that marriage.
This was a biographical summary of Charles for his birthday. No need to include negative stuff.
There are photos of them together with plenty of PDA early in the marriage. So it was not all "miserable". The entire time. Both looked very happy on that Caribbean trip when she was pregnant with William (and they did not know they were being photographed). Maybe they just needed a honeymoon trip to the Caribbean to begin with.
Divorces are not exactly happy occasions. So negative stuff was there.
A mini bio of PCharles would have to mention his first wife, the mother of the heirs and PWs children.
That would be Diana.
A mini bio would not have to go into detail about their bad times, divorce issues, etc.
A mini bio like this of PC would have one sentence about Diana.
Mini biography.
She lived. She birthed the two heirs. She is never going away or will be erased, faded from history.
PD is a third person NOW in PCs and Camillas? marriage.
Diana ceased to be a part of Charles' life in 1996. That is what divorce means. You are not married and are not obligated to one another. The only thing that united them was the children and those are covered in the biography. Nobody has ever raised questions about whether or not the children should be included in the biographies.
The question is whether or not to include a rehash of the war of Walesses. I say it is totally inappropriate to talk about such stuff on Charles' birthday. Diana will always be mentioned as his first wife whom he divorced but that is just the sum of it as far as Charles is concerned on his birthday.
Of course if you are writing a hostile biography then you may want to bring in all the nasty stuff of his first marriage. I think the person that is writing about Charles on this occasion is not looking to write a nasty biography. Only sick obsessed people give that as birthday presents to others.
So who appeared with Charles during William's confirmation event? Surely not Camilla. She and Charles did not divorce the children, they shared custody and she would appear at events involving them (see references to divorce settlement). No that is not what "divorce means" to bar the mother and ex wife from events involving children. That would never have happened.
What concerns Charles on his birthday is known only to him.
So Junor must have written hostile biographies because she goes over the divorce and problems chapter and verse of course blaming Diana for it all.
And Junor must be obsessed since she put out the biography of Camilla around Diana's birthday. Must have been nice for William and Harry.
Diana is no longer a part of Charle's life. She is not really relevant to his birthday apart from a passing reference that he was once married to her. That is what this sensible biographer has done and it is entirely appropriate. You are the one trying to rope Diana's issues where they are not relevant.
Now you are off into Junor: Wth does she have to do with this?
Then this weird sedgway into Camilla and William's confirmation: Again wth does that have to do with anything? Why would Camilla want to attend that confirmation at that time?
Who barred Diana from events? Weird
She is dead now. I was talking about the year after the divorce which was an indication of her involvement with their sons at royal events.
No I am not the one trying to rope DIana's issues where they are not relevant.Your words not mine.
Junor is a biographer, you complained about biographers who mentioned the events re:the divorce. I pointed out that she did.
I am not sure what you mean by out of Charles' life? After she died (well she is dead now) or after the divorce? You said she was ousted from the royal family,
No not weird.
The weirdness is about roping in people and event that have nothing to do with Charles 69th birthday e.g. Williams' confirmation, penny Junor, parental rights, Diana?
Diana is no longer part of Charles' life. Her place in a summary biography of his 69th birthday is very minor and could be reduced to one or two sentences.
It is not weirdness just because you think it is.
It is a fact that Diana was not ousted from Charles life after the divorce. Since they were co-parents. The pattern was set after the divorce and would have continued had DIana not died at a young age. It was all in the divorce terms. Airbrushing Diana out of Charles' life because he might be "upset" is not the way biographers operate. Junor DID go to the nitty gritty of his life with Diana as did other biographers. ANd no they did not "minimize" Diana or try to airbrush her out. The books would have been panned if they had a "she who will not be mentioned" attitude.
Parental rights, Penny Junor, William's confirmation, 69th birthday are all part of Charles' life. Of course they are relevant.
Diana IS a part of Charles life because William and Harry both are in possession of BOTH Charles and Diana's DNA. They did not spring from Prince CHarles' head. They had a mother. And a father.
All completely irrelevant to Charles 69th birthday and the subsequent mini-biography. If you want to get saturated with Diana-related stuff, there is plenty on offer. This occasion or mini-biography is not it.
Not everything that Charles does is about Diana. Quite weird to be trying to rope a dead ex wife into someone's 69th birthday, over 20 years since that person died and was divorced from him. Quite weird IMO.
These sedgways into DNA and shared custody don't make sense to me. They have no relevance to the topic or event.
Divorce means you are separate from the other person. They are not part of your life and it would be entirely inappropriate for them to show up at your events or be included in your subsequent birthday, particularly if the marriage was as unhappy as the C&D fiasco. That in no way diminishes each of your parental rights. It only means you meet to discuss things related to the children.
By this time Diana would be a 50-something woman. I cannot conceive any rational reason why she would be invited to or mentioned in Charles 69th birthday celebrations. it is not about the children. The children are grown and leading their own lives. C&D would nothing in common after that save for maybe events involving the grand children or weddings of the children.
Royal you can continue to make the comments about irrelevancy and it STILL does not make it true. Oh yes it is very very relevant.
The two boys are Charles AND Diana's sons not merely Charles sons. And that is a fact. SO yes, it is about Diana that he had those two children. He could not get himself cloned. Yes, they have plenty of relevance to the topic.
Divorce does not mean total separation when there are children involved. The parents unless one deserts the family are involved in the upbringing. That is a fact.
How happy or unhappy the marriage is does not erase that the couple brought two children into the world that they are responsible for co-parenting.
It IS about the children. When William and Harry are in their 80s Diana still would be their mother and Charles their father.
It would be rude, irrational, weird, and irrelevant for the royals to totally exclude DIana from any event involving her children and grandchildren and not only weddings: christenings, birthdays, graduations, engagements and so on and so on.
You say:
"It IS about the children"
Nope. It is about Charles 69th birthday.
Yes, it's about the children who are mentioned in ALL his biographies. And it's about the biography for Charles' 69th birthday. Notice title says "mini-biography."
Quote from: royalanthropologist on November 20, 2017, 07:22:15 PM
Well they are definitely not co-parents today. All that ended in 1996 (over twenty years ago btw). I see no practical need for a birthday summary biography to start mulling over that mess of a marriage and yes it was most definitely a mess. That was an unhappy time and the less said about it to Charles, the happier he is in my view. Far better to make a brief mention of the marriage and divorce before moving on to happier times. Clearly this particular biographer agrees with me.
@royalanthropologist-I was curious to read what other divorced monarchs have in their official mini-biographies on their court's websites. The most recent divorced/widowed and remarried monarch that I could recall was the late King Hussein of Jordan.
Here was the paragraph regarding his marital life and children from his official mini-bio. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/biography.html
QuoteKing Hussein married Queen Noor on June 15, 1978. They have two sons -Hamzah and Hashem- and two daughters -Iman and Raiyah. His Majesty is also survived by three sons -Abdullah, Faisal and Ali- and five daughters -Alia, Zein, Aisha, Haya and Abeer- from three previous marriages. Toward the end of his life, King Hussein became the proud grandfather of a growing number of grandchildren.
I found it interesting that at the time it was written, only his then wife/widow Queen Noor and the names of his children was mentioned. His former wives: Queen Dina (divorced), Princess Muna-mother of the current King Abdullah II (divorced) and Queen Alia (died in a helicopter crash) are not recorded by name. The late King's current mini-bio does not refer to his personal life at all, though in King Abdullah's bio, the names of both of his parents-Hussein and Princess Muna is included.
So here we have an example in which authors of the mini-biographies do not always feel it necessary to include the names of previous spouses. Fortunately this is not the case with the Prince of Wales who did require that his ex-wife was mentioned. :)
I agree entirely with you
@TLLK. It is about good taste, moving on and not gratuitously aggravating your subject. Like I have said, this is a happy time and there is no need to go into the mistakes of the past on this particular occasion.
Quote from: TLLK on November 25, 2017, 02:22:25 AM
@royalanthropologist-I was curious to read what other divorced monarchs have in their official mini-biographies on their court's websites. The most recent divorced/widowed and remarried monarch that I could recall was the late King Hussein of Jordan.
Here was the paragraph regarding his marital life and children from his official mini-bio. Biography - His Majesty King Hussein bin Talal (http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/biography.html)
I found it interesting that at the time it was written, only his then wife/widow Queen Noor and the names of his children was mentioned. His former wives: Queen Dina (divorced), Princess Muna-mother of the current King Abdullah II (divorced) and Queen Alia (died in a helicopter crash) are not recorded by name. The late King's current mini-bio does not refer to his personal life at all, though in King Abdullah's bio, the names of both of his parents-Hussein and Princess Muna is included.
So here we have an example in which authors of the mini-biographies do not always feel it necessary to include the names of previous spouses. Fortunately this is not the case with the Prince of Wales who did require that his ex-wife was mentioned. :)
It's odd because Queen Alia got much news about her when she died in the crash. And when he courted Noor, the stories would mention Alia as the wife who tragically died.
^^^
@sandy-Yes I agree that Alia's tragic death did receive wide coverage, but when it came time to write King Hussein's official mini-bio, she and her predecessors (Dina and Muna) aren't even mentioned by name. :no: