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

[sandy]

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.

[Limabeany]

Arbiter hates Diana and trashes her whenever he can, this will not be unflattering to PC of HM.

[sandy]

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.

[Limabeany]

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...

[Trudie]

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.

[KaTerina Montague]

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.

[Lady Adams]

^^ 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.

[HistoryGirl]

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...

[amabel]

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.

[HistoryGirl]

^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.

[Curryong]

 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.

[Trudie]

^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.

[Canuck]

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.

[Trudie]

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.

[HistoryGirl]

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.

[Canuck]

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.   

[HistoryGirl]

And that's different from Charles and Diana publicizing their affairs how?

[Canuck]

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:

[HistoryGirl]

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?

[Canuck]

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. 

[HistoryGirl]

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?

[Canuck]

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.

[HistoryGirl]

So freedom of speech is based on how it makes certain subjects involved look?

[Canuck]

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.

[HistoryGirl]

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.