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

[Trudie]

If describing his time at the palace means describing personal information about Charles, Diana, and other members of the BRF, then no, I don't think that's okay.

We don't know what exactly the book will say, but given that Arbiter has said it will cover the period immediately after Diana's death and given reports that Charles is extremely upset about it and views it as a betrayal, I think it's a safe bet that it involves personal information about members of the BRF. 

Why be so upset it is already out there that there was some arguments between the family regarding arrangements for Diana so what would be so upsetting Charles on the phone with Camilla every few hours at day before Diana's funeral? I believe it is out there that Camilla was one of the first he telephoned as soon as he received word of Diana's death.

[Canuck]

Wrong in my opinion, as I've said several times.

Again, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech means the government stops you from saying something.  Me saying I don't like these books being published doesn't restrict anyone's freedom of speech; it's me exercising my own free speech to give my opinion.

[HistoryGirl]

I wasn't referring to your opinion stopping the man from writing it since nothing we say here will. Freedom of speech is moderated by the government, but does not necessarily have to have the government as a party involved. I suppose Voltaire was also wrong to write negative stories mocking the very Jesuits that educated him and profiting from it.

[Lady Adams]

Right. So if the man is legally binded to remain quiet then that's what he must do, but all this oh he owes the family so much more is just weak. If this "servant" wants to write a book about his life that includes his time with the royals and he's not breaking the law then he may do what he likes.

I completely agree, History Girl. You raise great points.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you from saying things -- and even then, there are limits (like laws about libeling people, and in some places invasion of privacy). 

We're talking about cases where it's *legal* to publish these books but, IMO, tacky and hurtful.  You don't have to be breaking the law to be doing something wrong.

In my opinion, the way Royal Family treats their employees is hurtful and tacky (like after they all worked like crazy in 1992, and the Queen rewarded them with the "privilege" to borrow books from the library instead of a bonus). I can't blame the staff for not having an immense amount of loyalty.

[HistoryGirl]

^I know. I love how when they're working for them it's a "servant" that must address them with HRH then when they leave the job, the employee has to have loyalty as if they were BFFs.

[SophieChloe]

Therein is the difference, HG.  Bowing down to an accident of the fanny lottery and calling him HRH - years of servitude and stuff 'n' nonsense.  Good luck to Dickie!  Why shouldn't he make some money?    The RF ponses have been living off us for years......

[Canuck]

Anyone who doesn't want to refer to Charles as HRH or bow to him is free not to take a job where Charles is his boss and one of the expectations is that he be referred to by his title.  But having taken that job, I find it distasteful that someone would then turn around and use private information about his employer to make a buck.  It's not about being BFFs, it's about having common human decency.

[HistoryGirl]

Common human decency; yes...such a wonderful, little concept. And how exactly is something "private" if the people involved themselves felt the need to let everyone know?

[Lady Adams]

Dickie Arbiter has said how he swam every day at Buckingham Palace, but had to time his swims not to correspond with any of the royal family.

I find it distasteful that staff are allowed to use the BP swimming pool, but are required to leave if any royal comes (unless they invite them to stay). If they arrive to swim and a royal family member is in the pool, they may not get in. That sounds belittling and distasteful.

[HistoryGirl]

I'm just confused really. Why is it that the royal doesn't owe the employee any other type of respect as an equal (basic human decency?) but the employee owes the royal life-long "loyalty"? Is it because the royal deserves better? I'm genuinely curious. You're right, the employee must do what the employer decides while in service like I said prior, but loyalty is something that is only truly owed between friends who respect each other as equals. If an employee *chooses* not to speak about their employment as a sign of "loyalty" that's fine; however, how is it  something that is "owed"?

[KaTerina Montague]

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you from saying things -- and even then, there are limits (like laws about libeling people, and in some places invasion of privacy). 

We're talking about cases where it's *legal* to publish these books but, IMO, tacky and hurtful.  You don't have to be breaking the law to be doing something wrong.

You're slowly becoming g my new favorite poster. Just because you can do something g doesn't mean you should. I have no loyalty the the RF, they could fall into the ocean for all I care; my issue is the lack of respect for other people's privavcy.
Double post auto-merged: August 14, 2014, 12:24:12 AM

Dickie Arbiter has said how he swam every day at Buckingham Palace, but had to time his swims not to correspond with any of the royal family.

I find it distasteful that staff are allowed to use the BP swimming pool, but are required to leave if any royal comes (unless they invite them to stay). If they arrive to swim and a royal family member is in the pool, they may not get in. That sounds belittling and distasteful.

It's not their pool! You're swimming in someone else's pool you play by their rules.

[Canuck]

I'm just confused really. Why is it that the royal doesn't owe the employee any other type of respect as an equal (basic human decency?) but the employee owes the royal life-long "loyalty"? Is it because the royal deserves better? I'm genuinely curious. You're right, the employee must do what the employer decides while in service like I said prior, but loyalty is something that is only truly owed between friends who respect each other as equals. If an employee *chooses* not to speak about their employment as a sign of "loyalty" that's fine; however, how is it  something that is "owed"?

Of course the Royal owes their employees basic human decency.  If Charles published a tell-all book about Arbiter's personal life, I would be equally (in fact, even more) outraged about that.

I don't understand the relevance of the fact that Royals are referred to by titles, set their own swimming pool's rules, etc. to this conversation.  If Charles made Arbiter crawl around on all fours like a dog for his amusement, I would agree that shows such a huge amount of disrespect for Arbiter that no loyalty could be expected.  But everyone who works in government is expected to refer to members of the BRF by their titles and to bow or curtsy. 

Maybe you disagree with those conventions, but they're not something being imposed on Arbiter as a sign of disrespect and they're something he voluntarily signed up for when he took a job working for the family.  Do you think that because White House employees have to refer to Obama as "Mr. President" or "sir", or because British government employees have to refer to Cameron as "Mr. Prime Minister" or "sir", that they're being so disrespected that it's totally fine for them to write books about the time that (by virtue of their employment, which necessarily meant they were around during very private moments) they saw those people fight with their wives or cry about a death in the family?

If you do, you're free to that opinion.  But I find it incredibly distasteful.

[Limabeany]

I suppose Voltaire was also wrong to write negative stories mocking the very Jesuits that educated him and profiting from it.

Traumas revisited. We called my youngest brother Candide for complaining bitterly about his Loyola School days... :hehe: Those were the days...

[HistoryGirl]

^ :teehee: hilarious
Double post auto-merged: August 14, 2014, 12:47:45 AM

I'm just confused really. Why is it that the royal doesn't owe the employee any other type of respect as an equal (basic human decency?) but the employee owes the royal life-long "loyalty"? Is it because the royal deserves better? I'm genuinely curious. You're right, the employee must do what the employer decides while in service like I said prior, but loyalty is something that is only truly owed between friends who respect each other as equals. If an employee *chooses* not to speak about their employment as a sign of "loyalty" that's fine; however, how is it  something that is "owed"?

Of course the Royal owes their employees basic human decency.  If Charles published a tell-all book about Arbiter's personal life, I would be equally (in fact, even more) outraged about that.

I don't understand the relevance of the fact that Royals are referred to by titles, set their own swimming pool's rules, etc. to this conversation.  If Charles made Arbiter crawl around on all fours like a dog for his amusement, I would agree that shows such a huge amount of disrespect for Arbiter that no loyalty could be expected.  But everyone who works in government is expected to refer to members of the BRF by their titles and to bow or curtsy. 

Maybe you disagree with those conventions, but they're not something being imposed on Arbiter as a sign of disrespect and they're something he voluntarily signed up for when he took a job working for the family.  Do you think that because White House employees have to refer to Obama as "Mr. President" or "sir", or because British government employees have to refer to Cameron as "Mr. Prime Minister" or "sir", that they're being so disrespected that it's totally fine for them to write books about the time that (by virtue of their employment, which necessarily meant they were around during very private moments) they saw those people fight with their wives or cry about a death in the family?

If you do, you're free to that opinion.  But I find it incredibly distasteful.

No, but then again Cameron and Obama both earned their titles and do not have the connotation of implying that one person is superior based on birth. That being said, I didn't use the use of HRH as proof of anything other than the fact that it is simply an employee-employer relationship. The man owes Charles nothing more than the service that he provided in exchange for a fee...which to my knowledge he provided. He is not Charles' friend, he was an employee. Loyalty is *owed* to friends or family; it may be given to others if the person so chooses, but it is not owed. 

Many people have written about their time working for both presidents and other celebrities and I don't find that to be an issue at all. In fact, we would not have a great deal of knowledge ‎about the true feelings of some presidents during important moments in our country's history were it not for memoirs of former employers. 

[Limabeany]

 :happy15: The other two had no complains...  :shrug:

[Limabeany]

Many people have written about their time working for both presidents and other celebrities and I don't find that to be an issue at all. In fact, we would not have a great deal of knowledge ‎about the true feelings of some presidents during important moments in our country's history were it not for memoirs of former employers.

This is an excellent point. I had not considered it from a broader perspective.  :goodpost:

[HistoryGirl]

:) thanks. With me that's what it usually boils down to lol it's not just for current knowledge, but hundreds of years from now someone might wanna hear the perspective of someone who was there but not directly involved. Many of the current memoirs/works of literature we think of as indispensable when studying a particular time period or event may once have been viewed as "tacky" and "wrong" by some contemporaries...ie. Voltaire lol

[Lady Adams]

^ Off topic-ish, but if anyone wants a great book about behind-the-scenes life at the White House, I recommend this memoir by a butler who was there from 1941–1969:
Upstairs at the White House: My Life with the First Ladies
Amazon.com: Upstairs at the White House: My Life with the First Ladies eBook: J. B. West, Mary Lynn Kotz: Kindle Store

[HistoryGirl]

^You know that reminds me, I'm ashamed to say I've never seen Lee Daniel's The Butler with Forest Whitaker, looked liked a great movie.

[Lady Adams]

^Neither have I, even though it's on my list!

[Trudie]

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you from saying things -- and even then, there are limits (like laws about libeling people, and in some places invasion of privacy). 

We're talking about cases where it's *legal* to publish these books but, IMO, tacky and hurtful.  You don't have to be breaking the law to be doing something wrong.

You're slowly becoming g my new favorite poster. Just because you can do something g doesn't mean you should. I have no loyalty the the RF, they could fall into the ocean for all I care; my issue is the lack of respect for other people's privavcy.
Double post auto-merged: August 14, 2014, 12:24:12 AM

While you are holding a mutual adoration here I believe the Royal Family invaded their own privacy in 1969 allowing the documentary A Royal family to be made. Charles invaded his own privacy in allowing his own biography to be written by Dimbleby and his subsequent interview. Did they ask for the permission of their employees if they minded being on film? or in the case of Charles did he ask permission from his inner circle of friends and employees if they minded?

[Limabeany]

^Neither have I, even though it's on my list!

HistoryGirl and Lady Adams,  I have a list that is growing horribly of such films, as I have been so busy that any time I have a couple of hours to spend on tv I crave something distracting be it action, fantasy or something similar... And, the must-see list keeps growing....

[SophieChloe]

I find it distasteful that staff are allowed to use the BP swimming pool, but are required to leave if any royal comes (unless they invite them to stay). If they arrive to swim and a royal family member is in the pool, they may not get in. That sounds belittling and distasteful.

Beyond, distastefull!  Tell you what, if I was in the pool when a member of the RF dained to take a dip - I'd have refused to get out...what they gonna do about it?  We are not living in North Korea. 

They really are on another planet, considering there would be no BP pool worth swimming in  - without the staff paying their taxes for the upkeep. 

[amabel]

Anyone who doesn't want to refer to Charles as HRH or bow to him is free not to take a job where Charles is his boss and one of the expectations is that he be referred to by his title.  But having taken that job, I find it distasteful that someone would then turn around and use private information about his employer to make a buck.  It's not about being BFFs, it's about having common human decency.

Does nobody feel that the Official secrets act means anything?  That if you take a job which means you have to sign it, that you owe it to yourself to stick with what you have signed?  I agree that if someone takes a job working for a royal then they should stick with the rules of the job... no one is forcing them to do it

[SophieChloe]

Payback time.  Good for Dickie! 

Listen - I am the most trusted friend you will ever wish to have....Dickie was a servant no more, no less.  Why should he not add to his children/grandchildren's funds?   

Official secrets act means anything?

What are they hiding?

Unless it is for the security of the Country - why would any employee need to sign that?