HM and Ostriching

[cinrit]

I will not enter this argument what the difference between an authorized biography and a autobiography lol.
Hardly some famous person in their autobio wouldn't have some say about what should be in the book and what should not. In their autobios the famous person in most leaves available their journals/diaries, and ghost-writer/biographer talk with friends & family too. 

I dont know... perhaps he feels it is a private matter....

Isn't one-sided, OK... :rolleyes:

well since an autobiography is actually written by the person involved, then of course they would have the major say in what goes into it...
An authotised biography is when a subject agrees to allows a writer tot write about them and helps them... and again has a good deal of "say" in what goes into it but it is not the same as actually writing it himself....

Maybe an explanation of the difference between a "writer" and an "author" would help towards understanding the difference between a "biography" and an "autobiography":

http://www.differencebetween.net/business/difference-between-author-and-writer/

Cindy

[sandy]

Cindy the point here is not only did Charles speak directly with him but gave him free access to his personal journals and correspondence not to mention that Dimbleby also accompanied him on engagements questioning him during flights. Diana spoke into a tape recorder answering questions she did not give him access to her journals or personal correspondence. Big difference.

No, the point that we're stressing is that Sandy (I think) referred to Dimbleby's book as "Charles auto-bio".

The world knows what goes on privately between Camilla & Charles, because the auto-bio of Charles.

It is not an autobiography.  That's all we're pointing out.  It doesn't matter that Dimbleby was given free access to personal journals (which also may or not be 100% factual).  The book is not an autobiography.  It is a biography.  There is no difference between writing in a journal or speaking into a tape recorder (which also may not be 100% factual and was, in some instances, proven not to be so) except the means of transmitting information.

Cindy

For the record Cindy I didn't say that ths was Charles Autobiography. I said it was the authorized biography--Dimbleby was Charles chosen biographer. I DO know the difference.  The book would be My Life by Prince CHarles had it been an autobiography. I also pointed out that even though no other name appears on autobiographies there still may be a ghostwriter involved (which s quite common now)

Charles spoke to Dimbleby, Dimbleby also spoke to CHarles friends plus had access to Charles journals and letters. Sometimes biographers don 't have direct access to the subject of their bography nor have acccess to their personal papers.  THe Shawcross biography of the QUeen Mum was the authorzed biography-the author hd access to her personal papers. The Dimbleby biography was the authorized biography olf the Prince of Wales.  DImbleby had the added status of being personally seleted as the authorzied biographer of Charles.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions

[cinrit]

For the record Cindy I didn't say that ths was Charles Autobiography. I said it was the authorized biography--Dimbleby was Charles chosen biographer. I DO know the difference.  The book would be My Life by Prince CHarles had it been an autobiography. I also pointed out that even though no other name appears on autobiographies there still may be a ghostwriter involved (which s quite common now)

You're right.  I said that I thought you'd said it, not that you'd definitely said it (my exact words: "Sandy (I think)"), and Amabel corrected me.  I apologize ... I'd based my thoughts on the way something was quoted, not your original post.  (Ghostwriters have been common for centuries.)

Charles spoke to Dimbleby, Dimbleby also spoke to CHarles friends plus had access to Charles journals and letters. Sometimes biographers don 't have direct access to the subject of their bography nor have acccess to their personal papers.  THe Shawcross biography of the QUeen Mum was the authorzed biography-the author hd access to her personal papers. The Dimbleby biography was the authorized biography olf the Prince of Wales.  DImbleby had the added status of being personally seleted as the authorzied biographer of Charles.

I hope this clears up any misconceptions

I know how biographies are written.  :thumbsup:

Cindy

[Scarlet Flowers]

Journals and letters make it more authentic. 

BOT: In answer to KF's initial post, apparently HM had taken over her duties as Sovereign while Prince Philip had a hand in raising the children.  I think she'd just rather bury her head in the sand than confront any familial problems.  Hence her reaction to Sarah.

[dianab]

Journals and letters make it more authentic. 

BOT: In answer to KF's initial post, apparently HM had taken over her duties as Sovereign while Prince Philip had a hand in raising the children.  I think she'd just rather bury her head in the sand than confront any familial problems.  Hence her reaction to Sarah.

:notworthy: :notworthy: