HM and Ostriching

amabel · January 15, 2011, 08:32:30 AM

Quote from: sandy on January 14, 2011, 03:35:33 PM
Quote from: amabel on January 14, 2011, 06:25:57 AM
Quote from: dianab on January 10, 2011, 04:31:09 PM
Quote from: cinrit on January 10, 2011, 03:32:57 PMCindy
The world knows what goes on privately between Camilla & Charles, because the auto-bio of Charles. He was told back then Camilla is material mistress, he accepted.
Charles did not write an autobiography

Charles' mouthpiece was DImbleby. He was Charles' authorized biographer and the ideas/thoughts came from Charles to Dimbleby directly.

An authorised biography is not the same as an autobiography. and in any case we don't know exactly what Charles was thinking, we only know what he chooses to make public....
He accepted that Camilla was not marriageable back in the 60s and 70s because at that time she wasn't considered marriageable to a senior royal. Besides which, she herself clearly did not wish to marry him because she wanted Andrew PB.

Trudie · January 15, 2011, 11:45:16 AM

Well amabel you eloquently put it in a nut shell. "Besides which, she herself clearly did not wish to marry him because she wanted APB" Well she got him and should have stepped away from Charles instead the greedy manipulator went on to destroy the woman who was his wife and mother of his children.

amabel · January 15, 2011, 01:46:09 PM

Quote from: cinrit on January 10, 2011, 03:32:57 PM
Quote from: sandy on January 10, 2011, 03:23:50 PM
It.

I think we've discussed this numerous times, and neither is going to convince the other one way or the other.

QuoteEdward didn't leave Alexandra's bed after she delivered their second child. They apparently still had a sex life while he had romps with other women. Charles left Diana's bed after she delivered Harry.

I'm reading a lot (a lot!) about Charles leaving Diana's bed. Is that what's most important? You knows ... maybe Diana was glad to have him leave her bed. :teehee:

QuoteMountbatten could be persuasive. I did read by some biographers that he could have made a difference re: Amanda and Charles.

In other words, the opinion of some biographers. Other biographers may have different opinions. When we don't know what goes on privately between two people, that's all we can have. But let's say the biographers are right and Mountbatten convinces Amanda to marry Charles. Considering she had to be talked into it, and Charles had to have Amanda pushed on him (because surely he'd at the very least have seen her before), do you really think it would have been a happy marriage? Or do you think it would have ended up the same as Charles' marriage to Diana ... in which case, we'd be talking about poor Amanda right now.

Cindy

according to one or 2 biographer's, Charles did propose to Amanda and she turned him down because there was "no spark". I t hink it is unlikely that she would have said yes just because her grandfather persuaded her... and if she had been persuaded into it against her better judgement then I'd say the odds would be ta ht it might have been an unhappy marriage... though not probably as disastrous as the marriage he did make.

As for Bertie and Alix, I think that he problaby did leave her bed after tehy had had 6 children, and I suspect she was rahter relieved ot have an end of childbearing....

cinrit · January 15, 2011, 02:39:34 PM

Quote from: amabel on January 15, 2011, 08:29:30 AM
I think it is very possible that he wont be "Defender of the Faith" or possible even Governor of the C of E by the time he becomes king. Besides which the C of E has made it clear that they are OK with his remarriage....and his being crowned King.

"Defender of the Faith" is a title that was originally given to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X as a reward for writing a treatise against Martin Luther. After the Henry-Catherine-Anne Boleyn fiasco, the title was taken away from him by the Pope. It was then given back to him by an act of Parliament. I think it would probably take another act of Parliament to rescind it. The question is, would they?

Cindy

amabel · January 15, 2011, 06:56:57 PM

yes, I think it is possible and that the C of E might be disestablished. but not as a priority....

sandy · January 15, 2011, 09:19:42 PM

auto

Quote from: amabel on January 15, 2011, 08:32:30 AM
Quote from: sandy on January 14, 2011, 03:35:33 PM
Quote from: amabel on January 14, 2011, 06:25:57 AM
Quote from: dianab on January 10, 2011, 04:31:09 PM
Quote from: cinrit on January 10, 2011, 03:32:57 PMCindy
The world knows what goes on privately between Camilla & Charles, because the auto-bio of Charles. He was told back then Camilla is material mistress, he accepted.
Charles did not write an autobiography

Charles' mouthpiece was DImbleby. He was Charles' authorized biographer and the ideas/thoughts came from Charles to Dimbleby directly.

An authorised biography is not the same as an autobiography. and in any case we don't know exactly what Charles was thinking, we only know what he chooses to make public....
He accepted that Camilla was not marriageable back in the 60s and 70s because at that time she wasn't considered marriageable to a senior royal. Besides which, she herself clearly did not wish to marry him because she wanted Andrew PB.

Dimbleby spoke to Charles. Charles answered his interview questions. Charles gave him material in the book. Regardless of saying it is not an "autobiography" Charles spoke DIRECTLY to Dimbleby. Besides which many books which pass themselves off as autobiographies many times have ghostwriters.

Trudie · January 15, 2011, 10:57:12 PM

Charles actually gave Dimbleby complete access to all his journals and correspondence, as well as speaking directly to him. For all Diana's mistake in doing Morton at least she hadn't gone that far.

cinrit · January 15, 2011, 11:04:13 PM

Quote from: sandy on January 15, 2011, 09:19:42 PM
Dimbleby spoke to Charles. Charles answered his interview questions. Charles gave him material in the book. Regardless of saying it is not an "autobiography" Charles spoke DIRECTLY to Dimbleby. Besides which many books which pass themselves off as autobiographies many times have ghostwriters.

Dimbleby's book is not an autobiography by any stretch of the imagination ... it is a biography. Nor do we know that everything in it is 100% truth. Just because Charles or Dimbleby say it or publish it doesn't mean it's fact. Only Charles, in his own head, knows what the truth is. If it were that a person providing personal information to another person who writes a book about them is an autobiography, then we could say that "Diana, Her True Story" is Diana's autobiography. But it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography

Cindy

Trudie · January 16, 2011, 02:02:35 AM

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.

sandy · January 16, 2011, 02:18:27 AM

Charles took flak for criticizing his parents (by his siblings.) Obviously, Anne,Edward and ANdrew knew CHarles not Dimbleby was the source of the allegations. Why would they not criticiize Dimbleby if they thought Charles had little to do with the book?

Sarah Bradford wrote: "...there had been a terrific explosion from the QUeen when it was discvered that the Prince handed over to Dimbeby a drawerful of papers which included not only his childhood diaries but State Papers without bothering to check what was there He was forced to take them back and go through them"

amabel · January 16, 2011, 09:50:48 AM

Nobody said that he had noting to do with the book. I was simply making the point that it was not an autobiography (as Dianab stated) it is an authorised biography, and also that we do not know exactly what was in Charles mind, since we only know what he chose to pass on to Dimbleby....

Trudie · January 16, 2011, 01:40:23 PM

Well there was precious little that he didn't choose to pass on to Dimbleby IMO he aired every grievance he had since he was a child. The only thing in the book he didn't reveal all but did in the interview was his "close warm personal friendship"with Camilla

amabel · January 16, 2011, 01:41:47 PM

Quote from: Trudie on January 16, 2011, 01:40:23 PM
Well there was precious little that he didn't choose to pass on to Dimbleby IMO he aired every grievance he had since he was a child. The only thing in the book he didn't reveal all but did in the interview was his "close warm personal friendship"with Camilla

I should think that he only allowed Dimbleby and the public to know what he wanted them to know...

cinrit · January 16, 2011, 01:57:30 PM

Quote from: Trudie on January 16, 2011, 02:02:35 AM
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".

QuoteThe 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

cinrit · January 16, 2011, 02:10:44 PM

Quote from: amabel on January 16, 2011, 01:41:47 PM
Quote from: Trudie on January 16, 2011, 01:40:23 PM
Well there was precious little that he didn't choose to pass on to Dimbleby IMO he aired every grievance he had since he was a child. The only thing in the book he didn't reveal all but did in the interview was his "close warm personal friendship"with Camilla

I should think that he only allowed Dimbleby and the public to know what he wanted them to know...

Personally, any time I read a biography (or autobiography), the most boring part is the childhood of the subject ... unless the subject is a child and doesn't have other life experience. But practically every biography or autobiography begins this way. The good, the bad, the pretty, and the ugly are told about the subject's childhood. Whether or not the siblings of the book's subject approve or disapprove does not matter. It's not their story. We also know that different children living in the same household do not necessarily get treated the same, nor do they have the same memories or perspective as each other. One person may say that as an child, he/she was physically/emotionally/sexually abused as a child. A sibling who lived in the same household might say that's ridiculous because he or she had a wonderful childhood. They can both be telling the truth. This is fact. It happens the world over.

Please note that the above example does not apply to anyone in the Royal Family.

Cindy

amabel · January 16, 2011, 02:13:47 PM

It was I htink Dianab who referred to it as an autobiography.. but it wasn't. In both cases, Diana and Charles were hardly going to tell the whole truth to the writers they employed.
I can't udnersand why people cannot accept that in both cases, they did what divorcing couples usually do... they blamed each other for the failure of the marriage. They complained ot their friends and exaggerated the other party's bad points... Probably some years down the road, if Diana had been spared, they would have moved on, each realised that they had been exaggerating and one hopes having a civilised friendship for the sake of tehir children...

amabel · January 16, 2011, 02:20:48 PM

Quote from: cinrit on January 16, 2011, 02:10:44 PM
Quote from: amabel on January 16, 2011, 01:41:47 PM
Quote from: Trudie on January 16, 2011, 01:40:23 PM

I should think that he only allowed Dimbleby and the public to know what he wanted them to know...

Personally, any time I read a biography (or autobiography), the most boring part is the childhood of the subject ... unless the subject is a child and doesn't have other life experience. But practically every biography or autobiography begins this way. The good, the bad, the pretty, and the ugly are told about the subject's childhood. Whether or not the siblings of the book's subject approve or disapprove does not matter. It's not their story. We also know that different children living in the same household do not necessarily get treated the same, nor do they have the same memories or perspective as each other. One person may say that as an child, he/she was physically/emotionally/sexually abused as a child. A sibling who lived in the same household might say that's ridiculous because he or she had a wonderful childhood. They can both be telling the truth. This is fact. It happens the world over.

Please note that the above example does not apply to anyone in the Royal Family.

Cindy

I think that however the RF felt that Charles had been out of line in speaking too much about his parents, and paritcualrly in blaming them for things. It just "wasn't done"... Diana had chosen to start the publicity war by putting forward the Morton book but I think they felt it would be more dignified not to reply and certainly not to complain about the Queen and philip....It wasn't unknown anyway that Charles didn't get on too well with his father, and felt that his mother had also been distant and had allowed Philip to "manage" him in a way that he found unacceptable, such as sending him to Gordonstoun etc.
But IIRC James Colthurst said that he dissuaded Diana from attacking HER family in Morton... that she was very angry with her family and wanted ot put it in the book, felt that they had not helped her and that he and others had persuaded her that "less is more"....

Trudie · January 16, 2011, 02:26:05 PM

Excuse me amabel while they each may have blamed each other for the failure of their marriage it was actually Diana who in Panorama that stated she took 50% of the blame. Just what percentage has Charles claimed?. :hmm:

amabel · January 16, 2011, 02:27:43 PM

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

Trudie · January 16, 2011, 02:35:35 PM

I don't buy that argument for one minute. Charles has always blamed others for his short comings including blaming Richard Aylard for the backlash he received from admitting his adultery. NO one told Charles to do that but Charles it was said at the time felt if he was honest then perhaps some public opinion would favor him.

cinrit · January 16, 2011, 02:43:02 PM

Quote from: amabel on January 16, 2011, 02:20:48 PM
I think that however the RF felt that Charles had been out of line in speaking too much about his parents, and paritcualrly in blaming them for things. It just "wasn't done"... Diana had chosen to start the publicity war by putting forward the Morton book but I think they felt it would be more dignified not to reply and certainly not to complain about the Queen and philip....

If I understand what you're saying, it was okay for Diana to provide information for the Morton book, but it was not okay for Charles to do the same with Dimbleby ... or to complain at all. It just isn't done ... because he's a Royal? Diana was a Royal at the time, too. So this is really the same discussion as over the past few weeks ... it's okay for Diana to do such-and-such, but it's not okay for Charles to do the same. I'm out of the conversation again, in that case. :happy15:

Cindy

dianab · January 16, 2011, 04:27:56 PM

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.

Quote from: amabel on January 16, 2011, 02:27:43 PM
I dont know... perhaps he feels it is a private matter....

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

amabel · January 16, 2011, 08:20:46 PM

Quote from: cinrit on January 16, 2011, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: amabel on January 16, 2011, 02:20:48 PM
I think that however the RF felt that Charles had been out of line in speaking too much about his parents, and paritcualrly in blaming them for things. It just "wasn't done"... Diana had chosen to start the publicity war by putting forward the Morton book but I think they felt it would be more dignified not to reply and certainly not to complain about the Queen and philip....

If I understand what you're saying, it was okay for Diana to provide information for the Morton book, but it was not okay for Charles to do the same with Dimbleby ... or to complain at all. It just isn't done ... because he's a Royal? Diana was a Royal at the time, too. So this is really the same discussion as over the past few weeks ... it's okay for Diana to do such-and-such, but it's not okay for Charles to do the same. I'm out of the conversation again, in that case. :happy15:

Cindy

No. I'm just saying that Charles' family Anne etc were annoyed at his using his bio to attack his parents in the way he did and like the Queen they probably thought he was extremely foolish to confess ot his affair with Camilla. Clearly they did not approve of Diana's doing the same in Morton.. I think that Charles was mainly responding to Di's "outburst" in Morton and feeling that he had to put out his side of the story... He's not Done anthyigng of that kind again. I think he realised it was stupid to try and compete with Diana in that way..... As I said, I think that his siblings would have felt "if Di wants to go that way and authorise books which "tell all", Charles should just preserve a dignified silence and not reply to her."

amabel · January 16, 2011, 08:23:13 PM

Quote from: dianab on January 16, 2011, 04:27:56 PM
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.

Quote from: amabel on January 16, 2011, 02:27:43 PM
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....

cinrit · January 16, 2011, 11:52:19 PM

Quote from: amabel on January 16, 2011, 08:20:46 PM
Quote from: cinrit on January 16, 2011, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: amabel on January 16, 2011, 02:20:48 PM
I think that however the RF felt that Charles had been out of line in speaking too much about his parents, and paritcualrly in blaming them for things. It just "wasn't done"... Diana had chosen to start the publicity war by putting forward the Morton book but I think they felt it would be more dignified not to reply and certainly not to complain about the Queen and philip....

If I understand what you're saying, it was okay for Diana to provide information for the Morton book, but it was not okay for Charles to do the same with Dimbleby ... or to complain at all. It just isn't done ... because he's a Royal? Diana was a Royal at the time, too. So this is really the same discussion as over the past few weeks ... it's okay for Diana to do such-and-such, but it's not okay for Charles to do the same. I'm out of the conversation again, in that case. :happy15:

Cindy

No. I'm just saying that Charles' family Anne etc were annoyed at his using his bio to attack his parents in the way he did and like the Queen they probably thought he was extremely foolish to confess ot his affair with Camilla. Clearly they did not approve of Diana's doing the same in Morton.. I think that Charles was mainly responding to Di's "outburst" in Morton and feeling that he had to put out his side of the story... He's not Done anthyigng of that kind again. I think he realised it was stupid to try and compete with Diana in that way..... As I said, I think that his siblings would have felt "if Di wants to go that way and authorise books which "tell all", Charles should just preserve a dignified silence and not reply to her."

Oh ... I'm sorry. I misread your post. :flower:

Cindy