When we were discussing our Celebitchy Book Club selection The Diana Chronicles a few months ago, I admitted that I had forgotten some details about Diana’s life. Tina Brown made a point of discussing “the Men in Grey,” meaning the men who work for the Queen, and how they often dismissed Diana and thwarted her at every turn. This story is about one of those men. His name is Dickie Arbiter and he worked for the Queen and for Prince Charles over the years. And now he’s promoting a new tell-all memoir of his royal years and Prince Charles is FURIOUS.
Prince Charles has blasted a former close aide for “betraying” him in an explosive new book. The Queen’s ex-Press Secretary Dickie Arbiter is set to reveal secrets about Charles’ relationship with Diana and the breakdown of two other royal marriages.
A palace source said: “Charles is furious. This man was a trusted friend.”
For 12 years, Buckingham Palace Press Secretary Arbiter was regarded by Prince Charles as a man he could trust with his deepest secrets. Every inch the tight-lipped loyal aide, Arbiter stood by him during the bitter breakdown of his marriage to Diana and his affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles. He was also in office when Diana was killed and witnessed the breakdown of two other royal marriages during his turbulent time in office.
Nicknamed Sticky Arbiter, he will claim in his book that he was so close to the Queen they once did the washing up together. But the 73-year-old is set to hang out the Royal Family’s dirty laundry – and be the first Buckingham Palace press officer ever to spill the beans on what he witnessed behind closed doors. Speculation over what lies inside his upcoming biography has sent shock waves through the regal corridors. It is understood officials have been taking legal advice in a desperate attempt to halt its publication.
A Palace source said: “He is raking over the breakdown of the marriage and the Prince has been asking aides ‘Why do we have to go through this all again?’ It is just a case of a man who he thought was a friend and who could be trusted cashing in on the misery of that time. It is disloyal. Arbiter has been told that he does not have official permission to write this book and a legal team has reviewed all his old contracts in a bid to try and find a way to stop it.”
Last night Arbiter admitted he had signed the Official Secrets Act and left a “note” with the palace to say he was writing the book. The ex-aide, who has previously blasted others for selling royal secrets, stands to rake in around £250,000 from publishing advances and serialisation fees. He still receives lucrative pension payments from the Royal Family.
It is understood Arbiter’s shock disclosures will detail how Princess Diana felt “humiliated” by her husband’s affair with Camilla and her “dark days” as an unhappy wife. The book is said to reveal how the relationship went “sour” after Diana had been “madly in love with Prince Charles at the start of their marriage.” A source said Arbiter will also “delve into the dark days” of Diana’s “isolation” and “humiliation” as Charles’ affair with Camilla first came to light.
The Mirror starts previewing all of the scandals that Arbiter will cover, to the point where I’m pretty convinced that the Mirror has already bought the serialization rights for the book. Apparently, Arbiter will also discuss at length how Charles cheated on Diana, how all of the men who worked for Charles were half in-love with Diana, and what the Queen really thinks of various world leaders and celebrities.
I tend to think Arbiter really didn’t know Diana as well as some people would like to believe. Arbiter mainly worked for the Queen, and he did some work for Charles, but Charles has his own team of extensive employees, handlers, press officers, etc. Once Diana and Charles split, she had her own people too, people who were (mostly) loyal to her. Don’t get me wrong, I bet Arbiter’s book will be scandalous and a lot of dirt will be coming out, but I think it’s mostly going to be gossip about the Queen and the workings of Buckingham Palace.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I’ll read it though, lol.
I can’t imagine there’s much new on the Diana front. That stuff has been hashed out in the open for years and years. I am interested in what the Queen actually thinks about world leaders. But I am a royal loonie like that ; ).
Agreed. The Diana-Charles story is played out, IMO, and, at this point, can only be boring. I’m looking forward to dirt on the Queen and innerworkings of the court.
it could be about that hushed up “rape” in the palace. That would explain Prince Charles rage. That story was always hushed up.
Really? I don’t doubt things like that have happened and that it gets covered up, but if there are details that could make for rough waters if it points fingers at Charles keeping something like that quiet.
Rape?!
Rape?
I’m sure Charles wasn’t involved tho
Google “Michael Fawcett Rape” and you will see the story. Prince Charles valet raped someone and it was hushed up.
‘alleged’
While it’s not good to blame a victim or dismiss their story, the accuser did serve time in northern Ireland during the worst times of the troubles as well as the Falklands war and suffered a nervous breakdown after bouts of paranoia, flashbacks and imaginings of being followed and harassed as a result of his time there. Unfortunately for him, his symptoms and condition were not recognised in combat returned soldiers until Iraq and Afghanistan. A Lot of help is now given to returning soldiers that wasn’t available then.
As for whether he was telling the truth, my limited knowledge of people suffering from paranoia tells me that *he* believed it to be true. Fact or fantasy, they always believe whatever they decide is the truth and they tend to fixate on something or someone.
His experiences in NI and the Falklands traumatised him enough to lead to a persecution paranoia before succumbing to a nervous breakdown so I don’t doubt that he imagined the worst and came to believe it to be true.
I just finished the Diana Chronicles – what a dense read! Fascinating, but dense. I felt like I needed a compendium, and did, in fact, read the book with my iPad open next to me, so I could google the myriad references.
All that to say… I will for sure be reading this book. I’m surprised he wrote it. My guess is that it will have some juicy bits but that nothing will be too damaging to the Queen, herself.
I thought people who worked for the BRF had to sign a non disclosure agreement? I’m all for gossip, and I constantly remind people how badly Charles and Camilla treated Diana, but I think this is a betrayal and is dishonorable and motivated by greed. I feel for Charles.
I feel for Charles too this time. Is it even legal to write a tell-all book if you sign a non-disclosure agreement? Or does that stop when the person retires, gets fired or gives her/his notice?
Non-disclosure means just that – not ever.
Would be good if author and publisher go sued and and injunction slammed on then.
Nicely said. I agree. I feel for Charles being betrayed like this. That’s not cool for anyone.
@Goodnames….My thoughts exactly!
That’s what I thought. Do BRF let people work for them without making them sign a contract? If they do, they shouldn’t be suprised when they are betrayed like this.
Arbiter says he’s not violating any confidentiality agreements. We’ll see if Palace lawyers looking into it agree.
Charles betrayed Diana, especially with the media, and now he calls foul for someone doing exactly what he did to her; even after she was dead, and unable to defend herself. Betrayal indeed! What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander, and all that.
wolfpup
That sounds awful, but less so when you remember Diana struck 1st and played a better media sympathy game than Charles. He wasn’t attacking a helples woman who only became strong after her death. History and her memory are glorified and things aren’t remembered accurately and without Bias.
Goodnames…nail on the head. I find this kind of betrayal disgusting, and as much as I’m sure we’d all love to hear the Palace dirt, I hope the RF’s legal team will find a way to stop publication. It will only serve to dredge up old sludge and hurt Wills and Harry- probably Beatrice and Eugenie as well, from how the book is being promoted.
Side note: does anyone else think Sticky Dickie looks very like Anthony Hopkins, or am I having a stroke??
I thought so, too – did a double take. Sir Anthony could certainly play him in a movie version of his book 🙂
I think confidentiality agreements end after a period of time. Kind of an expiration date. I agree with posters who say this story is an old one. Everyone already has hashed out their opinions on the Diana and Charles divorce. It is old news. I’m reminded of Gwyneth Paltrow discussing why she and Brad ended their relationship long after everyone had moved on from it. Some die hard fans will work themselves up into a lather about the new information Arbiter reveals but that’s it.
No, confidentiality agreements only end after the employer has died. Anything they were privy to during their employment is off limits. I don’t think the Royals have ‘confidentiality agreements’ but all employees have to sign ‘the official secrets act’ , I don’t know exactly what is covered in that paper but there is probably plenty of wriggle room to spill the dirt. More fool the royals if they haven’t had iron clad confidentiality agreements drawn up with employees, ever since Princess Margaret’s scandal days.
Personally I don’t care about any confidentialities, or betrayals to Charles, or the fact that Dickie is going to make money. I simply want to read the book! And if we are going to hear the real story that the royals wish to hide, than they shouldn’t have been messing around in the first place. A comeuppance for me!
They seem to get a lot a “special” treatment that is not given to the simple folk.
+++++1
Well, I think that’s a teensy bit harsh, but we can disagree on some things and still be friends, I hope.
Well Wolfpup, they ARE the flipping royal family! (I jest…..)
To even things out there’s the occasional assassination; one’s favourite palace is gutted by almighty fire on one’s watch; the children endure, then leave, unhappy marriages; one’s sister gets to hang out on Mustique among the jet set; and one’s beloved horse is a Keith Richards rather than a Cliff Richard.
To cap it all, the Mystery of the Handbag has been revealed….it contains Her Majesty’s lipstick, as we saw at the Commonwealth Games. Let’s hope Dickie can confirm that it’s Ruby Woo by MAC.
GoodNames – Of course!
I’m not big on betrayal but Charles betrayed his wife in a cold and cruel manner, so I find it hard to feel sympathy for him when he is now the betrayed.
I’m just marveling at the stones on this man. He admits to making her life miserable and now wants to cash in on that misery…that HE caused. Wow!
Yesterday evening, there was a discussion on TV about a new book called, “The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents” (and their families). The Secret Service is well, secret mostly, and they are the ones that always surround and protect our Presidents. I’m looking forward to the read, especially on the Obamas (love them). This should be interesting and may even help Charles know that he’s not alone in the public eye.
I think he will know plenty they just love to gossip in those places. I would lo Iove to hear about Andrew and Sarah as well, Andrew is the Queens favourite son. The fact Charles seems to be the most upset makes me think Dickie is going to clear up some things that Charles and his team have been trying to either hide or whitewash over the years. After all they want everyone to forget that he cheated on Diana first and how he and Camilla spread rumours that Diana had a mental illness etc cause that is where they all came from. Charles doesn’t want it bought up cause it doesn’t suit him. It will be interesting to see who the Queen liked and disliked but some won’t be that surprising.
Diana did have a mental illness. She had a personality disorder and anorexia/bulimia. He did cheat on Diana first. In fact he was having an affair with Camilla all the way through the engagement. If everyone “knew” about it back then how come Diana didn’t? She wanted to be Queen and was willing to put up with whatever to get it. Then the press turned on her and she didn’t like the negativity, and I don’t blame her! It must have been horrible. But she played the press like a violin, her “Queen of Hearts” and the “Attentive Mother” thing was a masterpiece. If only she didn’t take her kids on holidays with her and her lover, not cool and she spent very little time with those boys really. You have to remember too that Charles cheated with his one great love that he was forbidden to marry years ago, Diana cheated with heaps of men and actually stalked a couple of married men. Queen of Hearts my …se!
Well said. I liked Diana, and I believe she was sincerely passionate about her causes. But she was far from a saint, as she is now routinely made out to be. The bulk of her and Charles’ marital problems falls on him, naturally as he was the only adult in the relationship. Diana was a silly teenager, and he had no business agreeing to marry her, even more so as by his own admission he was in love with someone else. But Diana was a master manipulator, a skill she probably honed after her own parent’s divorce to play them off each other. She worked the media like a puppeteer to her own advantage, one moment complaining about them, the next actually calling paparazzi to show up wherever she was to be. She did her best to make Charles look like a cold, unfeeling father -he may have been a lousy husband, but he loves those boys and by all accounts has always been a great dad. Diana was acutely aware of her power, and used it often to her own advantage. And she had several affairs of her own, some with married men. A generally nice lady, but an egregiously flawed human being, like the rest of us.
Diana was a completely sheltered teenager when she was selected by the royals. She didn’t have a clue about what was going on. She was living in some romantic fantasy world and believing in “happily ever after.” She fell in love with Charlea because he was the first man who paid her any attention at all, if not the first person. So don’t ascribe such conniving motives to her. She may have grown up and become more savvy and manipulative, but that was much later in her life.
Not so.
Not much later. And it’s well documented Diana had a bad streak. Pushing her nanny(or stepmother?) down the stairs. Tossing out all her step mothers clothes once her father passed. Her nanny by some accounts came to fear her. Making it known she was very wealthy because to not be would be scandalous?
Yes, she had a whirlwind courting and became a master at press manipulation later in her life. That doesn’t mean it all just formed suddenly. She was working up to it all through her childhood.
Selena – Penny Junor is the author that wrote Diana had a Personality Disorder, but she and her husband socialized with both Camilla & Charles. No doctor that ever treated Diana ever made such claims, so this is pure bunk to me. I liken this claim to Leann’s friends saying Brandi Glanville has a personality disorder, because she said so and cheaters are so honest (#sarcasm)
She wasn’t a saint, but there were lots of major hatchet jobs done on her, and obviously bought hook line and sinker. Too bad.
The fan fiction at this point is exhausting to wade through. Camilla most certainly was not the great love of Charles’ life, nor was he hers. Diana was no saint nor was she a raving lunatic. But what is true beyond conjecture is that Charles cheated on his 19 year old wife with another woman. If Charles apologists could make this one, simple fact go away, they would. And no, Charles and Camilla are not evil monsters either. But the spin on these stories is hilarious gets a slow clap from me.
Seems like a lot of people believe Diana had mental illness these days. Kind of proves that Charles’ & Junor’s PR was successful…sad.
Perhaps this book will set the record straight.
Charles was never forbidden to marry Camilla. She wanted to get married but he was too busy being the playboy so she gave up and married someone else.
Hopefully this book will flesh out the real story of Charles, and who Diana truly was.
Of course Charles is concerned about his own reputation, but I would like to think that he doesn’t want a bunch of negative stuff stirred up about Diana either. I’m sure the BRF doesn’t want allegations of Diana having a mental illness aired. Who wants whisperings about the future king possibly inheriting his mother’s problems?
Most mental illnesses are not genetically linked, but some are. There’s still a stigma associated with mental illness (at least in the US), and nothing good can come from stirring that up.
FLORC: You forget her throwing one of her nannies’ engagement ring (or a ring, at any rate) down the toilet when she was a child.
(Although pushing Raine – her stepmother – down a flight of stairs was probably the worst of her “antics”; and she did that as a fully grown woman, to boot.)
Yes, she had some wonderful qualities.
But she also seem to have had more than her fair share of self-centred cruelty. A “mean streak” would be understating it.
So, yes, I agree that she probably came into the marriage as a self-serving manipulator, rather than (just) a naive starry-eyed teenager – or a “lamb to the slaughter”, to quote her own words.
Wolfpup
This book will do no such thing imo.
I think we all need to accept neither Charles or Diana need us to carry a torch for them. They were both human. Both made terrible decisions. Both hurt people and ended marriages for selfish reasons. Both did good. And Both did at some point love eachother. Before Diana’s death there was strong reconciliation.
Since Diana, Charles, and Camilla were all on track to be well over what happened and very friendly with no hard feelings should make us look again at what exactly is the benefit of saying this person was bad and that person was good.
If they got over it we should too. It’s not our fight.
. . . And when u (I) really sit back to consider that she was 19 (!), and probably an average 19-year old at that, someone like her should not even have been in the running for a man with such a large age-gap—for all sorts of reasons.
That’s no shade for ladies/young girls who have much older spouses but the typical 18 – 19 year old (I know) would probably be in over her head with a man anywhere older than 23 – 24. Just sayin . . . Some girls/women can hang . . . But😗
My goodness there is a lot of revisionist history here. Diana herself admitted to an eating disorder, that is a mental illness, let alone the third party reports of manic behaviour. Will Carling’s wife was so fed up with Diana’s constant phone calls that it is rumoured that she was going to the police to get a restraining order. Then there was Barry Mannakee, David Waterhouse, James Gilbey, James Hewitt, Oliver Hoare, Doctor Hasnar Khan (who it is rumoured she actually loved), Bryan Adams, and finally Dodi Fayed. The last three were post marriage but even then when you think of the times back then a total of 10 lovers in such a short space of time… She was no angel. Charles was forbidden to marry Camilla by the Queen Mother, no doubt about that at all, Camilla was a “fast girl” back then and no virgin, the Queen Mother, a true child of the 19th century demanded virginity. And Diana knew exactly what she was getting, she and her family had been moving in Royal circles for all of her life. For heavens sake her sister Sarah was one of the girls linked with Charles years before and it was only when she went public about her relationship did they break up. Perhaps that was a family trait because Diana certainly used the press as well, once things turned bad for her.
I am sure the Queen Mother would have forbidden Charles to marry Camilla (and probably did), but it is my understanding that Charles did actually propose to Camilla, and she turned him down. It appears that not only was she reluctant to join the “royal” way of life, but she was truly in love with Andrew Parker-Bowles, her husband.
From my readings I see your comments as part truth, part opinion and part revisionist history courtesy of Charles’ dynamic post-Diana public relations campaign. And if you believe that Camilla was obsessed/in love with anyone other than Michael then you believe the version of the Charles and Cam story they want you to believe. Camilla dug in her heels and fought off all contenders until she got Parker-Bowles down the aisle but he was never faithful to her. After her last pregnancy, when this fact became painfully clear, she allowed her dalliances with Charles to solidify. As for Charles, he loved Kanga. The truth does no favors to fairy tales.
I did know about the relationship with Kanga (seriously disapproved of by the palace), but I really did think that Camilla was his choice for wife. I heard this years ago prior to the Diana courtship. During the engagement I also heard that the marriage with Diana was seen as a business arrangement by both parties and Charles would continue to see Camilla and if Diana was “discreet” she could see who she wished after the heir and spare were born. So I was gobsmacked when Diana seemed so hurt by the ongoing relationship with Camilla. Obviously my sources were crap. 🙂
I don’t believe that he loved Kanga. There was a film about her on utube that said that she and her family denied an affair until the day she died.
It’s outrageous that he continued his dalliances with Camilla during Diana’s courtship and honeymoon. Even a woman of 35 could not hold up to that. Charles behaved as though he were a Sultan with his harem.
We would all like to forgive him, but what he did to Diana (and hence all women) should not be acceptable from any human being.
wolfpup – It is interesting to note that in those sort of circles it is not uncommon for both parties to have affairs. What is bad form is to wave it in the other persons face. One is supposed to be discrete about those sorts of things. Prince Phillip has had numerous affairs, Merle Oberon and Princess Alexandra to name but two. Andrew Parker-Bowles knew about his wife and Charles. I always thought that Diana did too, if she didn’t she was a bit dim. Please understand I am not excusing the behaviour but that is the way it is. It is often assumed that people marry for duty and have an affair or two for pleasure. Very few of this echelon in societal history have not had affairs. Diana went on to prove that point.
I also disagree with you that Diana is somehow representative of “all women”. She wasn’t and isn’t. She agreed to marry the future King of England, warts and all. She then didn’t like the warts and carried on in an appalling manner. She was a silly girl and for that I was sad for her. But when she started to try to break up other marriages I lost a lot of my sympathy for her.
Chris, the excuse (he is the Prince of Wales) that is put forward as a reason for Charles dalliances, is hypocritical in my mind, coming from the next head of the *Church of England*. It’s kind of like a teenager saying that “everyone else does”…or does Charles get deathbed repentance, like the Emperor Constantine, as he is unwilling to take responsibility without blaming her? The fact that Diana was so devastated speaks volumes about what she expected in the marriage. Those who call her a silly child for expecting a real marriage, (coming from the aristocracy herself); where her own parents marriage was broken for the very same reason, doesn’t add up. Those were her real expectations, and the promise that Charles made before God and country. It was a promise that Diana believed.
As far as Diana’s affairs. She certainly was not hurting Charles at this point, as he cared little. I wonder how the King in Spain would feel if Letizia or himself were to step out on each other. It would greatly diminish the intimacy between them, to say the least. I’m glad Diana outed Charles, he deserves to be responsible for his actions, in particular, to another human being that was the his wife, and the mother of his children. His actions destroyed a family; because that is what most commonly happens. Diana was wrong, it is true, plain and simple, especially turning even to married men. It was a tit for a tat, like many of us do in retaliation. (Camilla was married too, but she is excused). Charles campaign to blame Diana for his indiscretions (via the media, same as her), was despicable, especially because he castigated her publicly for using the same media methods, and more. It is like an abuser blaming his victim. Charles was not a victim in the same way as Diana. His powers were far greater to destroy her reputation, after she died – she wasn’t even around to defend herself.
Charles called her a silly girl, and when the royal family wants to dirty another’s reputation, I’m sure that they are able to find a great deal of help in doing so, and are very good at that special kind of vindictiveness.. I do not believe that marrying into a royal family makes any woman any less deserving of respect and caring. She is “every woman” in that sense. And she had a right to defend herself from the onslaught, however criticized from the royal camp.
The idea that some folks are not under the “laws of God & and the Ten Commandments”, is something that I’ve never read in the bible, or can the Church of England give some folks special dispensations? A free pass of sorts?
Wolfpup
So very well said and eloquently fleshed out.
I find it strange that every reason under the sun is trotted out to explain/excuse Charles and Camilla’s affair – that’s how the aristocracy behave, Diana knew, Diana was unstable, Diana married Charles for her own reasons, Diana was an aristo and should have known expectations, Charles and Camilla were cruelly separated by the Queen etc etc..but when you assert that Charles behaved like a villain towards his wife you get nothing.
Don’t misunderstand me. Charles’ behaviour was bad. But so was Diana’s. They both behaved contrary to the dictates of appropriate and moral behaviour. To canonise Diana after her death is absurd.
Dame Snarkweek, all of the excuses you detail are real. The upbringing that people have and the milieu in which they tumble, affects people for all of their lives. Charles and Diana are no different, both moved in the same circles and were aware of the expectations placed upon them.
Wolfpup states that Diana believed Charles when he made his marriage vows. I have very strong doubts about that. It is my understanding that she knew that Charles and Camilla were still an item before and after their betrothal. Andrew Parker-Bowles knew, all of that set knew, for heavens sake I knew! and believe you me, I am not a permanent member of the aristocracy.
It sounds like old crap. No new revelations. And isn’t Charles a victim as well because of the stupid pressure he had to marry Diana instead of the woman he was really in love with?
At that time, “the woman he really loved” was married to another man. Kind of awkward 🙂
My point being the entire fiasco was complicated by measures/standards in place more suited for a different century. Diana got the saint treatment, because she died. I think all the parties had or have faults and the story has been exhausted. KWIM?
Kiddo
Completely agree with you…jeez, in the months prior to her death, Diana was bring castigated daily by the tabloids, re boyfriends, perma-holidaying etc, but post-Paris it was, of course, nil nisi bonum in the extreme, lurching to hagiography.
I remember all those awful years of Charles’ being up for auction throughout Europe, any bride would do, just get the chap married. Well not ‘any’ bride of course, no Catholics, none of the more mature types he preferred, (and certainly not one of the Three Degrees, whom he admired!) Diana was perfect in every way, bar those that actually mattered…..extreme incompatibility on every level. The set-up was cruel and quite obviously doomed, unless both could abide by an agreed united front, but Diana immediately fell in love with the idea of love, felt ill-used, and so the pretence died. The 1980s….it was more like the 1680s.( It’s painful even to think back on that miserable royal engagement photo-opp)
Chris,
That maritial disaster and the set-up for it really seems to me to be the product of hte BRF living in their little closed time-pocket, adhering that social norms that belonged to another age and that most people outside their charmed bubble didn’t adhere to or believe in. I still get the impression of this time-pocket when it comes to the BRF but I have no doubt that it was much stronger when the Queen Mother lived. She seemed have been a quite strong-willed and domineering personality and born in a time when social norms were radically different than what they were in the 1980s. The requirement of a virgin bride for royalty at this point in time was absolutely ludicrous because it could only really be fulfilled by finding a sheltered, teenage bride and regardless who that bride had been, such a set-up was a recipe for disaster, especially if the groom wasn’t really ready for marriage. It would have been kinder if Charles had had the freedom to wait and find a compatible woman.
CP Frederik of Denmark was in his late 30s when he married and prior to that there really was a lot of media pressure to get him hitched. Fortunately, his parents seemed to think that he should take the time to find the right woman, which he to all intents and purposes have. He and CP Mary have been married for 10 years this year and they have 4 children. It think that the only thing that Queen Margrethe stressed before her sons was that they should take pains to find non-Danish brides. Prince Joachim first married a woman from Hong Kong and then a Frenchwoman. CP Mary is Australian and the Prince Consort is French.
No, Charles was not the victim.
Squeezing in here to respond to Wolfpup….
Not sure what we’re debating there (above), unless you thought I seriously meant the royals are exempt from stricture! I was joking, as I said.
However, it’s clear that there are very strong allegiances here… affection for Charles taken to mean hatred for Diana, and so on, and discussions like that just get everyone angry.
Just one thing though…don’t know why the Bible comes into any of this suddenly. (Still less the Church of England, when you consider its genesis!) We’re all weak, most do the best they can, and if harm is done, we endeavour to forgive rather than banish to a lake of fire. But that’s an atheist for you…we don’t take the Bible as gospel. 😉
Adding a PS to my comment above…
Sorry Wolfpup, I think you were responding to Selena rather than moi, so my own reply makes even less sense now.!
There’s me yakking about kindness or whatever, when all along I’m misty-eyed for Charles, and would probably defend him if even if he were caught defacing the Leonardo drawings at Windsor.
It’s hard to be a Solomon where others’ love lives are concerned. It’s an part of us where we can become our very worst selves whilst remaining steady in other areas. I think with C&D, it’s an unwinnable debate for outsiders, particularly those with very strong partisan feelings…..but since Wills and Harry are happy for their father, that’s the crucial test.
(And please excuse my rambling waffle, valiumed to the eyeballs after a minor med procedure, feeling most peculiar!)
If Charles were to actually admit his wrongs toward Diana, rather than all his excuses and campaigns to make her less than a normal human, I would have no problem in “forgiving” him. I’m not sure what forgiveness means, to be honest, but certainly it would be a lot simpler to let go, and get on. Instead her name has been muddied by his need to be nearly faultless, in his justifications for making Diana responsible; and he The Prince of Wales, entitled to many lovers. That is a dirtbag, in my handbook, when a real apology would have been enough, and stopped the blame game in a final way. There shouldn’t be a debate, and this is Charles’s doing.
I do agree with all the commenters that said had Diana lived, she would have continued to let go. Charles didn’t really start pushing back until after Diana’s death. Chris, I don’t believe the fantasy lake of fire either, yes, Charles is merely, well merely…nothing I can see to add to his character other than that, unless one mentions that he likes his job… And that’s fine with me and obviously the Church of England. I have no wish to fantasize about sending him to the most awful place I’ve ever heard described. He probably was just *scared* into dumping most of it onto Diana.
Nothing stings like being betrayed by a friend. Especially for money.
But lucky for us. There’s so much dirt on this family that more will be fun. I’m not calling anyone names (who am I to judge…) but yippee for me!
The hypocrisy of Charles being furious because a trusted friend betrayed him is silly, especially when he castigated Diana for doing the very same thing. I am seeing that Princes and Kings are very special snowflakes! No one else gets a voice, but them.
It’s hard to believe that in 3 short years it will be the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death!!
Such sad memories of that time.
I know! I was just saying this exact thing to a friend the other day. In three years…twenty years. Damn, the time swooshes by. I remember every minute of those days between her death and the funeral. Unreal.
It was stunning…like the day that J.F. Kennedy died…
Wasn’t it just? Too too over the top, it stopped the planet spinning.
Can you imagine what it’d have been like, had we all the social media and www news, like today? All I recall is Elgar all day on Radio 4.
Wow! I didn’t even realize it was 17 years already.
And here comes my mum Christmas present !
LOL! Hope your mum enjoys a cosy read, nestled in an armchair with a warm wooly blanket and a nice cuppa Earl Grey tea. 😉
Or…wait, that will be me!
Probably, she is a Dianalooney and this is why I turned out to be a gossiplover, yes always blame the parents 😀
Ha ha I was just thinking the same thing! My mom will love this! She was (and still is) crazy about Diana 🙂
The man looks like Sir Anthony Hopkins.
I thought the same!
I was just going to write that very same thing!!!
Oops, I posted the same thing further up. Sorry, ladies….didn’t mean to hijack your observation! 🙁
I’m actually much more interested in having Charles’s quack ideas about influencing the health sector, e.g. homeopathic treatments, come out.
Or the many, many times he tried to meddle with politics, having laws bent to fit his whims, and having Tories bend over backwards to accommodate him.
Those are the things that have and continue to hurt the UK as a society much more than the Royal Dirty Laundry.
I’m more interested in those things too. I’ve heard enough about Diana.
Yes, those things alone would make me want to buy the book and read it.
Amen.
I doubt very much that this memoir will be on the level of Paul Burrell or Nanny Crawfie.
Dickie knows which side his bread is buttered and his daughter is part of the royal press corp – he won’t risk having her become persona non grata. Dollars to nuts it’ll be publicly available information rather than anything truly secret or new.
Dickie was always and remains tigher lipped than a seal drum!! I would really love to know why he finally caved and wrote this book.
He will touch upon the Charles and Diana years, but only as they pertain to his job as HM’s press person. Charles has done such sterling work on rehabilitating Camilla and his image so any reminders are probably being viewed as undoing all of that work.
However, since he does touch upon Charles and Diana, the media has decided to sensationalise what he does say so that it looks like the book is entirely about them.
What is far more damaging is repeating HM’s opinions of people or events. That will be regarded as the ultimate betrayal IF he talks about the real truth as opposed to his version of the truth.
I’m kind of thinking this may be like the book written by the Queen’s cousin… it was done with Her Majesty’s blessing and promised an “inside look” into the Royal Family… but didn’t really reveal anything at all.
Gigi: exactly.
From the outside looking in from the American Midwest, I figured he was writing it for a few reasons:
1. The royalties/pay-out will supplement an old-age pension (cushion money);
2. The money can go to his daughter (and family after his death (cushion money);
3. He has wanted to tell a story/his story/a story (which is not necessarily vindictive). He’s been part of an institution that draws a lot of attention and which is even fascinating to some, so why not be a part of that history by leaving a “living/recorded record.”
Yep. My thoughts exactly. He needs money for his old age. Bit unless he has the Palace’s tacit approval, I think he is a Sh–. Is there no integrity anymore?
I think you’re exactly right, money and posterity. Arbiter wanting to create his own historical record is probably a huge motivating reason for him that’s being overlooked. Just because the press is sensationalizing what he’s going to include doesn’t mean that reflects the book’s contents. I don’t understand why this is being immediately condemned by a lot of people when there hasn’t really been much public condemnation of memoirs by former Downing Street or White House Press Secretaries that have recounted what PMs and Presidents thought of other world leaders.
Miska: it’s an unspoken rule, major faux pas = ostracisation to repeat HM’s opinions. That’s why the few known opinions are so few and far between.
Everybody is allowed to tattletale on former PMs and the workings of Parliament, but never HM.
I don’t know that the Queen will be too happy either. Marion Crawford, who wrote a cloying account of the young princesses, was summarily cut off and never spoken of/to again. From The Mirror: “Last night Arbiter admitted he had signed the Official Secrets Act and left a “note” with the palace to say he was writing the book. ..He admits having signed a confidentiality agreement while working as an official spokesman for the Queen between 1988 and 2000 – but claims his book will not break any confidentiality. ”
Further: “The book, to be published in October, will also cover Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson’s separation and eventual divorce in 1996 and Princess Anne’s split from Mark Philips in 1992. Arbiter is also set to speak out about the Queen’s heartbreak over the Windsor Castle fire and his personal dealings with the Duke of Edinburgh. Arbiter..said: “This is not just a memoir of an intense dozen years but is a story of a life, my life and it’s been quite an extraordinary one.” He says his book is a “candid look behind the scenes of the most sensational and salacious royal stories.””
“It is believed it will also give a rare insight into the Queen’s private opinion of her Prime Ministers, world leaders and controversial Egyptian business magnate Mohamed Fayed. A source close to Arbiter said: “Dickie was there a long time and all the major events involving the royals that took place while he was there will be covered. This is his take on what happened and he believes he is allowed to reveal the secrets of the time he worked at the palace.”
So he doesn’t see anything wrong–doesn’t mean the Palace won’t. And he’s bragging about the tone which I also don’t think will go over well. The Queen’s cousin writing an authorized account of sweet family moments is one thing, ripping the scabs open on such times as the Annus Horribilus is another.
This is known in book selling circles as pre publication publicity. Goal is sales figures for the book. I don’t think he will bring anything except another viewpoint at information that has already been shared by other writers and gossips.
LAK – I agree that this will probably be a carefully written book, and doubt anything explosive will be revealed. I believe Charles is at least wary of this book because it will highlight the popularity of Diana again. He’d rather that all be forgotten.
The Mirror had a cute story a few months ago, from this book. It was Dickie’s birthday and Diana had a cake made for him in the shape of a cell phone because he was always on one. He loved it and everyone had a laugh. Diana knew how to stay “friendly” with everyone, aware of each person’s sphere of power, and I wonder if William, Harry & Kate know how to do this too and court this good will?
I so wish, but highly doubt he will touch on Charles’ relationship with Michael Fawcett, which seems to have been completely swept under the rug. I can’t remember the last time any paper mentioned him, other than that he was working at Charles’ Highgrove home, paid for privately, to do ‘party planning.’ Or something, and it was noted neither William or Harry have used his services. Hmmm…
Sharon Lea: I quite agree. Michael fawcett is doing very, very well post Charles, and is still the unofficial party planner for Charles’s parties.
WKH are so dense when it comes to the media. William especially. I’m still flummoxed that they flew around AUS/NZ with a press corp on their jet and didn’t interact with them at all. Talk about lost opportunities.
That said, there has began a favourable build up of Harry, noticeable over the past few months because he has started to make nice with the press. He was very friendly with the press corps on his recent tour and the subsequent articles were very pro-Harry.
I’m worried that JLP is up to his old tricks again, but I think Harry *gets* the whole royal shebang in the modern age in a way that William does not and that will be his saving grace. Actually, I don’t think William gets it even the old fashioned way, only time and Palace protection will tell.
Interesting LAK, I didn’t know that W&K didn’t speak to the press on their plane to Australia and NZ. Wow, what a major lost opportunity. We know Diana would have been making some jokes etc with them.
JLP = Jamie Lowther-Pinketon? Does he set the tone, or does William? I thought William was rather strong willed.
JLP = Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton
Superficially he works for both William and Harry, but in reality he protects William at all costs to the detriment of Harry. He has been known to throw Harry under the bus to help William.
Regarding William’s pig headedness, not even JLP can stop him doing what he wants, but he is very good at cleaning up the messes or making sure they don’t make it into the public arena or if they do, look a worse Harry story!!!!!
That said, as so much has been put into the public arena, I wonder how many people will be duped again now that JLP is back on the scene. Very strongly reminded of Tom Cruise and his PR problems.
Geez, it sounds like a freakin’ chess game.
Really interesting conversation everyone. CB at its best.
From what I’m reading, William will really make a terrible King.
WTH? Dickie’s advance was only £250,000? Wasn’t Pippa’s advance £400,000? And is the man seriously called Dickie?
You know who should write a tell-all book about the BRF? Uncle Gary. I’d contribute to his advance for such a gem as that.
I don’t know why, but I always feel a laugh coming on when someone mentions Uncle G. What a character! I bet he’d have a lot to say about how short the red carpet was for the Middletons right up to the day of the wedding and what it took for him to get an invitation.
He only says more than he should and that’s why I enjoy what this criminal against human rights has to say. He’s the unfiltered middleton mouthpiece.
Me, too! Uncle Gary gives me the giggles. He is the ostentatious, loud-mouthed black sheep of a family who is entirely devoted to becoming posh overnight. I’ll bet Uncle G. thoroughly embarrasses the Wisteria Sisters.
JennySerenity: …..and they can’t shake him off!! LOL.
Oh boo hoo. A royal is betrayed and upset. That is called life. Life is full of betrayals and hurt.
Life is full of pain and disappointment. That doesn’t mean you can’t have compassion for people going through it.
Nicely done, Goodnames.
And anyway, their position of privilege has not spared them a really disproportionate amount of anguish over the years…..it’s a cold heart that would wish more woes on them.
Charles is not worrying about my opinion of him or the royal family. He will be fine. I reserve my compassion for those unable to help themselves. The sick, the poor, etc. The royal family needs nothing from me.
I apologize, however, if my initial comment offended you. Like everyone else I state my opinion on here and am not looking to hurt or offend. It’s called “Celebitchy” after all, where we gossip and snark and judge every day.
@eliza
I think anyone in pain deserves compassion. They are human beings.
Having said that, I certainly never meant to imply that you didn’t have a right to express your opinion, or that you’re a bad person for having that opinion, and please don’t stop being snarky or this site would be no fun at all. I have said plenty of snarky things on here. I was disagreeing with you a little, but I’m sorry you took it as some sort of harsh condemnation. That’s not how I meant it at all. I apologize if it came off that way.
@Goodnames- It’s all good. I am just not a big fan of the royal family so my view of them is somewhat colored by my dislike. As I mentioned to another poster, no need to apologize. I understand your point and we are fine. 🙂
🙂
@Chris- Where did I wish more anguish upon them? Way to read into my post things that were not implied or meant.
Good Lord Eliza, I wasn’t addressing you at all!
Just a very general observation, nothing Celebitchy-related, more in the hope that this book isn’t going to open old wounds.
I do apologise if I seemed to be pointing at you, or anyone else here: that’s entirely unintentional, especially whilst commending a kind-hearted comment above.
The book is written for the public…not for the royal family. If the royals have things to hide they shouldn’t have done them in the first place. Everyone is held accountable for what they do. Why should this family get special treatment? One thing that I am sure of, is that their big wad of money will soothe them as always. I’d trade my life story for some of it.
@wolfpup
The book was written by someone the RF trusted enough to allow into their personal lives, and considered a friend and loyal employee. He’s the one in the wrong for betraying their trust. I think he’s an ass. I would think the same thing if they were poor. I’m not asking for them to get special treatment, just humane treatment. They do have feelings, you know. And I say this as someone who can’t stand Charles.
GoodNames, I don’t think that what Charles did is THAT bad. There’s nothing wrong with being human. I would say however, that because one of our favorite people was wronged, is a major reason why there are people that despise him for it. People change, and Charles looks like he has changed for the better. Bully for him!
I will always return for more salacious gossip! (like other humans). Gossip seems to allow us to see that those who court public sentiment and opinion, are merely human.
@Chris- There is no need for you to apologize. I wrongly assumed based on Goodnames comment and your response that it was in reference to my comment. Sometimes things on the web get lost in translation. No harm. No foul.
From what I’ve read, it wasn’t that half of the men were in love with Diana (as Kaiser says above) so much as they wanted to get up her skirts. Arbiter was once quoted as saying: “We would all have loved to rip Diana’s knickers off.” Nice. The other parts that are going to be tawdry are going to detail Jimmy Savile’s close rleationship with the royals and his pervy behavior with the women who worked on the royals’s staff. Ick.
It just seems so tacky to me. For someone who held a position for so many years, and is now comfortably retired with a pension from said job, to start dragging up old gossip is just tawdry & money-grubbing.
We’ve all heard it – the whole Diana/Charles/Camilla drama, Fergie & Andrew, blah blah blah. It’s been done in books, TV, movies, and endless gossip columns. It’s been almost 20 years since Diana died and everyone – including her sons – has moved on.
As to what the Queen thinks of various world leaders … I’m sure it would be entertaining, but again, it seems so tacky for Dickie (silly name for a grown-ass man) to disclose the very personal thoughts & feelings that may (or may not) have been shared with him.
Stop your whoring Dickie, and take a lesson from the Queen and show some class.
199%
It wont be this bad. It’s just being hyped a bit to generate interests for sales.
Tacky is the word alright.
It’s not as though there were real scandalous scandals being hidden under the Aubussons in recent years….well Andrew’s business larks are always a bit dodgy, but really, compared with others’ financial finaglings, running off with ‘raggletaggle gypsies-oh’, fathering children upon glamour models, agreeing to forgo one’s true love in order to retain a high income and so on……really the UK royals are as un-Dynasty as Mr and Mrs Reginald Smith of Penge.
What’s tacky is the grasping nature of the storyteller….the ONLY thing he has is his late propinquity to these (rather humdrum) royals,; THAT constitutes the allure, and the reader may learn about things Hello would shun for lack of substance.
But it’s crummy behaviour, since it’s predicated on their status as royals, yet posturing as a disinterested tale of human interest. Harrumph!!
He has a right to his own name. Since he still uses it, I assume he likes it. We don’t have to change our names as we get older, there are no rules.
Loyalty should flow both ways, up and down . So far it seems loyalty is only required of servants up to the masters, not the other ways. According to many comments here anyway.
No kidding!
Doesn’t he receive a pension from the RF? If so, then he is being rewarded for his service.
Did anyone ever read The Housekeeper’s Diary? I love that book about the Wales.
The author of that book left England and moved to Canada and then Ireland. She was threatened with Jail for breaking the confidentiality agreement with the Palace and Prince a Charles and Diana.
It’s a fascinating read, the book but also what Pr. Charles and the Palace did to stop the book in England, The book was published only in the U.S.
Charles chased this lady who wrote the Housekeepers Diary for about six years with threats of jail.
Dickie Arbiter must really need money because the Palace , Pr..Charles does not take these betrayals lightly.
Charles doesn’t deserve the power he has, if he is so vindictive. He did what he did, and what he does! I hope that we get a better idea of the working of Charles’ mind.
Dickie has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Who has such an awful story that they have to hide it?
….but the royals are exempt from the freedom of information act so if he is in very muddy waters that have to be carefully navigated.
Why?
+1
Violating a confidentiality agreement is a criminal offense in the UK? I hope you’re joking.
I’ll read it. I am an unapologetic Diana sympathizer, and if Charles didn’t want these stories to come out, he shouldn’t have behaved so badly in the first place. Is it disloyal of ol’ Dickie to write the book? Sure, but not as disloyal as Charles was to his wife.
The book possibly does bring out not only Charles affair(s) but also Diana and Hewitt sleeping together, so I doubt anyone will go unscathed.
I doubt any of Princes are happy, including Pr.Andrew because Arbiter goes through his marriage again.
I also think Dickie knows a few things that may never have been told concerning those royal marriages. He’s not getting that quarter of a Million $ for an entire rehash. I’ll bet there’s some tidbits yet unheard.
Dickie is a bit of a hypocrite, he blasted Diana’s butler for writing a book.
They’re all a tad hypocritical, it seems. Dens of vipers, those palaces are.
There’s a common assumption re Andrew that I’ve never read of, nor heard, outside certain circles in England. Fact or fiction, this Arbiter chap must be aware of it, so it could be held as a litmus test re general veracity/reliability.
As for HMQ’s opinion of Mohamed al Fayed!!! I think I’d read the book just for that part. We are told her favourite PM was Harold Wilson…so the Phoney Pharaoh should emerge in a most interesting light.
@Chris, do share so we can litmus it too. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if its rehashes done with the firm’s knowledge. I can’t see a guy like this writing a real tell-all unless he’s really angry with them or really needs the money.
The palace has driven previous authors into exile in other Countries for writing tell all books. I truly doubt anyone in the Royal Family has given this book it’s blessing.
The Palace is livid. IMO The Express is not just making that up.
There are sources according to the Express, saying The Palace is looking into trying to shut the book down on legal issues. Arbiter signed Confidentiality agreements, so if the Palace wants to pursue legal issues they may have a stand, but that would just make people want to read it more.
Francis
It’ll likely just enlarge the existing image of palace staff as a crew of bitchy backstabbers! All these “courtiers” we hear of, hissing secrets to the Daily Fail and D. Excess….just self-importance or wounded pride. The observation earlier that Mr Dickie looks like A Hopkins may be the biggest clue…..he wants this memoir to be Hollywoodised! (Wills runs off to write to Martin Scorsese (?!) to cast Megan Fox as Kate…..and obvs we know who’ll portray HMQ)
Tessy:
Not repeating it simply because it’s not my business: nothing to do with taxpayers’ money, and all that kinda thing. No wrongdoing whatsoever.
Tell you what though…..I was very surprised, whereas my informants were utterly amazed that it isn’t universally known.
We’ve heard so much about Fergie’s infidelities, I wonder if Andrew strayed as well. My inclination is to assume he did, but I honestly don’t remember hearing it.
@ Chris & @ Tessy: does it have anything to do with Prince Andrew’s affiliation with certain pedophiles, pimps and gangsters? Old Airmiles Andy’s wings have been clipped in recent years for flying too close to Ghaddafi family members, convicted pimp Jeffrey Epstein and his boss Ohio billionaire Leslie Wexner (he owns the company that controls Victoria’s Secret – how ironic!) and has been linked to organized crime families in Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The FBI is currently probing this tangled mess.
Nice company Andrew keeps!
Jaded
No, not along those lines, but by God he’s been a ruddy liability not only to the Firm, but to British interests in general, whether industrial/financial OR ethical.
He’s long reminded me of the stereotypical bar-propping millionaire at a local Conservative Club, waxing nostalgic about the good old days in Rhodesia (sic) and South Africa.
As a member of The Craft, he’ll put a word in the necessary ear at the Town Council so your dodgy planning application sails through unchallenged, and hopes that you, as a retired policeman also ‘on the square’, will reciprocate and get him off the drunk driving charge….
Chris might be referring to the book The Royal Marriages by Lady Collin Campbell. It has a chapter about Andrew titled “Rear Admiral”. Think about it.
@ Chris – perfect description of him, and a perennial bum-pinching party boy to boot. What’s this nonsense I hear about Lord Porchester supposedly being his father?
Vintage gossip!!! Pip pip!
The good lord was comforting Lizzy during the ten year spot of bother her marriage was in and many believe that the miracle band aid baby that was Andrew which helped seal the gap to right the marriage may not Infact be a mountbatten.
It’s a toughie to prove either way as Andrew (like Eugenie) favours the QM’s family as far as looks are concerned. He is a Bowes-Lyons Windsor for sure, but is he a Mountbatten? It’ll never be answered, and he is accepted as a Mountbatten and Lord Porchester isn’t here to protest.
Jaded, LAK
Blimey! I never heard that re Andrew, quel
horrible suprise, as the Mitford gels would say.
I don’t know any royalists outside of CB -land, so get no info ( and the matter I alluded to is indeed what’s mentioned abt Rear Admiral Andrew) But that’s nowt, whereas ‘who’s the daddy?’ is an insanely gripping topic! Wow.
If it were my situation, I would be appalled. But since it is not, this will be added to my book list. I love reading books on royal families. Sorry, Charlie.
When will people learn that you never tell ANYTHING you dont want others to know. Loyalty is like monogamy, honesty and art- totally subjective. If you want someone or something to keep secrets get a therapist and a journal.
Get a grip. You can live and die and never really know the person you sleep next to every night so why would a paid employee be any different.
It’s not just what he was told, it’s what he saw with his own eyes. He was an eyewitness to the inner life of the Palace.
Fair enough. So what a person sees and decides to relay is not bound by any sense of entitled loyalty.
Just scrolled thru to the end to say: royalty in positions of power – and yes, they do still have a bit – has no place In the 21st century, it’s a ridiculous and expensive farce which make people subjects instead of citizens.
Golly, that reminds me of something I’d definitely pay to have revealed to me:
what or whom HMQ had in mind when she said “There are powers at work in this country about which we know nothing”…, or words to that effect. Assuming she meant ‘only a little’ when she said ‘nothing’:
Is it the Bilderbergers? Catholic (once recusant) families seeking to avenge ancient despoilation? Martin Amis? Whoever modernised Fortnum & Mason? One is simply AGOG!! 😉
What can we POSSIBLY learn that we haven’t already read and saw? I feel like my life would be more interesting at this point.
Amazing that 17 years after her death people are still using Diana’s name to sell books and newspapers! Let’s face it, most of the other royals are BORING — even William and Kate. Prince Harry is the only one who still manages to raise eyebrows and gets people talking about his antics once or twice a year. Yes, some people will be very interested to read what the Queen really thinks about world leaders, celebrities and her family members, but that type of gossip doesn’t make people run out en masse and grab the newspaper the way Diana’s name does.
Indeed so….making ‘Candle in the Wind’ inapt for her just as much as for the original dedicatee, except in the sense of a too brief life. Because for both, dying young, beautiful, and a sexual idol, death has kept that flame steady. Neither will ever lose to old age the beauty that backed their currency.
Since she shed her living self on that terrible night, she’s been a tabula rasa upon whom people can scrawl any old fantasy, and face nothing now to contradict it.
As I noted above, she wasn’t Queen of Hearts at all (yet) and her popularity was shrinking, or certainly fluctuating. Immediately after Paris, there erupted a national rethink, with its own visual synecdoche: those blue-lined eyes peering up from under at Martin Bashir. Our beautiful Lady of Sorrows, for all time.
In that interview, she was the spit of Myra Hindley.
Ye gods DameE….that is so true. I have never watched the interview but the image is ubiquitous. Blimey, what a conjunction.
“Off with his head!”. I can’t drum up enough interest in this…agree with others. Hasn’t everything pretty much already been said about the British Royals? Old enough to remember the absolute scandals of all 3 marriage demises (Charles, Anne & Andrew) and the endless media coverage (pre internet, gee I’m old!) I can’t imagine there’d be terribly much left to say.
Deep down we all know every person in power has their secrets, things they want to hide and effective PR to try and lead the masses astray. It’s just slight variations between them what those things are.
Boo hoo for Chuckie. He betrayed his family.
Oooohhhh….Great vacay read-probably a good bit of trash; the insiders will be able to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Bad timing for Charles, though. I think Q-Tip could live as long as her mum, but I also think she would have the integrity to abdicate if she felt she was showing signs of dementia-UNLESS Charles slips up and loses the trust he has worked very hard over the last 15 or so years to earn.
When I saw the news segment about this book a few days ago I immediately made a request of my local library to order it.
Is it me or is Prince Charles getting more attractive as he gets older.
He always had an old man’s face which made him very awkward looking as a young man, but very attractive now he is an old man. George Clooney and Robert Pattinson suffer the same IMO. They are more attractive the older they become because they always had old man face, though not as extremely as Charles did.
Oh I definitely think so too, the silver hair is marvellous. And he’s old enough now for his tastes in apparel to look just right, whereas 30 yrs ago he looked like lamb dressed as mutton.
And it had to be conceded that personal contentment suits him….all that petulance and anguish, which were so lampoonable , have been driven off, and he radiates good humour and confidence now. He’s a great example of ‘it’s never too late to become who you were meant to be’….which in this case I read as an encouragement to avoid despair, though that’s about me rather thsn Chazza I guess!
Totally agreeing with you on Charles, Chris. (Hope always comes if you will wait for it – hugs while you wait).
It has been alleged that sexually Prince Charles straddles both sides of the gender fence. Maybe, he will give up the low down on those incidents ( photo proof would be nice).