Questions about sources

[Elspeth]

Which threads are they, scooter? If we've got fights breaking out, we're liable to close threads for a cooling-off period even if some of the participants are doing their best to provide factual information. Plus, if a thread is going badly off topic (especially if it's veering into CCD territory), we may end up deleting posts for that reason, however well confirmed the information in the posts is.

[ghost_night554]

Anyone know where I can find this quote? It's supposed to be from Bradford's book but I can't find it.

It was normal for him. 'He was a loner, he liked silence,' said one of his staff. 'And when he found he had a wife to talk to and to consider, it threw him.'

[scooter]

Elspeth, this is exactly what I was mentioning in the Mods/heavy handed topic. Why is it when several sources including a quote from the Royal in question get deleted and the thread closed? The truth is the truth, regardless if it is unpalatable to certain strong willed posters. I never got a reply on this thread either. I will forward you some of the pms.

[Angl3]

How are you sure that all things are true?????

[TheTruth]

Well you never know. You can't be sure of everything. However, when you see a supposed fact reappearing again and again, no matter from what source it comes from, then you might want to consider it could be true. That's the goal of this thread; helping to find sources or quotes that have been published.

[Angl3]

Now that she`s dead you can say anything about her cause she wont come and say that either it is true or not

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Angl3

Now that she`s dead you can say anything about her cause she wont come and say that either it is true or not

As she has been proven to be a liar at occassions when it suited her aims, I think there is no need to have her around for evaluation. Evaluating the quality of sources is something a historian learns and quite some biographes started out as/are learned historians. While journalists without that background in most cases only know the media rules of their country, so evaluate what they write in terms of: does it further my aim and do I get a problem on claiming that?

And you as the reader: should take this background into account and just use common sense.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by scooter

Here is my question: There is a certain member that whenever anything the slightest bit unfavorable about her Favorite Royal is discussed, no matter how widely published, the member comes back and says 'Was there a statement from XYZ Palace or from Favorite Royal's office on this sublect? If not, then it's an Urban Legend'. Like Palace XYZ or the Favorite Royal is going to issue a statement saying (for example) 'When I first met Prince Favorite Royal, I made a remark about our ancestors having a sexual relationship and then I took him home and had Prince Favorite Royal for a midnight snack'. At what point is it firmly in the public domain and accepted? Because if we're going to be waiting for Palace XYZ to make statements, its going to be a pretty slow millenium, TRF wise.

Yes the 'certain member' would question whether a certain royal had ever said such a thing, It is an urban legend if it was said in private, unless the fly on the wall was the one confirming it. In the same way that a rumour was printed in a paper and by the time it appeared on this forum, it was stated as fact, when the papers that repeated it clearly stated that it was a rumour.

[scooter]

Well Certain Member, I was in particular refering to a post I had made quoting verbatim the now Royal person mentioned. If it came from her own mouth, how can you deny the truth of it? It was not a fly on the wall, but a ham radio person who picked up the cell phone call, if I recall correctly. I had also quoted no less than three widely respected books, not the national enquirer. It is completely unreasonable for Certain Member to say unless there is an Official Statement from the Palace, this does not exist. If we are going to all have to wait for an Official Statement before we can talk about things, we're not going to have much to discuss here, royal wise.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by scooter

Well Certain Member, I was in particular refering to a post I had made quoting verbatim the now Royal person mentioned. If it came from her own mouth, how can you deny the truth of it? It was not a fly on the wall, but a ham radio person who picked up the cell phone call, if I recall correctly. I had also quoted no less than three widely respected books, not the national enquirer. It is completely unreasonable for Certain Member to say unless there is an Official Statement from the Palace, this does not exist. If we are going to all have to wait for an Official Statement before we can talk about things, we're not going to have much to discuss here, royal wise.

If you are referring to the Camillagate-tapes, these have been quoted here in detail and these posts were not deleted. Of course it is imaginable that certain parts could be taken from them and used in contexts that might endanger these boards through juridical action. In that case I think the whole post would be deleted. Apart from that I guess I'M not alone in not being able to understand your constant harping about deleted posts as obviously they are not longer there.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Well you never know. You can't be sure of everything. However, when you see a supposed fact reappearing again and again, no matter from what source it comes from, then you might want to consider it could be true. That's the goal of this thread; helping to find sources or quotes that have been published.

You say one should consider if a quote could be true or not. That's a very important point when evaluating sources and quotes. For example the infamous quote allegedly by Camilla when she first met the Prince of Wales: My ancestor and yours were lovers, how about us (or something along that line. Could that be true?

I personally doubt it for two reasons: first of all - why should Miss Shand believe that HRH knows her ancestry when she first meets him? A quote like that only works if both are immediately informed. Would she have chanced that he didn't understand the innuendo? What then? She would have been forced to explain and be put in a position no lady ever wants to find herself in. just imagine the disgrace.

Secondly she must have known before how the prince reacts to talk about his ancestor's affairs. After all, Edward VII. cheated on his queen with Mrs. Keppel.It is one thing to know that, it is another to refer to such a thing on the first meeting with the prince. I doubt Camilla would have been so careless with her chance of finding introduction into the Royal circles, especially as she was on the search of a suitable husband back then. Would she have told all via the prince that she was used goods and easy to be had? How stupid do people believe Camilla has been?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by scooter

Well Certain Member, I was in particular refering to a post I had made quoting verbatim the now Royal person mentioned. If it came from her own mouth, how can you deny the truth of it? It was not a fly on the wall, but a ham radio person who picked up the cell phone call, if I recall correctly. I had also quoted no less than three widely respected books, not the national enquirer. It is completely unreasonable for Certain Member to say unless there is an Official Statement from the Palace, this does not exist. If we are going to all have to wait for an Official Statement before we can talk about things, we're not going to have much to discuss here, royal wise.

If I recall, the quote had been misquoted, one comma out of place and the whole sentence changes, that is what happens to make the story more exciting. That is why I try to post a link, bearing in mind, the punctuation has been inserted by someone who decided to transcribe the phone call.
Camillagate Transcript

Without discussing the gossip, this forum would probably fold, but at least acknowledge it is purely gossip, just because it is repeated and repeated, does not make it fact. The meeting by the tree is another clash point. Nobody else was there except Charles and Camilla, so how can anyone quote what they said, but repeated enough times as being overheard by Lady this or Mrs Smith-Jones and people start to believe it.

I'm disheartened that so many people are offended by someone pointing out facts or questioning the source. It would appear the truth is out there, but nobody wants to seek it.

[scooter]

My point Skydragon, is when reputable books (I'm not talking about Kitty Kelly) which have been thoroughly vetted by the publishing house to check for any inaccuracies with the thought of protecting the publishing house from a libel charge, are discounted here by certain posters because they are not complementary to their favorite. The truth is the truth, regardless if some dont care for it. And Jo, I dont constantly harp about deleted posts. However when I have one that has been backed up by multiple sources deleted, I think I have the right to question why. Especially given Elspeths earlier statement in this thread that if 'something has been written in a book or article that it is generally considered reliable, especially if it shows up in more than one, then we are prepared to accept it as a correct account'. As far as the meeting at the polo field 'Charles and Camilla the Love Story' by Caroline Graham quotes an eyewitness to the infamous Your Great Grandpa opening statement, so apparantly they were not alone (how anyone could be thought to be alone at a polo match really makes no sense). The same book quotes Steven Barry, then valet to Prince Charles on Charles and Camilla spending the night together the night before the Charles and Diana nuptuals as "We all knew how he felt about Camilla. It was a very emotional last assignation for them both. But to do it on that night was truly incredible. Certainly incredibly daring, if not incredibly stupid". We all know there are no secrets from the valet. When you take widely published eyewitness accounts written in a reputable book and respond by saying: I dont believe them. There has been no statement from the palace and everything else is an urban legend, that, to me, is ridiculous. Do you really expect Camilla to issue a proclamation saying 'Why yes that's exactly how it happened'?

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

You say one should consider if a quote could be true or not. That's a very important point when evaluating sources and quotes. For example the infamous quote allegedly by Camilla when she first met the Prince of Wales: My ancestor and yours were lovers, how about us (or something along that line. Could that be true?

I personally doubt it for two reasons: first of all - why should Miss Shand believe that HRH knows her ancestry when she first meets him? A quote like that only works if both are immediately informed. Would she have chanced that he didn't understand the innuendo? What then? She would have been forced to explain and be put in a position no lady ever wants to find herself in. just imagine the disgrace.

Secondly she must have known before how the prince reacts to talk about his ancestor's affairs. After all, Edward VII. cheated on his queen with Mrs. Keppel.It is one thing to know that, it is another to refer to such a thing on the first meeting with the prince. I doubt Camilla would have been so careless with her chance of finding introduction into the Royal circles, especially as she was on the search of a suitable husband back then. Would she have told all via the prince that she was used goods and easy to be had? How stupid do people believe Camilla has been?

I agree with you; it sounds quite laughable that someone could place this sort of quote during a first meeting. However, I don't see it as something making Camilla appear as stupid. We don't know her so we can't say if she's rather spontaneous, bold or totally the opposite. Why she would have said that? I don't know but why not?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by scooter

My point Skydragon, is when reputable books (I'm not talking about Kitty Kelly) which have been thoroughly vetted by the publishing house to check for any inaccuracies with the thought of protecting the publishing house from a libel charge, are discounted here by certain posters because they are not complementary to their favorite. The truth is the truth, regardless if some dont care for it.

And yet many of these reliable books only repeat a rumour, with no basis in fact if it is not backed up by a source, ie, the person who said it. Yes publishing houses will check their books, but with the sure and certain knowledge that an injunction or libel accusation will not be forthcoming and if there is any chance of either, publish in the US!
It would be wonderful if these books stuck solely to the truth, but they don't many will state a rumour or something they have read in a tabloid as fact. Even on here, something read in a tabloid will be taken as gospel and half the time if you actually read past the fiest few lines, you find the article itself says 'it is rumoured'. The 'it's rumoured', never makes it as far as TRF thread.

As far as the meeting at the polo field 'Charles and Camilla the Love Story' by Caroline Graham quotes an eyewitness to the infamous Your Great Grandpa opening statement, so apparantly they were not alone (how anyone could be thought to be alone at a polo match really makes no sense).

Clearly you never attended a polo match here in the 70's or 80's, where it was perfectly feasable, even now there is the privacy of the horsebox.

Again, The same book quotes Steven Barry, then valet to Prince Charles on Charles and Camilla spending the night together the night before the Charles and Diana nuptuals as "We all knew how he felt about Camilla.

Disputed by the valet himself I believe.

We all know there are no secrets from the valet.

Do we, from some that I have read it is unlikely indeed

When you take widely published eyewitness accounts written in a reputable book and respond by saying: I dont believe them. There has been no statement from the palace and everything else is an urban legend, that, to me, is ridiculous. Do you really expect Camilla to issue a proclamation saying 'Why yes that's exactly how it happened'?

It is the suggestion of 'widely published eyewitness accounts' that I have a problem with, because half the time it is private conversations and private moments they are apparently claiming to have witnessed and we all know their presence would have been unlikely, there again they are pretty safe as we know that there will be no denial, no lawsuit. I had a quick look back through some of my posts and I haven't yet found any evidence that I have said 'There has been no statement from the palace', and it is exaggerations and misquotes that cause the problems, afaic.

[Elspeth]

As long as we're talking about the veracity of sources, this is pretty much my take on it.

If something comes from an actual interview that we can see or hear ourselves or an authorised or official transcript of an interview, a Buckingham Palace (or equivalent) statement or press release, or an official or otherwise authoritative biography, I think it's safe to assume that it's worth taking seriously. Doesn't mean it's necessarily true - I remember how Buckingham Palace was denying the relationship between Princess Anne and Mark Philips until five minutes before the engagement announcement - but at least it's authoritative (I suppose officially sanctioned bald-faced lies are at least authoritative ).

Transcripts of interviews or conversations have to be treated a bit carefully unless they've been approved by one of the sources; as Skydragon pointed out, the placement of a comma can be significant to the meaning, and the original interview or conversation wouldn't have had punctuation, so there's sometimes some guesswork involved. This is especially the case if the interview itself isn't available to watch or listen to.

Anything in a gossipy biography, article, or TV programme, or in an autobiography, should be treated with a certain amount of suspicion because the author is probably pushing an agenda. It never hurts to try and match information from this sort of book or article with something from an authoritative source. I think we're all familiar with the way that even supposedly authoritative TV documentaries can make fairly serious mistakes sometimes, so it's always worth taking a bit of time to fact-check. However, if one of these documentaries contains footage of interviews with people like Martin Charteris, Pamela Mountbatten, or Margaret Rhodes, the chances are that it's generally pretty believable. Doesn't hurt to remember that editing of interviews and other footage can give misleading impressions (such as the Annie Liebowitz incident in the trailer for the documentary), but if the information in these articles or documentaries is broadly in line with previous information, it's probably safe to take it seriously.

Second- or third-hand reports of conversations aren't the same thing as live interviews. I don't know how many times I've heard "Philip told Charles he could go back to his mistress after five years of marriage if he didn't want to stay with Diana" as though Prince Philip was on the record as having said this. When you probe a bit, it turns out that this is something that Diana told a friend, a friend told Andrew Morton, and Andrew Morton wrote in his book. "Andrew Morton said that someone told him that Diana said that Charles said that Philip said," or even the more true "Andrew Morton said that in one of the tapes passed to him by James Colthurst Diana said that Charles said that Philip said," is a very different thing from "Philip said." Same with this business of Camilla's "how about it?" opening gambit to Charles (and also, apparently, same with some of Wallis Simpson's early conversations with Edward); if these things are said in private and we hear about them in ways other than the royal (or whoever said them) confirming that they were in fact said, then they aren't authoritative statements. Doesn't mean they can't be used in TRF threads, but they shouldn't be given the same weight as a direct quote from the Dimbleby interview or the Panorama interview or the Queen's statement after Diana's death, to give a few examples.

Newspaper and TV reports of royal events are probably reliable, but reliability is increased if more than one independent source say the same thing. If half a dozen reports of a visit talk about an enthusiastic crowd greeting Camilla and one report talks about half a dozen sullen-looking people, the report that's been