Questions about sources

[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.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

If something is written in a book or article that's generally considered reliable, especially if it shows up in more than one of them, then we're prepared to accept it as a correct account.

If something like that has been contradicted officially by Buckingham Palace, Clarence House, or any of the other offices of the royals, then it should be presented in the threads as appearing to be verified and correct but officially contradicted.

The purpose of this thread is to help build up a track record of citations from reliable sources for various events and occurrences to help our members when someone challenges them to provide chapter and verse on a topic, since not everyone has all the reference books to hand.

Elspeth I am confused by your more recent post. Does the above earlier statement no longer represent the standard for TRF? I would like to follow the guidelines of what is accepted as 'confirmed source' but it's more than a little bit confusing when the goal posts keeps moving. Especially in light of the fact that regardless of what the standard you guys set, certain posters keep denying the veracity of various well published respected sources, because 'there has been no statement from the palace and in the absence of one, it's all an urban legend'. If XYZ is the standard as accepted by TRF and certain posters keep saying we dont believe it, and the Mods dont squash it, how are we to have a conversation on any subject?

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by scooter

Elspeth I am confused by your more recent post. Does the above earlier statement no longer represent the standard for TRF? I would like to follow the guidelines of what is accepted as 'confirmed source' but it's more than a little bit confusing when the goal posts keeps moving. Especially in light of the fact that regardless of what the standard you guys set, certain posters keep denying the veracity of various well published respected sources, because 'there has been no statement from the palace and in the absence of one, it's all an urban legend'. If XYZ is the standard as accepted by TRF and certain posters keep saying we dont believe it, and the Mods dont squash it, how are we to have a conversation on any subject?

The most reliable sources are the people themselves speaking or writing on the record, obviously. "Charles said..." is a perfectly acceptable claim if you're talking about the Dimbleby interview or the pre-wedding interview; it isn't an acceptable claim if it just shows up as a second-hand quote in half a dozen pro-Diana books and five of them cite the sixth as the source. In other words, if authors B, C, D, E, and F all say that Charles said that his father told him that he could go back to Camilla after five years if his marriage didn't work out and they all cited author A (Andrew Morton in this case) as the source, then that doesn't make it five times more reliable; it still isn't a direct quote from Charles, and it isn't six independent accounts.

If books that are written by respected biographers such as Sarah Bradford or Philip Ziegler say something that's contradicted by books by tabloid-type authors, regardless of how many tabloid-type authors we're talking about, the respected biographers are the ones who should carry more weight. The Dimbleby book is obviously biased, but it's also authorised and based on primary sources, which gives it credibility where it's talking about factual issues.

I don't know if that answers your question, but it's 4 am and I'm three quarters asleep, so I'll check back in tomorrow. Please let me know if I haven't managed to address your concerns - I'm generally more coherent when I'm at least half awake.

[TheTruth]

This thread was made to ask questions on where, when or by who some allegations have been made. It's not about validating or invalidating what's been said. If you aren't satisfied of where a quote comes from, free for you to deny it. Now, if there's something you don't like about this thread, please send a PM to a British Mod and we'll consider it.

Back to the purpose of this topic which is : 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.'

[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.

[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?

[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?

[scooter]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

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?

I dont think Camilla is stupid, quite the contrary. I think she is an extremely intelligent person who knows how to go about getting exactly what she wants. As far as it sounding laughable, this was the swinging 70's (The Truth, difficult as it may seem to someone of your age this was a-ok at that time) and the 'Coffee tea or me' come on was quite an every day occurance. That book, which was quite the puff piece on Charles and Camilla directly quoted an eyewitness on the polo grounds. And as far as the Steven Barry quote, a few pages later the overnighter with Camilla the night before the C and D nuptuals was confirmed by Andrew Parker-Bowles' brother. Is he a liar too?

[Mermaid1962]

When was this confirmed by Parker-Bowles' brother? I've never come across that particular claim.

Originally Posted by scooter

And as far as the Steven Barry quote, a few pages later the overnighter with Camilla the night before the C and D nuptuals was confirmed by Andrew Parker-Bowles' brother. Is he a liar too?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by scooter

nd as far as the Steven Barry quote, a few pages later the overnighter with Camilla the night before the C and D nuptuals was confirmed by Andrew Parker-Bowles' brother. Is he a liar too?

I recall that this rumour was set explicitely right in the Dimbleby-book where it is shown that Charles could not have spent this night with Camilla as he had already said his farewells to her. In addition Buckingham Palace that night was filled with partying guests from foreign Royality and Heads of States who stayed there as well as of the society of London. Charles was seen throughout the party till Camilla left with her husband, so could only have sneaked away for a moment. And he, as Tina Brown claims, preferred not to have trysts in his mother's spy invested palace - knowing that she would not have been amused. Marriage for the queen is a serious business and I don't think Charles would have dared to offend her in her own house at that moment. So my evaluation is that it's only malicious gossip.

When did Parker-Bowles comment on this?

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by scooter

I dont think Camilla is stupid, quite the contrary. I think she is an extremely intelligent person who knows how to go about getting exactly what she wants. As far as it sounding laughable, this was the swinging 70's (The Truth, difficult as it may seem to someone of your age this was a-ok at that time) and the 'Coffee tea or me' come on was quite an every day occurance. That book, which was quite the puff piece on Charles and Camilla directly quoted an eyewitness on the polo grounds. And as far as the Steven Barry quote, a few pages later the overnighter with Camilla the night before the C and D nuptuals was confirmed by Andrew Parker-Bowles' brother. Is he a liar too?

FWIW, the pre-wedding overnighter was debunked by Sarah Bradford.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by scooter

I dont think Camilla is stupid, quite the contrary. I think she is an extremely intelligent person who knows how to go about getting exactly what she wants. As far as it sounding laughable, this was the swinging 70's (The Truth, difficult as it may seem to someone of your age this was a-ok at that time) and the 'Coffee tea or me' come on was quite an every day occurance. That book, which was quite the puff piece on Charles and Camilla directly quoted an eyewitness on the polo grounds. And as far as the Steven Barry quote, a few pages later the overnighter with Camilla the night before the C and D nuptuals was confirmed by Andrew Parker-Bowles' brother. Is he a liar too?

The younger Parker Bowles, well what is there to say, perhaps you would be a sweetie and provide a link?

I was about and taking part in the 70's (the swinging was in the 60's, where I also, to a degree participated) and within the society I associated with, a 'chat up' line like that would have brought a good slap across the face! I have not read Caroline Grahams book but it doesn't sound to be an authority on the matter, especially as already, some of her claims have been debunked. It might have been a 'puff piece', but it appears to have just been full of hot air.

[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.

[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 backed up by other reports is more likely to be true, even it it isn't saying what you might prefer to hear.

Stuff that's picked up from tabloid sources, with the "a close friend/someone close to/a member of the household told me" level of verification, should be taken with a massive pinch of salt. With these papers and magazines it pays to read very closely and with critical-thinking skills fully engaged, because some of these authors are masters at juxtaposing a fairly well-known fact, an urban legend, and a personal opinion in such a way that the existence of the fact appears to lend legitimacy to the rest of it.

Unfortunately Photoshopping isn't entirely unknown in photos accompanying royal stories. At least we have some pretty knowledgeable people here who'll know if Kate Middleton's head appears on someone else's body who happens to be having a wardrobe malfunction, or if Camilla has been Photoshopped to look ten years older (or younger), but if a photo looks unlikely for whatever reason, it may be because it's been tampered with.

Stuff that's posted at other forums or in blogs, where a person with no inside knowledge at all is taking it upon herself to claim to know the thought processes and motivations of people like Camilla, Kate, William, Charles, and Diana, should be dismissed as fabrication.

Buckingham Palace, and to a lesser extent Clarence House, tend to respond to most of these press allegations with silence. That doesn't mean they're tacitly admitting that the allegations are true.

I probably haven't covered anything, and feel free to disagree, but that's my opinion, for what it's worth.

[Skydragon]

And your opinion seems to be worth taking note of!

[Elspeth]

Ysbel, we have this sticky in the main forum already

Citation of Sources in British Forum Threads

and it isn't locked, so people can discuss sources there. Do you think we need something more than that over there?