The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 06-22-2017, 05:03 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Your insights here may inflame others to want to know more about this certain angle and how a break from Freemasonry by Charles may have had an affect on things. Ideas are to be expanded on. Its one of the wonderful perks of being human.
Not sure I wholly agree with you, Osipi. The list you put forward in your post before the last one has on it bogus 'ideas'. There is a lot of false and misleading 'information' out there which I would not want to support by mentioning. It takes real discernment to separate the wheat from the chaff, and often very worthy institutions are obscured by mis-direction and conflating with unsound suppositions.

I feel I need to say the above since it was I who brought up the Freemasons. It was not my intention to obscure them but to merely touch upon a political/human nature matter that might explain one possible aspect of an event (Charles' bad press).
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-22-2017, 05:13 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,662
I do agree with you that there is a lot out there that is well... out there and I pointed out some examples of that. Its my belief too that in order to reject something, no matter what it is, one has to at least know about what they're rejecting. Becoming informed about something enough to accept it as our own truth is exactly what you state. Separating the wheat from the chaff. It just seems sometimes that there's too much chaff out there presented as the wheat. This is evident with tabloid reporting.
__________________

__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-22-2017, 09:55 PM
Sun Lion's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,206
My understanding of the "Camillagate" and "Squidgygate" tapes Lady Nimue -

*Charles and Camilla recorded directly as they spoke in December 1989. Published in Australian magazine "New Idea" in 1992 and then around the world.

*Diana and James Gilbey recorded fourteen days later on New Year's Eve. Recorded from a landline between Diana's bedroom and the exchange within Sandringham itself. This recording was then broadcast several times and picked-up on January 4th 1990. "National Enquirer" London bureau exposed the story in August 1992.

* Diana's thirtieth birthday, July 1991, was used by British media to speculate about the state of her and Charles' marriage.

*"Diana in Private" by Lady Colin Campbell, exposing Diana's extra-marital interests, was known by Diana to be on it's way. She understood her "power" came from the public seeing her as the innocent victim of Charles, his friends, the Royal Family and the support structure surrounding it. This exposure, and the possible exposure of her letters to James Hewitt, threatened the public's perception of her, and therefore her position with them and the power it gave her.

*The institution of the Monarchy is greater than any person within it, so domestic intelligence services may "watch over" various Royal Family members as part of their duties. Both Charles and Diana had their supporters. After "Camillagate" was known to be offered to the media, "Squidgygate" also became available as a counter measure.

*Rumours of the "Squidgygate" tapes were starting to do the rounds, and whereas others may have dismissed them, Diana knew them to be true. This led her to working with Andrew Morton to put her side of the story out in his book, and then to doing the Panorama interview.

I'm not suprised there was not big investigation into how these tapes came into being - what ultimate purpose would it serve. Those in charge of bringing about such proceedings would not want to weaken an institution they work to support.

(The bringing down of individuals detrimental to the Monarchy is a different matter. For example, Fergie and the photos found on top of the wardrobe in that London flat, being caught in the South of France etc.).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-23-2017, 12:48 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,282
Thank you, Sun Lion. I have been thinking I would have to read more about that particular arc of years, and I was not looking forward to it. If I want to speak with conviction, though, I likely should look at it all, because it does fascinate me.

Incredible day today doing some major clearing out of a storage area very achy and tired, can't do your post justice tonight but a few points.

There is in what you relate the disquieting intention behind it all. The broadcasting of Diana's conversation, so odd. I'd want to know who was giving the instructions. Do we have any hints who did the initial recording? Inside job? Servants? Or...who?

I've no doubt, as Iluvbertie describes, that Rupert Murdock was the significant bad boy in all this, and I have posted to that effect, but I don't think he could have wreaked as much damage without some others sitting back and letting it happen. I'd love to know who was really pulling the strings.

We could say it was Diana pulling the strings (not consciously but through her own dysfunctional aspects of self). But who decided to entrap her, and Charles, as well? We've never seen the like before or since. It happened then and no other time. What was the intention behind it all?

The problem with Diana is that she really saw herself as untouchable, at least initially, and when she started to be aware that having set herself aloof from Charles was likely not the best course to have chosen (but there was no going back) she mounted an amazing self defense (with the Morton book).

Conflicting intentions: debasing Charles in the press, trying to 'out' Diana's extramarital shenanigans. Who benefits? Like they say in the crime mysteries.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-23-2017, 01:09 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,912
With regard to the Charles-Camila tapes, this rather elderly article, from the time of the News of the World hacking scandal, gives a few details on how stories considered too hot for the tabloids, even the Murdoch press, to publish in Britain were instead sent to overseas English-speaking countries who would publish them first. This would then give British media outlets the go-ahead to publish, as the excuse was that the public overseas already knew about the story.

Murdoch side-stepped the Camillagate scandal at the time but it's certainly no coincidence IMO that this story was published here in Australia first and that Murdoch, with his contacts within the Aus magazine and newspaper industry here, was ideally placed to do that without getting blood on his own hands.

There is also a paragraph in this article about a secret Whitehall meeting that came to the conclusion that at the time of the phonecall to Camilla Charles was staying at Eaton Hall, the home of the Duke of Westminster, and that therefore the telephone lines at the Hall were very likely compromised. This does not sound like anyone working on behalf of Diana to me, but outside forces which appear to have been following their own agenda.


The original hack
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-23-2017, 01:10 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,282
But the biggest mystery to me in the whole 'affair of the Wales marriage' is the animus towards Charles. People liking the pretty young thing that Diana was is perhaps totally understandable, but the animus towards Charles is not so understandable, and I think Diana is a red herring.

It's just a hunch I have, which is why I found the Freemason suggestion so perfect: that Charles had offended someone or someones with his carbuncle remarks, and that set off the train from the station.

LINK: https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...e.regeneration

Charles was arguing for the 'common man' yet the press painted him as 'odd' and a 'meddler'. The irony (am I using the word correctly) of the royal heir being shut down for arguing for the commons! (Like David speaking out for the miners). The public were being groomed to view Charles with an animus that worked to a privileged fews advantage, completely obscuring Charles' revolutionary views that did not support the elite status quo. So interesting.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-23-2017, 01:17 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,282
Great post, Curryong! Thank you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
There is also a paragraph in this article about a secret Whitehall meeting that came to the conclusion that at the time of the phonecall to Camilla Charles was staying at Eaton Hall, the home of the Duke of Westminster, and that therefore the telephone lines at the Hall were very likely compromised. This does not sound like anyone working on behalf of Diana to me, but outside forces which appear to have been following their own agenda.
What forces? Anyone know? Suspect? I strongly believe in the principle of Occam's Razor, and would imagine something as banal as a few Freemasons being offended by Charles could have been afoot, but it's got to be more: like a push back against Charles' 'radical' ideas that would empower the common man. What a stroke of genius to set Charles up as a fool in the press, and in that, Diana (the wife), was a gift from the tabloid gods.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-23-2017, 02:16 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
You are assuming that there was some sort of conspiracy to undermine Charles. I don't think there was except by Diana herself.

The press were into Charles from about 1983 when the cracks in the marriage were already on show e.g. the tour down under where he was subtly criticised for making some of the comments he did about Diana and the public's reaction to them (which she then also used against him). Even at the time they were seen as him being jealous of her - the beautiful young wife who was way more popular than he was.

In 1984 there were the stories about the separate bedrooms when on tours and also at home most of the time and by the end of 1984 the suggestions were already coming that they were living totally separate lives and hardly ever saw each other.

The tapes came after the press had already started to paint Charles as a poor husband and father e.g. leaving the hospital when William was injured = Charles a bad father and Diana a loving mother (ignoring the fact that he knew William was ok and he had a duty to perform).

The press didn't start to go after Charles in the late 80s but in the early 80s - almost immediately after the marriage.

The simple issue was that Rupert Murdoch was a republican and had no love for the BRF or the British themselves and was happy to publish anything that would harm the BRF from the very beginning of his ownership of British media outlets. His papers were largely the ones that outed Margaret in the 70s and her affairs and he moved the press away from being so deferential.

The Charles - Diana debacle, to me, makes perfect sense. They were totally incompatible with virtually no interests in common and they barely knew each other when they married. Had they been able to have a proper courtship they would have broken up by the summer of 1981 - remember both have subsequently said that they went to their respective families and said that didn't want to go through with it in the weeks leading up to the wedding but were talked into continuing.

No conspiracy - nothing sinister, other than Murdoch and his push to destroy the BRF.
Even earlier than 1983, it was 1982 that the press started to talk about the Wales marriage crumbling.

From The Royals And The Press | Princess And The Press | FRONTLINE | PBS

1982 The Sun reports problems in the marriage. Examples of headlines: "A Public Bust-up!"....."Pregnant Di Falls down Stairs" "Are Charles and Diana Moving Apart?"

February 18, 1982 The Star and The Sun follow Princess Diana and Charles to the Bahamas and in a sneak attack take pictures of pregnant Diana in a bikini. Queen calls the action "The blackest day in the history of British journalism."
Lloyd Turner, Sun's editor, is sacked for the day.

Throughout the year, headline coverage on the marriage continues : "Loveless Marriage" "Disco Diana dumps Charles" "Old Flame the Prince Won't Forget..." "Fears for Di's Health"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-23-2017, 09:33 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Thank you, Osipi, for the information on the tapes.

Regarding my mention of the Freemasons please do not conflate the current popular theories of secret societies with what I am touching upon, which is very banal and simple.

Most Princes of Wales (going back to 1737) have been Freemasons and this tradition has been broken with Charles. Freemasonry is a fraternal organization where each member helps other members, whenever a Freemason encounters a brother Mason. That said, a Mason does not criticize a brother Mason. It is suggested that not only did Charles refuse to join this fraternal brotherhood that has long roots in his family, he perhaps made speeches that criticized certain individuals that happened to be Masons. This (maybe) initiated some payback for that by way of bad press. That's it. That's enough but that's it.

I found the suggestion compelling given what I consider to be the unusual nature of Charles' press coverage. It seems to me that there has to be more to it than just Rupert Murdock. I could be wrong, and several have so stated. Thank you all for the array of views on this subject. My mind is cogitating. I likely should do more reading.
Did the Freemasons still have much influence on the British press at the time? In particular, were the publishers or editors-in-chief of tabloids that broke these stories associated with the Masons?

Or had that clubby connection between royals and the press broken down in a more general sense after folks on both sides of the equation simply stopped joining the club?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-23-2017, 12:48 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
Even earlier than 1983, it was 1982 that the press started to talk about the Wales marriage crumbling.

From The Royals And The Press | Princess And The Press | FRONTLINE | PBS

1982 The Sun reports problems in the marriage. Examples of headlines: "A Public Bust-up!"....."Pregnant Di Falls down Stairs" "Are Charles and Diana Moving Apart?"

February 18, 1982 The Star and The Sun follow Princess Diana and Charles to the Bahamas and in a sneak attack take pictures of pregnant Diana in a bikini. Queen calls the action "The blackest day in the history of British journalism."
Lloyd Turner, Sun's editor, is sacked for the day.

Throughout the year, headline coverage on the marriage continues : "Loveless Marriage" "Disco Diana dumps Charles" "Old Flame the Prince Won't Forget..." "Fears for Di's Health"
Thank you for this, Miss Whirley. But wouldn't you say that in those early years 'the juice' was the 'trouble in paradise' angle (and there was certainly plenty of kindling for that perspective). Charles was not being demonized, and the marriage, though possibly beleaguered, was not being reported as a 'poor Di/evil Charles' scenario. In fact, might the spin have been more along the lines of: dear heavens this young woman is not working out? in fact, there is something wrong with her?

Might the sympathies have been with the heir to the throne and not Diana? When did that change? The writer of the book I quoted from suggests that Charles' bad press started with the carbuncle speech, where he not only possibly went after some architects who were Masons, but signaled that he (Charles) was not going to be a supporter of the status quo through complicit silence (like his mother).

Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
Did the Freemasons still have much influence on the British press at the time? In particular, were the publishers or editors-in-chief of tabloids that broke these stories associated with the Masons?

Or had that clubby connection between royals and the press broken down in a more general sense after folks on both sides of the equation simply stopped joining the club?
Well, those are the questions. Some sort of 'check' was unloosed.

This all takes place in the 80's, and there was lots a-foot in the 80's, socially, economically, politically, I know from my reading. The Charles/Diana marriage may have just been a side issue, but Charles wasn't. His politics were unique, and activist, unlike his mother The Queen, who 'knew her place'.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-23-2017, 01:46 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 300
He definitely pissed off architects and the agriculture industry in very, very big ways which also made people in other sectors wonder whether he might have a public beef with them next. I'm not sure the people he offended had to be part of a secret/semisecret society in order for their discomfort to have ramifications in the way Charles was treated in the press or by the public.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-23-2017, 02:54 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
He definitely pissed off architects and the agriculture industry in very, very big ways which also made people in other sectors wonder whether he might have a public beef with them next. I'm not sure the people he offended had to be part of a secret/semisecret society in order for their discomfort to have ramifications in the way Charles was treated in the press or by the public.
True, but a society as being suggested has this idea of helping out 'fellow brothers', and closing ranks. Murdock may have been gung-ho regarding dissing the BRF, but he would have had to have support across a wider net to make it fly, and fly it did in spades. (With Charles, not The Queen, or any other Royal).

But when did that shift happen? When did Charles become a negative target? It wasn't before he married, and it wasn't after he married. The writer is suggesting that the bad press for Charles started after the carbuncle speech, and instead of Diana being the issue ('What is wrong with the Princess of Wales?') it became a scenario where Charles was the fool, the one 'out there', the one with 'strange ideas'. Curious, not so?

And Diana? She became the the easily groomed tool. Totally unwitting.

We all assume that the Morton book was Diana's idea (or I have). But was it?

And who cobbled together all those broadcast phone conversations? Again, targeting Charles, but throwing off the scent by having a tape of Diana, too. Though the Diana/Squidgy tape makes Charles look foolish, the cuckolded husband. It's always Charles made to look in the worst possible light.

From the outside it looks like a 'poor beleaguered Diana' story (which the public soaked up because that was the soapy drama that caught at the heart-strings), when in fact it may have been Charles who was the target (because of his activist ideas). It was Charles who was being de-balled. Pretty darn effective, with Diana as the unwitting tool.

Had Charles not been relegated to public ineffectiveness, imagine the power (backed by his royal status) his activism might have accomplished in Britain. Just some ideas.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-23-2017, 03:46 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,662
When Charles made his famous "monstrous carbuncle" speech (May 17,1984), the marriage and its problems were still pretty much blanketed from the public eye. Harry hadn't been born yet. In fact, if I remember right, even before this speech, Charles was ridiculed for "talking to his plants" and that's something that he says he still does to this day.

So, with this information, actually Charles was denigrated for an opinion before the marriage problems even became widely known. The first Morton book didn't come out until 1992 and that's 8 years after the carbuncle speech and problems in the marriage were becoming more and more apparent. Charles most definitely had returned to Camilla by then and Diana was pursuing her own interests at the time.

So, in my eyes, Charles was a target before anything else to discredit him ever came about. The war in the marriage added fuel to the fire. Perhaps Charles was even more vilified as previously, they had picked on certain aspects of him such as his ears, his odd fashions and outdated clothing, talking to plants and daring to have an opinion of his own. Mix into that a beloved fairy tale icon that the people loved being rumored to be very unhappy with her husband and blammo.... Charles is the perfect scapegoat.

The best thing that Charles ever did with all the nastiness is just keep on keeping on and lo and behold, things that he told of years ago are gaining in strength because there is actual intelligence and science behind it. People scorned and accused Galileo of heresy for his thoughts and he wasn't "pardoned" by the church until some 350 years later.

I seriously doubt that any organized group or even publishers with an "agenda" other than raking in the money singled out Charles for any specific reason. There just was so much about the man back then that was deemed "off the wall" or "different" that made him a natural target.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-23-2017, 05:39 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,282
Osipi, please read Miss Whirley's post above. Her information does not jive with yours. It's important to be precise in this before assuming one has correctly challenged a view. However, this is not a debate of assertions. I'm trying to nail something down.

Mentioning the Morton book in the context you did is not relevant. Read the thread to get the sense of the conversation. Not interested in memory. Interested in verifiable sequence of press and events. Hope you understand. Many thanks.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-23-2017, 05:50 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,662
OK. To clarify (with a source) about the statement that the carbuncle speech was before any real warfare had started in the marriage. At the time, Diana was pregnant with Harry (about 4 months before Harry was born). I have read this in many sources and will provide a reliable source for the part of an article I am going to quote.

"Prince Harry was born on September 15, 1984 after 9 hours of labour. Although their marriage had already started hitting rocky patches, Diana considered her pregnancy time with Harry among their happiest as a couple. "

Princess Diana Biography: William & Harry

I don't think my observation clashes at all with Miss Whirley's. What she states is very much along the lines of how things were. At the time of the "monstrous carbuncle" speech though, there was a period where as the article states, they were happy together.

That work for you?
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-23-2017, 05:59 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,282
The point is that there were articles about the marriage hitting rough patches as early as a year into the marriage. It was not, however, an issue with Charles. He was not being demonized or made to look foolish. That came later.

BTW talking to one's plants was described as strange by the press. That's a choice. But doing such (talking to plants) has been a known positive for growth way before Charles. In a land of gardeners that would be known. The decision to set it up as 'loony' came from the press. Why? Why would the press start to impugn Charles' ideas? It's a question.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-23-2017, 06:22 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
The point is that there were articles about the marriage hitting rough patches as early as a year into the marriage. It was not, however, an issue with Charles. He was not being demonized or made to look foolish. That came later.

BTW talking to one's plants was described as strange by the press. That's a choice. But doing such (talking to plants) has been a known positive for growth way before Charles. In a land of gardeners that would be known. The decision to set it up as 'loony' came from the press. Why? Why would the press start to impugn Charles' ideas? It's a question.
That is the big conundrum and I really don't have any answers for it.

Perhaps it all stemmed from Charles being totally different from any previous Prince of Wales? He's basically said that he had to find and define his role himself much like his father did as the Duke of Edinburgh. Perhaps the press and those that listened to his speeches thought that he would be a clone of his mother and put on a "prince" face and just go with the flow on things without an opinion? Charles was basically a Prince of Wales like none anyone has seen before and he still is. Not many Princes of Wales have 56 books accredited to his authorship.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/lis...rince_of_Wales

I do think you've hit on something with Charles perhaps being the first in a very long line to not be a Mason. Maybe you'll find these files of interest?

http://freemasonry.london.museum/it/...Freemasons.pdf

The royal connection: John Hamill examines the link between masonry and royalty

Doing a little bit of surfing, I've also come across a couple of links to articles that state that a Masonic lodge has been formed at Buckingham Palace. One was the Daily Fail so that got a "ignore" real fast. The links I have provided though are pretty credible from what I can see.

I definitely agree with you in regards to talking to plants. Charles was way ahead of his time with that for most people. One of his books that I enjoy and I really think reflects Charles the man is his book "Harmony: A New Way Of Looking At Our World". Its simply amazing.

ETA: One thought came about after taking time to thoroughly read the links I provided. If, by any chance, the Freemasons were in any way behind any kind of bad press for Charles, it would mean that they've disrespected several of Charles' family who hold very high rank (including Grand Master). Of course in any organization, as we've seen, there are people who serve it for the good of the organization and those that are members for self benefiting purposes so who knows?
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:19 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,282
Thank you, Osipi. Will read your links.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
If, by any chance, the Freemasons were in any way behind any kind of bad press for Charles, it would mean that they've disrespected several of Charles' family who hold very high rank (including Grand Master). Of course in any organization, as we've seen, there are people who serve it for the good of the organization and those that are members for self benefiting purposes so who knows?
That's my point. There's no need to go after the Freemasons as an organization, but any society that requires fraternal support, etc., chances abuses by individuals. I would posit that, rather than a group-think regarding Charles.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-24-2017, 02:11 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,912
However, Freemasons aside, I think we have to look, don't we, at when the Press coverage and/or public view of Charles began to change and whether that impacted (and I think we agree that it did) during the years of the Wales's marriage, divorce and what came before and after.

I admit that the following comes from a biography, not directly from Press reports, though these, I'm sure would be easy to look up. Sally Bedell Smith in her biography of the Prince of Wales 'Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life' examines, primarily in the chapter Naming and Shaming, some of the causes Charles has taken up, and I think the dates are interesting.

In 1982 the fairytale marriage narrative was still very much in place in the media except for a few random articles. My observations. Diana was however soaking up much of the attention in the tabloid press.

At the end of 1982, beginning of 1983 Bedell Smith notes Charles set about delivering a series of contentious speeches. On December 14th 1982 Charles made a keynote speech to the British Medical Association as its new President. In it he lambasted the medical profession for an over-reliance on surgery and powerful drugs and spoke up for alternative medicine.

There was a debate among the medical profession as a result and the speech was widely reported in the Press which was not sympathetic to the Prince's aims, though sections of the public supported Charles.

At Cirencester a few weeks later, addressing a conference at the Royal Agricultural College (Jan 8th 1983) Charles attacked modern farming techniques, the use of herbicides and pesticides and misuse of fossil fuels. This continues in the next decades and in 1996 (the year of the divorce from Diana following all that had gone on before) he gave a widely reported address on what he felt were the dangers in genetically modified food, and the advantages of organic produce.

However, as far as Charles's public image goes, the Cirencester address was widely attacked in the Press as following 'fringe ideas'. I believe that the Press reaction to the two speeches in late 1982/early 1983 were the beginning of the image portrayed by them of Charles as a crackpot divorced from reality and peddling airy fairy ideas.

The public, as I've stated, did support some alternative medical ideas, acupuncture, chiropractic etc but some sections didn't, and the Press in general didn't. Charles recognised this. Following the Cirencester address Charles secretly stayed at a Devon farm for some weeks learning what it would be like to be a farm labourer.

He was rapturous about it all, according to Bedell Smith. He wrote to a discreet fellow fox hunting friend, Charlie Douglas-Home, (a great mutual pal of Laurenz Van Der Post,) who happened to be then editor of The Times newspaper, philosophising about the labouring experience. However, Bedell Smith notes that he (Charles) was stung by Press reaction to his Cirencester speech and wrote in his letter that if his thoughts became public on his time in Devon it would cause him to be branded 'in unkind circles as a goat freak'.

Then came his speech on architectural design in May 1984, which caused a furore, and on which SBS has much to say, including the views of many architects that he had caused great harm to their profession.

Now, in a way, whether Charles did or didn't doesn't really matter. However, the views of many leading voices in architecture, in design, in medicine, in science and agriculture, that he didn't know what he was talking about, does.

The Press latched on to this and to the reaction of many of these leading lights. I believe this played a part in the evolution of the image of the Prince in the media as a loony, as a meddler, as a person who dabbles and can cause harm by his opinions.

I also believe this enabled the portrayal of Charles as an unsympathetic figure during the War of the Wales's to be widely accepted by the general public at the time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-24-2017, 03:32 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,282
Thank you, Curryong. Interesting, and thank you for the Bedell Smith link. She does a great journalistic job with back-up. She will be a primary source on much of all this years hence, as she already is.

Charles was angering the entrenched power structure, a very complicated amalgam of monied interests and for-profit status-quo thinking. Amazing that someone like him was so forward looking and capable of thinking outside-the-box, but actually much comes from his father I have discovered (who was the ultimate outsider to the British elite, not inclined to wholly take on the thinking and trappings of the status quo as evidenced with his luke-warm snub of Freemasonry), and Charles has indicated that Gordonstoun (as much as he suffered there as a sensitive boy) taught him about changing the world (the Prince's Trust was a direct inspiration from out of what he learned there, he has said).

Charles, the outward symbol of the most exclusive 'club' in his society/culture, was (ironically) the outsider, by upbringing by a father who saw himself as such himself, by educational influences that were unique to his class, and by his own sensitive, intellectually astute, introversion.

I think you've given the details of a pertinent moment upon which things turned for Charles. What's interesting regarding the author I quoted is that he is placing an added element: that Charles, with the carbuncle speech, had (whether witting or unwittingly) 'attacked' Masons, which set in motion (sustained) bad press.

Whatever was taking place I am convinced (through circumstantial evidence) that there was a many-layered event unfolding, which gained momentum with the Rupert Murdock tabloids, all focused on Charles. Diana was just the cherry-on-top for the tabloids, and when she started turning on Charles - what fun for them! What's amazing is how witlessly the British public followed along and swallowed the spin the tabloids painted of Charles, who in actual fact was a singularly unique advocate for the 'common man' (counter to Thatcherism).

I suspect a full appreciation of Charles and his times will not be possible until farther in the future, though his prescience is being noted. Charles will be the lost opportunity for Britain imo. While a public dithered over the salacious details of "adultery and betrayal", mesmerized by Diana, the larger context was lost regarding the heir to the throne, and with it, some significant social change.

What also fascinates me is the vehement belief that members of the BRF must not have political beliefs, or if they do, must not voice them (and the current British public goes along with that idea). It seems to me that this idea is fairly new, coming into play with Elizabeth, because it wasn't in play prior to her. David is dissed because of his apparent Nazi sympathies, but he was actually very much for the 'common man', angering the for-profit elite.

Anyway, it's interesting to see the other layers potentially in play in something that looks like just a bad marriage. The bad marriage takes up all the oxygen in the room, when in fact something far more important was taking place using the marriage as smoke-screen, with Diana gleefully, unwittingly, feeding the frenzy.

My question now is: did Diana really come up with the Morton book on her own? Was she that clever? Because it took an awful lot of cleverness to devise it all, and follow through with it. Who whispered it into her ear? Or was it all her?
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Press and Charles and Camilla AgnesK The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 49 12-06-2011 06:35 PM
The Grand Ducal Family, In and Around the Press Robert_19 Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg 25 05-09-2008 04:37 AM
Mette-Marit and the German press Mandy Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Family 24 07-10-2006 01:20 PM




Popular Tags
archduchess marie astrid beatrice (1986- ) birthday birthday celebration carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duke of york earl of snowdon family general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein meme monarchy news pablo urdangarín pieter van vollenhoven portugal prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess margaretha of luxembourg princess mary fashion princess mary style princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia rohan family romania spanish jewels spanish state visit to japan state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear uae nature victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:24 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises