Books on Current and Recent British Royals


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Princess of Durham said:
Was it that or artificial insemination? Not the same thing ... in any event completely tasteless. Whose business is it anyway?
Click to expand...

It was artificial insemination.
 
Im re-reading her book now. Pretty interesting, although the British Press seem to not understand the freedom of the press theory, nor do I know if it is practiced in England. They give in far to easily to the morons around the BRF and their stupid demands. "Thou shalt not mention the royal bosom".
As for trashing the marriage of Philip and Elizabeth I don't think she did that; I actually found myself sympathizing with Philip and thinking his rumored affairs were ok.
 
I suspect that quite a bit of it is true; it is true that George V sacrificed his family for the sake of his image/PR and it is true that Fergie was running around with her hands wide open, grasping at all she could get. There was a lot going on with the RF that hasn't been really paid attention to and I don't see how it would be banned if it were just rubbish.
 
I don't think that he was primarily concerned with his own image. There were communists in England as well, and there was a real concern that sheltering the Tsar and his family (the Tsar was considered a tyrant) would cause revolution in England and the suffering of many people.

AristoCat said:
I suspect that quite a bit of it is true; it is true that George V sacrificed his family for the sake of his image/PR
Click to expand...
 
I don't think George was worried about "many people", but he was worried about his position and the volitile times. It is just a statement, I happened to like him, but that doesn't excuse his lack of courage to save others.
 
True, but being worried about his position doesn't mean being worried for his own sake. If the Throne was toppled, it would be by revolution and not by peaceful means. In a revolution, the only people who don't suffer are the ones who get out of the country fast.


COUNTESS said:
I don't think George was worried about "many people", but he was worried about his position and the volitile times. It is just a statement, I happened to like him, but that doesn't excuse his lack of courage to save others.
Click to expand...
 
Mermaid1962 said:
True, but being worried about his position doesn't mean being worried for his own sake. If the Throne was toppled, it would be by revolution and not by peaceful means. In a revolution, the only people who don't suffer are the ones who get out of the country fast.
Click to expand...

Trust me he was worried for his sake and the sake of his family, which is fine. Princess Alice of Greece, Prince Phillip's mother was that kind of person. Most of them are not.
 
He sailed his cousin (supposedly favorite cousin) down the river for his own paranoia; and then when Nicholas and his children were murdered he and those around him tried to cover up that he was the reason that Nicholas wasn't allowed in England or anywhere in the British Empire. As someone mentioned, the Romanovs did not have to have to come directly to London; they could have sent them anywhere else in the Empire.
 
The British Empire was large enough to send the Romanovs anywhere and there is no way that the BRF would have been overthrown over something like this. All that had ot be done was a discreet rescue and they could have been sent to live in Balmoral or somewhere hidden away in Scotland. It would have been bad publicity, but no real serious repercussions. They (Romanovs) need not have set foot on British soil, but sent to the otehr places like the African colonies, or somewhere far flung all the more. There were also the aristocratic families that could have taken them in or perhaps a hut on Mustique. It would have been a small place to start, but go figure, they were destroyed all because of an anti-German phase where George V got sucked into.

Seven family members butchered all because of fear of bad PR. Then of course, the other members of the Romanov family who ended up killed, starting with Michael. Then Ella, Constantine, Dmitry, all of them rounded up like cattle and killed. The Empress Dowager was saved, but I wonder if she would have escaped if in fact nothing had been done.
 
I've seen paranoia like George's behavior since the 1918 murders, in the US we had the Japanese internment camps, McCarthyism, and then George Bush's "Iraq is building nuclear weapons to attack the west" mantra of...2003 was it?
Monarchies all around him were being toppled, but the two I can recall now were autocracies, not constitutional monarchies like he was a part of. Like you said he was just on his anti-German kick and Alexandra was German and it seems nobody liked her. I recall reading that one reason he didn't want to aid Nicholas was because of Alexandra and her supposed German sympathies which as we all know now were non-existent.
 
Yeah, the problem was mainly Alexandra. They should have offered to take the kids though at least.

The rest of the book does go into a lot of detail about the lavish lifestyle the royal family led through WWII and beyond to the present day. You see how lavishly Diana and even Fergie lived and how excessive Fergie's lifestyle was, as well as Charles and the rest of them. There's no point in there being anything hidden about this. It also talks about how many affairs Philip had as well.
 
Last edited:
Yeah according to Kitty the Royal Family was putting on a front during WWII and weren't roughing it like the rest of the country.
 
And yet for the very reason that Warren mentioned (the strict libel laws) the book was not published in the UK.

Which makes you think....how much poetic license did Ms. Kelley use with her writing and in particular her "sensational claims" against the BRF.
 
England has a tendency to protect the BRF even when someone is speaking the truth. THere are various mentions in the book of the press lying or covering up for the BRF. Seeing as how the book isn't a kiss up attempt, it is not surprising that it wasn't published in the country. After hearing about the shallowness of the Queen Mother biography, I greatly feel that the only way the real truth will come out is if someone not British writes a book on her and perhaps publishes it outside the country.
 
The book however did show the RF in a light that they deserved to be shown in. The British RF made the huge mistake of lying all the time about their actions and I am shocked that the Brits aren't more demanding of answers.

I think Kitty Kelly was actually really, really generous to the Queen Mother, even if Kelly did detail the extravagant lifestyle. Personally I think the Queen Mother was an icon of how royalty should be and that it did compare how the Queen Mother was different from Fergie, when she (Queen Mother) was Duchess of York. It did mention how the Queen Mother propped up her husband and she did after all stay in the country with her children rather than flee overseas. If anyone deserved that sort of treatment, it was the Queen Mother.

Why is everyone so intimidated by the RF?
 
AristoCat are you American? I ask because I think there used to be and possibly might still be similar actions by the US press when it comes to the President of the US. Helping him lie to the public or keep secrets for him. I believe when FDR was President that the press kept quite about his health issues and that he was virtually a paraplegic; same thing with JFK. I don't know if its comparable to lying about George Vs involvement in refusing aide to the Romanovs, or speculated lying about how bad the BRF was "slumming" it during WWII. Perhaps both countries medias just had more respect for the top institutions back then; though I admit it comes across rather negatively in Kelly's book.
Seems that in both the US and England since the 80s the gloves have come off, and they will print anything about anyone no matter their position or job.
 
Warren said:
Kitty Kelley writes sensational books; blurb's on the back cover conform to this style, and truth be damned.
The book is NOT banned in Britain; it has never been published there due to the libel laws and neither Ms Kelly nor the publisher were prepared to place themselves at legal risk.
unofficialroyalty.com- Pandora's Box- Urban Legends of the Royal Kind

Legend: Kitty Kelley’s book was banned in the UK
Status: False
Explanation: Kitty Kelley’s book has never been published in the UK, leading many conspiracy theorists to allege that it was banned. The story has now risen to the level of urban legend but it is completely untrue. Britain’s tough libel laws differ greatly from those in the US and would certainly have led to a large verdict against Ms. Kelley and her publishers. As a result, neither was willing to take the risk of publishing the book in Britain. At no time did the Royal Family ban the book.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It is obvious that XeniaCasaraghi and AristoCat failed to understand the difference between a book being banned and the overwhelming evidence (in the book) that would result in a libel suit that would clean her out!

The incredibe degree of gullability displayed by these two posters, exacerbated by their personal animus toward the British Royal Family, is both mind blowing and hilarious. Talk about a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Why is everyone so intimidated by the FR?
Click to expand...
Huh? We have a Constitutional Monarchy not a Banana Repulic Dictatorship! Just pick up any Tabloid in the supermarket and you will see how "intimidated" they are and how gullablie you are.
 
Last edited:
Even if most of the book is false there is a quote from it that is true.Someone said,"Royal children will always be lonely,that's something they can't do about".

Kitty also claims that Elizabeth and Philip missed a lot of birthdays,first days of school,etc.
 
Most bio's get stuff wrong, Kitty's problem seems to be she angered people by expressing unflattering aspects of the family. Some of the things she mentions have also appeared in other works.

Right now I am in the Sarah years, wish I could see a picture of some horrendous outfit the author is describing. Poor Sarah and the BRF, her honeymoon period with the public lasted around 30 seconds.
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
Most bio's get stuff wrong, Kitty's problem seems to be she angered people by expressing unflattering aspects of the family. Some of the things she mentions have also appeared in other works.

Right now I am in the Sarah years, wish I could see a picture of some horrendous outfit the author is describing. Poor Sarah and the BRF, her honeymoon period with the public lasted around 30 seconds.
Click to expand...


The problem with her book is that so much of it is wrong - and she and her publishers know that which is why they refused to publish it in the UK - because they knew that there they would be subject to much tougher libel laws than elsewhere and would therefore have to use up any profits from that book and even other profits from other works to pay compensation to those libelled.

Any book that can't be published in a free press type country should be regarded with suspicion - because the question has to be asked 'why didn't they publish it there'? and the answer is usually along the lines - 'there is something wrong with the book' - thus its credibility takes a massive hit (or it should in the minds of right-thinking people - I am aware that some people want to believe anything negative about specific people and so they actually stop thinking and questioning in their desire to believe).
 
IloveCP said:
Even if most of the book is false there is a quote from it that is true.Someone said,"Royal children will always be lonely,that's something they can't do about".

Kitty also claims that Elizabeth and Philip missed a lot of birthdays,first days of school,etc.
Click to expand...


They missed a number of birthdays because the children were actually at boarding school when they had their birthdays - only Anne had her birthday always in school holidays. So if you send the boys away to school at age 8 and their birthdays are during term time you will miss their birthdays - sad fact but true.

There are a number of photos/film footage of the Queen and/or Philip with both Anne and Charles on their first day at boarding school - if they could make sure they were there for that, and the fact that they were more protective of the privacy of the younger sons the chances increases that they were there for the first days of Edward and Andrew.

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=34740 This is Charles arrival at Cheam with both parents - Philip even driving the car about 1.47 in.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=42146 This is Charles arrival at Gordonstoun with Philip - from arriving at the airport, flying to Scotland and then arriving at Gordonstoun.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=43648 This is Anne's arrival at Beneden with the Queen in 1963 - at about 40 seconds.



Making a negative statement without actually understanding the reasons behind that statement is simply being negative for the sake of it and because people want to see the negative rather than think things through for themselves and see the actual reasons behind the missed birthdays.

Philip - in one of his interviews about Windsor Castle, makes the point that they planned their lives around the school holidays - loving caring parents do that - make the holidays special because they know that school is also important.
 
Last edited:
Well for some people the fact that a book was banned would give it more credence, that there was something in the book that people didn't want to be made public. I'm not saying everything in KKs book is right; but the reaction to it by the British and especially royalists is telling. The entire system of the BRF seems to be to make excuses for their bad behavior or cover it up; Kitty is just throwing back that cover on some aspects of the family. Plus she wasn't all that negative towards them, except maybe Margaret who honestly seemed to deserve it.
 
I think personally the one who deserved it the most was Fergie. In the US we have strict libel laws, but there are a huge variety of books out there that are quite frankly blatantly insulting and sya all sorts of stuff. "The Royals" is actually really, really tame compared to many of the things published in the US. Kitty was actually really, really decent about the Queen Mother and about many of the royals, even Charles. There was really nothing about the RF that wasn't already covered by other biographers. There was no reason for it to be banned really. It talked about the Windsor's dealings with Hitler and that isn't something that the RF themselves did, but hte Duke and Duchess.
 
AristoCat said:
I think personally the one who deserved it the most was Fergie. In the US we have strict libel laws, but there are a huge variety of books out there that are quite frankly blatantly insulting and sya all sorts of stuff. "The Royals" is actually really, really tame compared to many of the things published in the US. Kitty was actually really, really decent about the Queen Mother and about many of the royals, even Charles. There was really nothing about the RF that wasn't already covered by other biographers. There was no reason for it to be banned really. It talked about the Windsor's dealings with Hitler and that isn't something that the RF themselves did, but hte Duke and Duchess.
Click to expand...


Kitty claimed the Queen Mother was "racist".Well,she quoted a man who called her that.

Who knows........
 
I think the Queen Mother was just a product of her times; people her age were not brought up to take racial sensitivities into consideration.
 
I think the Queen Mother was racist. Is it really such a stretch to think a white woman born in 1900 has stupid ideas about non-white people?
According to Kitty there are a few members of the BRF who are racist, Princess Margaret for example. I think Kitty not only shined a light on the BRF but British society as a whole and how they treat people. The treatment of the Mountbatten's during WWI was deplorable. The whole Germanphobia going around reminded me of the "Freedom Fries" debacle in the US during the build up to the Iraq War.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole Germanphobia going around reminded me of the "Freedom Fries" debacle in the US during the build up to the Iraq War.
Click to expand...
I agree; stripping princely families of their rank over a breakout of anti-German phobia was basically stripping them of their heritage.

I was disgusted to read about Saeah's promiscuity with hard core drug users and actually got tested for AIDS. Unforgivable what she exposed her husband to and she had a sweet husband and the handsome of the three princes in the House of Windsors. Her husband wasn't even cheating on her and she couldn't seem to get enough of other men.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read the book and IMHO, it was essentially strung together from various tabloid stories. Again it should be stressed that making the decision not to publish in the UK by both the publisher and the author DOES NOT constitute banning. That is a very important point that some people seem to refuse to recognize. The other point to be made is that if a whole society (for the most part) holds the same view can we honestly refer to it as racist judging it by todays standards. If so, IMO, the US was every bit as "racist" as british society during that time period. And yes the Mountbattens were treated terribly during the period of WWI. I might point out that many german comunities in the rural midwestern US, who had resided there since the 1850s, suddeny came under scrutiny as well and many german speaking communities felt the need to speak english in order to prove their loyalty to the US .... not so much different than what happened in the UK during the same time period.
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
Well for some people the fact that a book was banned would give it more credence, that there was something in the book that people didn't want to be made public.
Click to expand...
How may times do you have to be told that the book is NOT, and NEVER has, been BANNED in the UK? Or is it that you refuse to accept any information that is contrary to your mindset?
XeniaCasaraghi said:
I'm not saying everything in KKs book is right; but the reaction to it by the British and especially royalists is telling.
Click to expand...
Of course it is telling! Reading libel about people you may like and/or admire is never pleasant, but from the tenor of your posts, this is obviously not a problem for you.

Your belief that Kitty Kelly being an American, means that she can only write the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth does your countrymen no great service!
 
I never said that what the Mountbatten's went through was unique to England; so I don't know where all this British sensitivity is coming from. In fact I pointed out that such idiocy took place in the US most recently in relation to France around 2003. And could even be described as happening during WWII with the Japanese.

Along with wanting to punch Fergie I can't stand Diana's grandmother, she reminds me of a snobbish high and mighty aristocrat who would sell their child "for the good of the monarchy or to get a title". Everytime I hear about her I imagine Thomas Boleyn from The Tudors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EliseLadyofLancaster
  • Locked
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession 1: Ending 2022
30 31 32
Replies
943
Views
135K
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom