"Charles: The Heart of a King" by Catherine Mayer (2015)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Pro-monarchy doesn't necessarily mean pro-Charles as there are many monarchists who would like Charles to step down or be by-passed as they see Charles as a threat to the monarchy.
 
Up in the Heir - The Prince of Wales can be a monarch or an activist, but not both

Peter HuntVerified account ‏@BBCPeterHunt
Following its serialisation of @catherine_mayer book, @thetimes has published this editorial on Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/BBCPeterHunt/sta...56114173833217

I'm surprised The Times is being so critical of Charles. It is a serious newspaper that usually leans pro monarchy.

Just by reading that article, I can tell some members of the media and others have a major case of anxiety when it comes to the future King Charles III. Everyone is so used to how Elizabeth II has run things, they can't even imagine an actual active and engaging Monarch.
 
Londoner's Diary: Catherine Mayer sets the record straight over royal book - Diary - News - London Evening Standard
Where lies the truth? Prince Charles’s principal private secretary William Nye wrote a dusty letter to The Times about the “ill-informed speculation” on the heir to the throne off the back of Catherine Mayer’s book Charles: The Heart of a King. And to boot, Kristina Kyriacou, the Prince’s communications secretary, told this paper that “the author did not have the access she claimed”.

But Mayer herself says the drawbridge is being pulled up a little late. The editor-at-large of Time magazine launched her book at Foyles in Charing Cross Road last night to friends including the BBC’s Andrew Marr, London mayoral hopeful David Lammy, David Baddiel and Angus Deayton.

“The past days have read like a comedy of miscommunication and catcalls,” she said as she gave her thank-you speech. “I don’t suppose it’s been funny for anybody firefighting in any of the palaces. It may in the circumstances seem hideous to thank any of them by name. I don’t want to do that. But of many friends there is one person who I thank by name in the book, so it’s too late to spare her. So I will thank Kristina Kyriacou. Contrary to recent reports, we have spoken recently and cordially.” Mayer had a sit-down meeting with Prince Charles at Dumfries, and followed him on international tours, but further contact is not specified. Kyriacou confirms they spoke but reiterates access was limited.

As a footnote, today’s Times has a letter from Philip Moger. “As programme editor at ITN I was involved in the coverage of Andrew Morton’s book on the Princess of Wales,” he writes. “I well recall the furore and the denials. Subsequently, the book was found to be not only broadly accurate but the princess herself was one of the main sources. Royal spokesmen have form in these matters.”
 
Up in the Heir - The Prince of Wales can be a monarch or an activist, but not both

Peter HuntVerified account ‏@BBCPeterHunt
Following its serialisation of @catherine_mayer book, @thetimes has published this editorial on Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/BBCPeterHunt/sta...56114173833217

I'm surprised The Times is being so critical of Charles. It is a serious newspaper that usually leans pro monarchy.
I dont think they are being that critical TBH. Charles has been extremely outspoken, some would say meddling, on any number of subjects while POW. Some of those, for example homeopathy vs regular medicine, have been vigorously debunked by authorities on the subject. I think it would be very hard for him to suddenly strap down his life long habit of speaking out/writing letters lobbying ministers when/if he ascends.
 
I dont think they are being that critical TBH. Charles has been extremely outspoken, some would say meddling, on any number of subjects while POW. Some of those, for example homeopathy vs regular medicine, have been vigorously debunked by authorities on the subject. I think it would be very hard for him to suddenly strap down his life long habit of speaking out/writing letters lobbying ministers when/if he ascends.


In the face of criticism, embarrassing phone taps, embarrassing siblings, etc etc; Charles has gone out and done his job - head up. His will-power must be strong. Doing the work in hand is 2nd nature and the work of a Monarch will be the same.

So I don't think he will ever speak out in any way that is political. He may mention his beliefs and he may get criticised BUT in a country that has had governments promoting multi-culturalism etc etc., HMQ has steadfastly promoted Christianity in every Christmas message she has given. And no one has complained.
 
The writer of this book, was all over the Breakfast News channels this morning, publicising her work..she admitted she'd had limited access to the Prince, just 'two walks in the garden', [with other journalists present].
How she can claim to know 'the heart of a King', on that VERY limited basis, is beyond me..She had spoken 'to his friends [un-named] and other 'officials', however..

So basically it's not going to be worth my reading unless she verifies exactly who she spoke to and they confirm that they spoke to her. Yet another, unauthorised biography based on a few minutes chat and idle gossip! I may as well re-write Cinderella and pass it off as something new and make a few quid too!
Wyevale and Jack, I think you have nailed it. From other headlines it seems as though she tells one story here and a different story there, so who knows what is true. But the thing that bugs me most is the inference that whatever "truth" she is peddling, it is actually the real truth and, just in case anyone was not convinced, similarities between this book and Andrew Morton's have been drawn;
As a footnote, today’s Times has a letter from Philip Moger. “As programme editor at ITN I was involved in the coverage of Andrew Morton’s book on the Princess of Wales,” he writes. “I well recall the furore and the denials. Subsequently, the book was found to be not only broadly accurate but the princess herself was one of the main sources. Royal spokesmen have form in these matters.
So, by obvious inference, any and all denials from the BTF must be treated at lies.
 
This book is full of nonsense and gossip that I have heard several times before. This book is not worth reading.
 
I dont think they are being that critical TBH. Charles has been extremely outspoken, some would say meddling, on any number of subjects while POW. Some of those, for example homeopathy vs regular medicine, have been vigorously debunked by authorities on the subject. I think it would be very hard for him to suddenly strap down his life long habit of speaking out/writing letters lobbying ministers when/if he ascends.


I agree he hasn't kept his views to himself and I don't think any prime minster would enjoy their talks with Charles. I know it's his right to speak out but that doesn't mean it is right


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I agree he hasn't kept his views to himself and I don't think any prime minster would enjoy their talks with Charles. I know it's his right to speak out but that doesn't mean it is right.

I disagree here a bit. :flowers: Men of stature approach these things so differently in my experience. They value articulate differences, and they respect achievement, both of which Charles possesses. (The opinion of tabloids should not blind one to Charles' considerable life's work). I suspect there would be a lively interchange no matter who the prime minister was, as well as mutual respect. Instead of an ordeal to be endured, I think the prime minster would be intrigued, of whatever stripe. At this stage of the game, Charles has to be as adept (and charming) at dealing with all manner of folk, like any politician risen to the rank of prime minister. JMO. :)
 
Charles, Heart of a King by Catherine Mayer

Mmm I couldn't cope with his views on alternative medicine and modern architecture especially if he kept banging on about it and I think I've read that he does and I doubt others would either JMO


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
As he has had regular meetings with the respective PMs, as recorded in the CC, for years now I don't see why there would be any change. No PM has come out and said that he doesn't know how to conduct himself in these conversations - the opposite if I remember Tony Blair for instance.
 
As he has had regular meetings with the respective PMs, as recorded in the CC, for years now I don't see why there would be any change. No PM has come out and said that he doesn't know how to conduct himself in these conversations - the opposite if I remember Tony Blair for instance.


Well they are hardly going to say anything are they


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Well they are hardly going to say anything are they


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Why wouldn't they? PMs not still in office/not in politics anymore could say what they want. What would stop them?
 
You have to be joking


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
No? Tell me why. If what you say makes sense I could change my mind, but if you don't make an argument that's rather hard to do. I'm not stupid enough to think I know everything!
 
I'm sure you know that they couldn't say a bad word against a future king.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Others have done so - including many politicians - so there is no reason to assume that a PM wouldn't do so.
 
I'm sure you know that they couldn't say a bad word against a future king.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
But you still aren't telling me why. I want to know..... But I guess I'm not privileged to that information....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Others have done so - including many politicians - so there is no reason to assume that a PM wouldn't do so.
This is my thought as well... I mean, as long as they don't talk about confidential meetings in politics there is nothing stopping them. And even if they couldn't say bad things, nothing is forcing them to say good things after the fact.
 
This is my thought as well... I mean, as long as they don't talk about confidential meetings in politics there is nothing stopping them. And even if they couldn't say bad things, nothing is forcing them to say good things after the fact.


Because if they are in a private meeting it is confidential as well you know.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because if they are in a private meeting it is confidential as well you know.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
If it is confidential, how come they can say he's nice and good. If they said he's rude or meddling is just as vauge/much breaking confidentiality. Or am I missing something?

I confess I don't know much about Brittish politics. But they will have met Charles out of political settings (parties, parades and such) and if they wanted they could talk about that.

Could someone else (that's not doubting my intentions) give me the facts on this? 'Cause I really wan't to know....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one ever talks about what was said in a meeting or even a casual chat with royalty. They can say he/she was lovely and interested in my ??? But that's it !!!! They aren't going to say " he bored me silly "


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
No one ever talks about what was said in a meeting or even a casual chat with royalty. They can say he/she was lovely and interested in my ??? But that's it !!!! They aren't going to say " he bored me silly "


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Really? No-one does that? So all those articles where people say what royals said is what? Fictional? Like Stephen Fry and Charles and Diana over for tea, Charles saying in private to one person that Putin acts like Hitler etc. etc.

I don't say people go around being rude, but if a republican former PM had bad interactions with Charles I doubt they would shut up about it.
 
I agree he hasn't kept his views to himself and I don't think any prime minster would enjoy their talks with Charles. I know it's his right to speak out but that doesn't mean it is right
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It's his right to speak out

But

That doesn't make it right.

I am totally confused, please clarify.


No one ever talks about what was said in a meeting or even a casual chat with royalty. They can say he/she was lovely and interested in my ??? But that's it !!!! They aren't going to say " he bored me silly "
Lots of perople talk about a casual chat with royalty. It depends who is speaking as to whether one is bored. Some people have found Charles to be witty and wise others are bored stiff. Each to their own.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I'm saying is no prime minister will tell what he thought of his talks with Charles. IMO he might have thought he was raving mad but he's not going to say it. If you can't understand that I can't help you.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
What I'm saying is no prime minister will tell what he thought of his talks with Charles. IMO he might have thought he was raving mad but he's not going to say it. If you can't understand that I can't help you.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
And all we want to know is WHY do you think no PM will do that? What is the thought process behind your statement?
 
Because he would know he would be hounded out of town and cop comments and bullying because he spoke up IMO is that clear enough.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because he would know he would be hounded out of town and cop comments and bullying because he spoke up IMO is that clear enough.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Ok, I understand what you are saying. But a PM doesn't have to make a press conference about it. Some minor comments can set the ball rolling, without them putting a target on their back. And I am talking about retired politicians that haven't got a career to lose anymore, you know AFTER they're not the PM anymore. I don't know if it would be that much of an uproar. I think the uproar would be more at Charles since the media is usually biased against Charles and take any opportunity to pick on him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I meant all the ex minsters or what ever. Anyway ladies it's very late and normally I would be asleep but I have had a bad RA flare and couldn't sleep so all this has taken my mind off my pain so thank you both and goodnight


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Sorry I said ladies and you mightn't be so sorry if your not


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Back
Top Bottom