"Rebel Prince: The Power, Passion and Defiance of Prince Charles" by Tom Bower (2018)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Dman said:
It’s pretty much well known that The Queen’s relationship with Camilla started off on very shaky ground. Everything wasn’t smooth sailing from the start. It took time, advise and pressure from Charles and the Mark Borland Campaign, to get The Queen to come around on accepting Camilla’s presence in Charles life publicly.

Now their personal and public relationship is very good footing. The Queen did make knight Camilla Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order. She’s also a member of the Privy Council. Call me crazy, but this tells me, and a lot others, that everything is good between them today.
Click to expand...
No you are not crazy, it just seems that since almost all the daytime soaps are now off the air they are determined to turn the BRF into one.

As to the great "snub"? Get real, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II would never, ever, lower herself to embarrass or humiliate anyone in public even if she hated their guts. It's just not who she is.
 
Last edited:
MARG said:
Heavens Osipi what are you thinking. Charles renounce his succession rights? Why on earth should he, unless of course, you believe he whines in strange places with even stranger people, about how long he has had to wait. A reporter once asked the same question to which he replied that since his succession was dependant on his mother's death, he was in no hurry.

Actually, if he wanted out, he would have to become king and then abdicate in favour of his heir. We all really want the death of our Queen, followed by a new king that throws the towel in. I don't think so. This is where UK and Commonwealth citizens differ from US citizens. We have succession, you have an election!
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing this out, Marg. What was missing is that part of my statement in that post was actually quoting Mbruno and not my thoughts. I've fixed it to be right and proper. I'm going to blame this mistake on a lack of caffeine. Yeps.... that's the story and I'm sticking to it. :D

MARG said:
No you are not crazy, it just seems that since almost all the daytime soaps are now off the air they are determined to turn the BRF into one.

As to the great "snub"? Get real, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II would never, ever, lower herself to embarrass or humiliate anyone in public even if she hated their guts. It's just not who she is.
Click to expand...

Those of us that are familiar with the Queen's diplomatic skills know this to be very true. We have definite proof of the Queen's esteem for Camilla as it was only the Queen's prerogative that named Camilla as a member of her Privy Council and also bestowed the GCVO on her.
 
Here is a compilation of the excerpts from Tom Bower’s unauthorized biography in the Daily Mail, as there have been four as of this date:
None | Search Results | Daily Mail Online | Daily Mail Online

Here are the last two so far:

Tom Bower: The Queen’s Cold War against Camilla | Daily Mail Online

Charles and Camilla’s plot to slur Princess Diana as a hysteric | Daily Mail Online

I continue to think that these deserve thoughtful discussion regarding the impact they may have on public opinion. At no point have I agreed with the articles or shared my opinion about their veracity.

As for the negative comments against Americans (I decline to name or quote the person mainly responsible), I would like to point out that the American population is over five times the size of that of the United Kingdom. I would never suggest that everyone in the UK or even England (and yes, I know the difference) has the same opinion. Suggesting the same for America is ridiculous and does not present your best self/selves.
 
I was actually surprised that, in the comments section, the negative comments about Charles and Camilla also often mention Meghan Markle. It looks like that trio is now toxic for the future of the British monarchy.
 
Mbruno said:
I was actually surprised that, in the comments section, the negative comments about Charles and Camilla also often mention Meghan Markle. It looks like that trio is now toxic for the future of the British monarchy.
Click to expand...

Comments sections are rarely reliable as indicators of the opinion of an entire population. Often they attract negative individuals and those who like to stir the pot.
 
A very well balanced review IMO, and confirming my suspicions about the book: It's more entertainment than educational.

I'm actually tempted to read to book for it appears to a very amusing read - from a foreign/detached point of view. And I freely admit I would hate it if it was a book about my own royal family.
However, there is no way in this world I would be willing to pay a single penny for this book.

I can't say and I won't be the judge as to whether Tom Bower's description of Charles is in general terms fairly correct.
Even if Charles is all this, the hallmark of a true biography is balance. - Even the most selfish, egocentric, socially inept and spoiled person, as Charles is described as, has good sides.
A biography cannot be anywhere near adequate if it doesn't touch the good as well as the bad sides of a person - and it can't be interesting either IMO.
Hence this book is about as entertaining as reading a Donald Duck book but no more than that.
 
I most probably will read this book, as you said Muhler, for the entertainment value of it. I do tend to gravitate towards getting every and all biographies that come out on the British royal family. Luckily, I have a source where I get these books for about the price of a Starbuck's coffee or cheaper so its not a huge investment buying the book.

What I like about Charles actually is his idiosyncrasies and his quirkiness that makes him totally unique unto himself. He's not a "sheeple" that follows everybody else but has a active mind and thinks for himself. Who else do we know of that hangs onto and wears shoes that are over 40 years old? :D
 
Mbruno said:
I was actually surprised that, in the comments section, the negative comments about Charles and Camilla also often mention Meghan Markle. It looks like that trio is now toxic for the future of the British monarchy.
Click to expand...

Well, there are toxic posts about all 3. And toxic posts are ubiquitous in comment sections these days. :sick:
The trio themselves are not toxic. ?
 
Thanks! I really needed a good laugh and that article did the trick. :D
 
Oh OK, now I get it. At first when I read this I this I didn't get it; was e mocking Charles or the book? But now I understand what's going on. I did laugh at the idea of him summoning his gardeners.
 
Ah ah ah good one ! ;)
Sure some on this forum will take it literally though :lol:
 
Mbruno said:
I was actually surprised that, in the comments section, the negative comments about Charles and Camilla also often mention Meghan Markle. It looks like that trio is now toxic for the future of the British monarchy.
Click to expand...

I guess they really don't like divorcees. Soon they'll incorporate Andrew and Sarah and make it a quintet.
 
Nico said:
Showing again, if needed, the utter hypocrisy of the Daily Mail : presenting some phony stories as facts for the clickbait then bashing the very same stories, calling them "pure comedy".
I wish the BRF could sue more often sometimes ...
Click to expand...

Nico, if the British royal family could sue more often, they would be forever tied up in court and never do anything else. Then again, the tabloids wouldn't have much to write about as everything would be a matter of court record. :D
 
Osipi said:
Nico, if the British royal family could sue more often, they would be forever tied up in court and never do anything else. Then again, the tabloids wouldn't have much to write about as everything would be a matter of court record. :D
Click to expand...

You're probably right, but at the end the damage is done. In some time on this forum, during one of the often heated discussions about Charles, one member will come out with a delightfully sordid story about him and say "it's true , read it in the book by Tom Bower"...
Tom Bower, Andrew Morton, Ketty Kelley are the cancer of the royal biographers ..
 
Last edited:
Lets not forget the queen of "someone high in the palace" and "someone close to the royal", Lady Colin Campbell. :D
 
Osipi said:
Lets not forget the queen of "someone high in the palace" and "someone close to the royal", Lady Colin Campbell. :D
Click to expand...

Maybe the worst of them all ....
 
This book just fell into my lap. I have had the Sally Bedell Smith book on Charles for a few years, then someone gave me this today. I've only just read the preface, and it makes Bedell Smith's book seem like a Valentine's Day card.

I'll read it. I read them all.
 
I have all the modern bios of Prince Charles, including Bowers’ one. He certainly goes for the jugular with regard to Charles and his staff. I’m never sure of the accuracy with Bowers work, though. I like things thoroughly footnoted if possible.
 
Last edited:
Curryong said:
I have all the modern bios of Prince Charles, including Bowers’ one. He certainly goes for the jugular with regard to Charles and his staff. I’m never sure of the accuracy with Bowers work, though. I like things thorough footnoted if possible.
Click to expand...


At first glance, his index seemed incomplete. Some names in the preface were not listed in the index. I don't know the industry standard about such things, so this may be a fussy nitpicking observation.

I will read it through. Bowers seems decisive in his observations. Sally in comparison, mind, I just cracked the book, Sally seems almost passive/aggressive in comparison.
 
Last edited:
Bowers writes hatchet job books. Which is fair enough for people like Robert Maxwell whose career was pretty dire, but Im not sure if it is fair to someone like Charles.. who has faults like everyone but is basicaly a well meaning man....
 
Denville said:
Bowers writes hatchet job books. Which is fair enough for people like Robert Maxwell whose career was pretty dire, but Im not sure if it is fair to someone like Charles.. who has faults like everyone but is basicaly a well meaning man....
Click to expand...

Faults, sure, but from what I have read in many books, he makes it clear that he thinks he is not like everyone else. This book seems more hard-hitting than my other royal books, the Sarah Bradfords, Angela Kelly, William Shawcross, etc,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
Charities and Causes of King Charles III and the Prince's Trust 2, Sep 2022 -
Replies
13
Views
800
maria-olivia
maria-olivia
Blog Real
Princess Alice of the United Kingdom and Prince Ludwig Hesse and by Rhine - 1862
Replies
3
Views
834
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
M
Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1
12 13 14
Replies
390
Views
46K
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
Prince Ernst August (V) and the Royal House of Hanover 2: 2022 -
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
SirGyamfi1
S
Blog Real
Anne, Queen of Great Britain (1665 –1714) and Prince George of Denmark (1653 – 1708)
Replies
10
Views
2K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom