"Prince Charles: The Passions & Paradoxes..." by Sally Bedell Smith (2017)

[Lady Nimue]

"How Diana's emotional instability sent Charles into therapy for 14 years: Eminent royal biographer claims Prince was in a 'terrible trap' after his 'tormented' wife refused help and continually sparked rows even when he was trying to pray. The couple were already facing difficulty when they honeymooned at Balmoral. The princess was prescribed Valium but she refused to take it, convinced the family were trying to sedate her."

How Diana's instability sent Prince Charles into therapy | Daily Mail Online

Engrossing read, pretty much on a par with what I have read over the years. IMHO it is even-handed in giving Charles' experience. We all know what Diana said. Her spin on the whole marriage is legend and what has usually been held up as 'fact'. Now we have some other 'facts' to make a whole. Sounds about right to me.

 

[Curryong]

There we will have to agree to disagree. I found that article distinctly uneven-handed and unbalanced. Not all fault was on Diana's side by any means. However I believe it is the DM cherry picking and stirring the pot as usual. I look forward to reading the entire book.

 

[Dman]

Engrossing read, pretty much on a par with what I have read over the years. IMHO it is even-handed in giving Charles' experience. We all know what Diana said. Her spin on the whole marriage is legend and what has usually been held up as 'fact'. Now we have some other 'facts' to make a whole. Sounds about right to me.

Over the years people have tried to rewrite the story about the Wales time and time again. It's been pretty much about money and putting their own take on the saga. Once someone can think of another twist and narrative, another book will be written.

 

[QueenPenny]

People really need to stop trying to rewrite this saga. It's all done for money, but it's all tiring now. It's time to leave this stuff in the past.

I couldn't agree more! Until/unless there is new verifiable information, the whole story has been told time & time again, and at this point is tiring.

There we will have to agree to disagree. I found that article distinctly uneven-handed and unbalanced. Not all fault was on Diana's side by any means. However I believe it is the DM cherry picking and stirring the pot as usual. I look forward to reading the entire book.

I am not Lady Nimue, but I think her point was that Diana's version of the story has been canon for the past 2.5 decades. The DM article, and maybe the entire book, may be more favorable to Charles, but perhaps put together with Diana’s version, will present a more complete, balanced story.

Honestly, I think the whole truth lies somewhere in the middle, but mileage varies.

Lady N - I hope I have interpreted your post accurately.

 

[Nico]

Engrossing read, pretty much on a par with what I have read over the years. IMHO it is even-handed in giving Charles' experience. We all know what Diana said. Her spin on the whole marriage is legend and what has usually been held up as 'fact'. Now we have some other 'facts' to make a whole. Sounds about right to me.

Hear ! Hear ! It's about time for some balance indeed.
The Morton book is still seen as the untouchable and one sided truth and now, surprise, surprise, some authors are trying to put some grain of salt in that mythology. I say well done !
Enough with the double standard.
Of course it will be crass, one sided, unbalanced and unfair. FOR ONCE i would say. For decades we had ad nauseam the same crass, one sided, unbalanced and unfair story about the victim Princess vs the aloof Prince.
At the end is this kind of litterature useful ? To be honnest i don't think so, because i guess the truth is somewhere in between the two versions.
BUT i can't wait to see the usual brigade forming the ranks and screaming scandal . NOW that's entertaining !
And yes it's official, we are a back in 1992 ...

 

[Lady Nimue]

I am not Lady Nimue, but I think her point was that Diana's version of the story has been canon for the past 2.5 decades. The DM article, and maybe the entire book, may be more favorable to Charles, but perhaps put together with Diana’s version, will present a more complete, balanced story.

Honestly, I think the whole truth lies somewhere in the middle, but mileage varies.

Lady N - I hope I have interpreted your post accurately.

Yes, you have, QueenPenny. Thank you.

 

[Frelinghighness]

How this woman can sleep at night writing these books on famous people like the queen and prince charles, kennedys,etc. just so money grubbing and all she comes up with is some kind of pastiche.

 

[Lady Nimue]

How this woman can sleep at night writing these books on famous people like the queen and prince charles, kennedys,etc. just so money grubbing and all she comes up with is some kind of pastiche.

Her books are well-sourced. I would imagine she sleeps very well since she brings a great deal of clarity to muddy waters imo.

Was Diana's Morton book a pastiche? Just wondering.

This is an example of what Bedell Smith clarifies: Diana claimed she was a lamb to the slaughter, among other things. Would you not want to know what people present at the time saw? Consider these sourced quotes -

Diana first came sharply into the Prince’s focus during a Sussex house-party weekend in July 1980. Another guest, Charles’s former girlfriend Sabrina Guinness, recalled: ‘She was giggling, looking up at him . . . furiously trying to make an impression.’

Charles then invited Diana to join him aboard the royal yacht Britannia for the annual Cowes regatta in early August.

His ever-vigilant valet, Stephen Barry, observed that she ‘went after the Prince with single-minded determination. She wanted him and she got him.’ The following month, Diana went deer-stalking with Charles, getting covered in mud, and ‘laughing her head off’ in a rainstorm, according to the Prince’s friend, Patti Palmer-Tomkinson.

[...]

As he dithered over whether to propose, three friends voiced their misgivings. Penny Romsey, the wife of Mountbatten’s grandson Norton, cautioned the Prince that he and his new girlfriend had little in common; she also questioned whether Diana’s feelings for him were genuine.

Diana appeared to be ‘auditioning for a central role in a costume drama’ she said — and, much to Charles’s anger, Penny’s husband seconded her concerns.

 

[Dman]

Her books are well-sourced. I would imagine she sleeps very well since she brings a great deal of clarity to muddy waters imo.

Was Diana's Morton book a pastiche? Just wondering.

They're both just writing the books to make money and gain some attention. No matter anyone think of Charles and Diana, they had some happy years in their marriage and some turbulent years. It's a total shame that people busy themselves trying to rewrite the couple's ups and downs over and over again. There's really nothing we haven't heard of before in these stories. A lot of the truth has been twisted so much to fit the authors narritive and personal angles.

 

[Lady Nimue]

They're both just writing the books to make money and gain some attention.

That's an opinion, and dismissive. Read the excerpt to see how many areas she illuminates.

It's a total shame that people busy themselves trying to rewrite the couple's ups and downs over and over again.

Bedell-Smith is not re-writing (as in concocting), rather she is filling in the massive blank: in what Diana reported, what did others see, and especially what was Charles experiencing. All valid journalistic history.

There's really nothing we haven't heard of before in these stories. A lot of the truth has been twisted so much to fit the authors narrative and personal angles.

Apparently it's not been heard because it is Diana's narrative that is given credence. As best as I can discern there is nothing 'twisted' in Bedell-Smith's rendering. If you are a Diana fan, you should read it. I don't think you will be 'disappointed'. If she is in error, point it out. That would be valuable.

 

[Dman]

That's an opinion, and dismissive. Read the excerpt to see how many areas she illuminates.



Bedell-Smith is not re-writing (as in concocting), rather she is filling in the massive blank: in what Diana reported, what did others see, and especially what was Charles experiencing. All valid journalistic history.



Apparently it's not been heard because it is Diana's narrative that is given credence. As best as I can discern there is nothing 'twisted' in Bedell-Smith's rendering. If you are a Diana fan, you should read it. I don't think you will be 'disappointed'. If she is in error, point it out. That would be valuable.

Both sides have been written about over and over again. Nothing presented in this upcoming book is new. It's just being done for profit off the Prince and Princess of Wales personal life. Practically every few years people write the same stuff that's been already written. The trouble is people these authors know they have an audience for it and are willing to buy into these sagas.

 

[Curryong]

The DM are serialising this, or cherry picking, if you will! However, this latest excerpt concentrates on how Charles deals with those who disagree with his beliefs and opinions.

Inside the toxic court of Charles: A startling portrait | Daily Mail Online

 

[Rudolph]

I don't know what to make of this biography. Some excerpts are positive towards Charles and others are absolutely brutal.

 

[Curryong]

I guess you have to read the whole biography, without the 'benefit' of Daily Fail cherry picking, to get a rounded picture of the man. It's being released on Kindle on the 7th and I have to say, I can't wait. Having said that though, it seems to be well-researched and gives the good, the bad and the ugly sides of Charles!

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

I guess you have to read the whole biography, without the 'benefit' of Daily Fail cherry picking, to get a rounded picture of the man. It's being released on Kindle on the 7th and I have to say, I can't wait. Having said that though, it seems to be well-researched and gives the good, the bad and the ugly sides of Charles!

Agree Curry, I think it might get be a good idea to stop posting links to the DM on this book as they aren't helping the discussion. Let's all keep an open mind until it's available to make up our own minds about.

 

[TLLK]

I guess you have to read the whole biography, without the 'benefit' of Daily Fail cherry picking, to get a rounded picture of the man. It's being released on Kindle on the 7th and I have to say, I can't wait. Having said that though, it seems to be well-researched and gives the good, the bad and the ugly sides of Charles!

To earn the opinion of it being a balanced biography then it should have the good, the bad, the ugly of its individual. Let us know your impressions Curryong.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Her books are well-sourced. I would imagine she sleeps very well since she brings a great deal of clarity to muddy waters imo.

Was Diana's Morton book a pastiche? Just wondering.

This is an example of what Bedell Smith clarifies: Diana claimed she was a lamb to the slaughter, among other things. Would you not want to know what people present at the time saw? Consider these sourced quotes -

All of the quotes you mention have been written before, and are in different books, by others. Nothing new here. A round up, compilation, or pastiche of what's been published, as Dman also mentioned

 

[Lady Nimue]

I don't know what to make of this biography. Some excerpts are positive towards Charles and others are absolutely brutal.

I am reading other excerpts and what I see is a serious, well-researched book, giving a sensitive, grounded portrayal of the man.

I guess you have to read the whole biography, without the 'benefit' of Daily Fail cherry picking, to get a rounded picture of the man. It's being released on Kindle on the 7th and I have to say, I can't wait. Having said that though, it seems to be well-researched and gives the good, the bad and the ugly sides of Charles!

I agree, but what is being given is an insightful exploration regarding how Charles was shaped via his experiences. It makes him very accessible imo.

Agree Curry, I think it might get be a good idea to stop posting links to the DM on this book as they aren't helping the discussion. Let's all keep an open mind until it's available to make up our own minds about.

Disagree. The links are great. Those who get upset easily just need to not click on the links. Problem solved.

All of the quotes you mention have been written before, and are in different books, by others. Nothing new here. A round up, compilation, or pastiche of what's been published, as Dman also mentioned.

Why sourcing other books would be a negative is a puzzle. Biographers do that all the time. It's how a particular biographer uses the information (quotes and all) that can be very different from other biographers, and in this instance, I believe we have a very gifted writer and an astute biographer. No matter that quotes and incidents were in other books, it's how she has woven them into the tapestry of the narrative of Charles' life, giving us insight that the other books did not. So doing, she has given us a valuable document imo.

I just read an excerpt in Vanity Fair: The Lonely Heir: Inside the Isolating Boarding School Days of Prince Charles | Vanity Fair

From what I read I feel I have a better understanding of how Charles was shaped into the man he is. I've ordered the book and look forward to the read.

 

[Skippyboo]

I actually purchased the book. I enjoyed her biography of the Queen back from a few years ago. The Charles book is very similar. The order is chronological. Where I am at is Charles leaving the Navy. What stood out so far to me was the lack of friends that Charles developed from school and university. Basically it was Richard Charteis and another guy. That's quite different from what happened to William.

 

[Marty91charmed]

I think I will but the book eventually. I have Bedell's book on the queen and I enjoyed it immensely. From what I've read of few bits here and there it is supposed to be an interesting bio. I've never been more eager to know more about Charles.

 

[Osipi]

This new biography of Charles is definitely on my "must buy" list when it hits my used books for dirt cheap website so that may be a while.

Sally Bedell Smith isn't a person that writes solely for sensational and gossipy information about her subjects. She very thoroughly researches every little bit of information and its packaged in a very easy to read format.

I adored her book on Elizabeth II and I liked how she did Diana's from an emotional viewpoint of a troubled woman. I'm staying away from any "links" that present what they want to present as I want to form my own opinion of the book if and when I do read it.

Charles does totally fascinate me. He's a complex man with a lot of hidden depths to him, very intelligent and a very astute businessman.

 

[Mirabel]

I intend to read the book, although I find it hard to imagine there's anything in it that hasn't already been said.

There's just so much written about Charles.

 

[Osipi]

To be absolutely honest, I found the best way to get to know Charles, the man was to read his own books. I absolutely love his Harmony.

 

[Curryong]

This bio is not too dear on Amazon Kindle. I've also read it and am going over the earlier chapters again. What does come over loud and clear is the very different personality of Charles from his parents, the adoration of his grandmother the Queen Mother and the misery of his schooldays, and that doesn't just mean Gordonstoun.

 

[eya]

Prince Charles Biography - Sally Bedell Smith Prince Charles Book

"Prince Charles won't step aside for William to be King"
"And he'll insist that Camilla is Queen, says Sally Bedell Smith ,who spend four years working on a biography of the Orince of Wales"

"In some ways, it’s a doddle being a monarchist. The case is so straightforward. We must have a symbolic head of state but we don’t want that person to also be the leader of the Government. So in the interests of dignity and continuity, we respect the crown. Easy-peasy. In other ways, it’s more difficult — for example, when there’s a new royal biography.
Veteran Vanity Fair journalist Sally Bedell Smith has just published a new book, Prince Charles — The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life, a 600-page slab claimed to be the first major biography of the Prince of Wales in more than two decades (presumably harking back to Jonathan Dimbleby’s authorised moanathon of 1995).
Bedell Smith maintains that, since she’s a royalist herself, the book is a “sympathetic portrait”. However, these two words do not sort well together for the simple reason that the more closely portrayed Prince Charles is, the less sympathetic we feel towards him. "

David Sexton: The more you know, the odder HRH Prince Charles appears | London Evening Standard

It's a long review in the New Yorker on Sally Bedell Smith's biography of Charles and the reviewer has come to the conclusion Bedell Smith doesn't like Prince Charles very much.

Where Prince Charles Went Wrong - The New Yorker

(Thanks to Curryong )

 

[Osipi]

Nothing new with that information. Actually, short of shooting himself in the foot and relinquishing his place as heir to the throne, its unthinkable by any rational person that Charles would step down in favor of William.

There's been well written articles lately about the subject of Camilla being Queen when Charles ascends and the only "say" Charles may have in the whole ball of wax is use the prerogative of the monarch and acclaim that Camilla, as Queen, will "be known as" something else.

No big stories or earth breaking news at all.

 

[Osipi]

Just to get into the spirit of things, here's an article with a slide show with 13 fascinating facts you didn't know about the royal family gleaned from Smith's new biography of Charles. I knew most of them.


https://www.aol.com/article/lifestyle/2017/04/11/fascinating-facts-royal-family-biography/22035857/

 

[Skippyboo]

The bit about the wedding invite list for the Cambridges was from a documentary on the Queen during the diamond jubilee where William tells that story.

 

[Osipi]

I remember that too from the Diamond Jubilee. Perhaps the author of the article picked it up as it was once again repeated in Sally's new book? Dunno.

 

[Dman]

Prince Charles feud with William and Kate Middleton | Daily Mail Online

Call me ignorant, but I have never believed Charles is somehow jealous of the Cambridge's. Why would he be? The Cambridge's are the darling of the monarchy and media in their youthful days as he and Diana were in the 80's. Every royal couple have their turn in the spotlight. Next it will be Harry and his future wife.

I think Charles is one of the most respected and well prepared Prince of Wales and future King in our lifetime. He established one of the most successful charitable foundation, the Prince's Trust. He's a hard working royal and humanitarian for a great deal of causes. I think he's very proud of his own achievements.

What in the world does he have to be jealous of?