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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Apparently, he was jealous of the attention Diana received. If true, maybe he is a little jealous of the Cambridges, which is unfortunate.

Maybe he thinks the spotlight should always be on him.

I don't know much about the author but people on this thread seem to think she's reliable.

I don't know what to think.
 
I'm not a super fan of Charles...but I just don't think this is true. He's always been very warm and affectionate with his boys and all reports are that he has a good/warm relationship with Kate and them as a family unit.

We know he's puttered around in the garden with George before.


LaRae
 
Apparently, he was jealous of the attention Diana received. If true, maybe he is a little jealous of the Cambridges, which is unfortunate.

Maybe he thinks the spotlight should always be on him.

I don't know much about the author but people on this thread seem to think she's reliable.

I don't know what to think.

I think this author and many others have transferred his past problems of his first marriage to his sons and daughter-in-law. Yes, he was jealous of Diana, but I don't think he feels the same way for his children and Catherine.

If this was a problem, it will only get worse for him. The Cambridge's are preparing to take on more duties this year and into the future.

I happen to think Charles and Diana was way more popular than the Cambridge's. If you go back to the height of the Charles and Di days, it was way more mind blowing. Even the crowds that greeted them were enormous and deep.
 
I kind of see the problem of Diana grabbing the limelight of attention in a different way than perhaps Charles being "jealous" of her. I'm sure he must have felt kind of let down when people expressly showed their preference for Diana over Charles but I also think that perhaps the upsetting part could have possibly be that Diana's star power and draw detracted and took away the "royal" part of the reason the Prince of Wales was there. Crowds were amassing much like groupies at the stage door of a rock star rather that acknowledging the representative of their monarch and the royal meaning behind the occasion.

I hope this makes sense. Charles has always been a sensitive sort of a person and perhaps felt slights more than a normal everyday person would. He's also very devoted to his duties and the things he takes on and it had to have upset him to be made to feel he was among "groupies" trying to get at Diana.
 
Yes I think they were also (the masses of people) much crazier over Diane/Charles ...and I think the BRF has been much more careful with Kate because of it.


LaRae
 
I kind of see the problem of Diana grabbing the limelight of attention in a different way than perhaps Charles being "jealous" of her. I'm sure he must have felt kind of let down when people expressly showed their preference for Diana over Charles but I also think that perhaps the upsetting part could have possibly be that Diana's star power and draw detracted and took away the "royal" part of the reason the Prince of Wales was there. Crowds were amassing much like groupies at the stage door of a rock star rather that acknowledging the representative of their monarch and the royal meaning behind the occasion.

I hope this makes sense. Charles has always been a sensitive sort of a person and perhaps felt slights more than a normal everyday person would. He's also very devoted to his duties and the things he takes on and it had to have upset him to be made to feel he was among "groupies" trying to get at Diana.

I think a part of the problem is that Charles acted way more older than he was and it didn't help that he was married to much younger and informal woman. Love the guy, but Charles was way too stiff, starchy and formal than his wife. People don't attract to that. Also, women usually get more attention anyway. It takes a man who's secure in himself, career and life to handle it.
 
I think a part of the problem is that Charles acted way more older than he was and it didn't help that he was married to much younger and informal woman. Love the guy, but Charles was way too stiff, starchy and formal than his wife. People don't attract to that. Also, women usually get more attention anyway. It takes a man who's secure in himself, career and life to handle it.

Charles has had a rocky path to go in life when it came to finding himself and becoming comfortable in his own skin and I think, with Camilla's help, he's found that. He's happy, he's relaxed, he jokes around more and definitely smiling as if life is the grandest thing in the world.

I think when it comes to the Cambridges, when you think of a Grandpa, you think of a gentleman in the golden years of his life always ready and willing to play checkers, catch that frog or just relax with. Charles as a grandfather hasn't yet hit his stride for his main role in life, has a daily planner that probably take four of me to accomplish and isn't readily available all the time. I'm sure he loves his kids and his grandkids and the rest of his extended family but this is a man where duty comes first (like his mother) so the illusion is there that Charles just doesn't care or is envious or is a whole lot of other things.
 
Charles has had a rocky path to go in life when it came to finding himself and becoming comfortable in his own skin and I think, with Camilla's help, he's found that. He's happy, he's relaxed, he jokes around more and definitely smiling as if life is the grandest thing in the world.

I think when it comes to the Cambridges, when you think of a Grandpa, you think of a gentleman in the golden years of his life always ready and willing to play checkers, catch that frog or just relax with. Charles as a grandfather hasn't yet hit his stride for his main role in life, has a daily planner that probably take four of me to accomplish and isn't readily available all the time. I'm sure he loves his kids and his grandkids and the rest of his extended family but this is a man where duty comes first (like his mother) so the illusion is there that Charles just doesn't care or is envious or is a whole lot of other things.

I think with age and wisdom has caused him to be in a better place in his life. Also with the help of Camilla. On this recent royal tour, Charles pretty much lit up and beamed the whole time.

It's mind blowing to think that his time to step up to the "top job" is in the not too distant future.
 
I bet that Charles pretty much could have the same outlook on life as he has it now that I do and that is "if I only knew then what I know now". We do get older and wiser and our lives fall into place while our bodies fall out of place in a lot of spots. :D

All in all its the experiences good and bad that make us who we are right now.

I don't think its as amazing to think that his time to "step up to the main job" is near at hand is as amazing as realizing just how many decades he's had to work on being the best Prince of Wales the UK has had in um... forever and that he's still waiting to be King (might actually be a let down in some ways) due to the extraordinary longevity of his mother. That's a situation that really has worked its own miracles in its own ways eh? :D
 
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. :whistling:


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

Thanks for sharing the slideshow. The one about Prince Charles not liking the number of photo ops Will & Kate received during their first official trips after their honeymoon, is rather interesting and not something I'd heard previously.

And it's fascinating to see more about how the rest of the Queen's children and family get pushed down the line of status within the nuclear family after the marriage of Will and Kate. So it follows that when Prince Charles assumes the throne, Will & Kate, and Harry & his wife will be part of the nuclear royal family. And then as Prince George and Princess Charlotte reach their teens and early twenties, more of a media spotlight will be placed on them, and possibly to a degree on Harry's children. Once Prince William takes the throne, possibly in his mid-fifties, it would seem that Prince Harry and family's significance would lessen (if it hadn't already) as by that time Prince George and Princess Charlotte will surely be married with children. The major difference being that Will and Harry are close and there's only two of them, and not the five children that QE II had.

It's very interesting, yet unsurprising about Duchess Kate's interest in interior decorating. And also the fact that a nice, homey kitchen is the hub of young royal Kate's home, as that's the cultural norm these days. It was certainly never of that importance in QE IIs upbringing, nor Prince Charles' either. I'm sure that Kate's commoner upbringing influences this laid back, relaxed style which I think is a very good thing for the normal as possible upbringing that Prince George and Princess Charlotte are receiving. It will make for them being more relatable and engaging human beings. I'm certain that is what both Will and Harry will want for their children, just as their mother especially wanted for them.

Duchess Kate sneaking into an art gallery and not being recognized by at least two patrons is a fun anecdote. She majored in art history, so her enjoyment of art is unsurprising.

Have to laugh at the joke Prince Charles made after Princess Charlotte's birth. I think PC is happy to have a grand-daughter and that he looks at brunette-haired Duchess Kate as being the daughter he never had. :)

Princess Anne being very informal in her household staff arrangements, I suppose is not too surprising since she wasn't keen on her children carrying the HRH designation and bearing royal titles either.

The funny thing about Prince Harry teasing his father about his lack of knowledge of technology is that Prince Charles is said to be the first of the inner circle royals to begin using social media (although that may have been due to Harry's influence). In any case, there's a great deal to be said about the practice of communicating on occasion via handwritten notes (which Harry's girlfriend Meghan can attest, since she's waxed poetic about her love of handwritten notes on her former lifestye blog and in interviews -- she's also a calligrapher). :)
 
Last edited:
The more I think about it, the more I got to thinking that perhaps Anne's butler did a lot of butlering out in the barn maybe. :D

Still, its the little things that come from a biography that we've not heard about before and muse over that makes the publication all worth while.

It definitely is going to be a book I'll read. Someday. I'm cheap. :whistling:
 
Please read it Osipi and then tell us what you think, even if you get it on Kindle. Bedell Smith interviewed over 300 people for this book and although, as a Diana fan I didn't like some of the things I read about Diana in Sally's biography of her it was well researched as is this one.

I have read this before but Bedell Smith underlines the separation of the different royals. There is little direct communication as in popping into each other's flats at BP. Among the older royals a lack of face to face contact (especially so between Charles and Philip) even at moments of crisis, a lot of notes passed and messages through private secretaries even when the royals concerned are nearby at Windsor or in the castle at Balmoral.

SBS doesn't emphasise it at all or says there any kind of feud between Charles and the Cambridges, but you do get the impression that there's not a great deal of interaction between them any more. Charles rarely sees his grandchildren which is quite sad, but Sally does emphasise that he is a workaholic. There's also an undercurrent of Charles being a bit unhappy about the amount of publicity the Cambridges and Harry's charities and causes get while his own are sometimes ignored.
 
I don't know if the story about Charles rarely seeing his grandchildren. I'm sure William and Catherine spend time at Clarence House, Highgrove and Birkhall with him and bring the children.

I think the main reason why this story is out there is because the public don't get a chance to see Charles with the Cambridge family often. We see them on the balcony at the Trooping of the Colour, Christening pictures and the stamps, but we don't really see them out together as a family. I do see this as a problem. The rarity of seeing them as a family will lead to stories about strains between Charles and the Cambridge's.

It's important that they all spend private family time in private, but as the future of the Monarchy, optics's is also important. To be completely honest, Charles's branch of the family really don't present a united front to the public.

I feel I'm the only one who's paying attention to this.
 
Last edited:
If Charles wanted to be at things like George and Charlotte's birthday parties, he could have just told his staff he wanted those days free. The Queen went to George's 1st and Philip went to his second. He could have went to the red squirrel sanctuary on another day instead of July 22.

It's easier for Charles to go to where the kids are then take all the kids stuff to where Charles is especially when they are babies. In a couple years, they will both be in school full time and they aren't going to have a lot of free time.
 
I
I happen to think Charles and Diana was way more popular than the Cambridge's. If you go back to the height of the Charles and Di days, it was way more mind blowing. Even the crowds that greeted them were enormous and deep.
MCUH More popular than the dull W and kate. A lot of it was due to Dianas charm, but some of it was charles and he did benefit from being with her. and form the RF being much more "important" in media terms than it is now.
I don't intend to read this book as I don't like Bedell Smith, but it does sound as if she's "guessing" and if she's sayng that C was jealous of Diana (which he was) and so he's also jealous of Will and Kate, I don't think that that is true.
 
Please read it Osipi and then tell us what you think, even if you get it on Kindle. Bedell Smith interviewed over 300 people for this book and although, as a Diana fan I didn't like some of the things I read about Diana in Sally's biography of her it was well researched as is this one.

I while his own are sometimes ignored.
Its some time since I read it, but I remember thinking that it was very unfair to Diana. so I'm not sure she's likely to be fair to Charles. She may have interviewed 300 people but it depends who they were, and what she took from what was said, how good this bio is.
 
There is much about the Prince of Wales that I do not particularly like. His self-pity comes across as tiresome, and his touchiness over perceived personal slights is a very unappealing characteristic. Some of his causes, such as climate change, don't interest me in the least. Others, like modern architecture, particularly brutalist architecture, I am sympathetic with. But the way he tackles them, with such self-righteous indignation, just seems to annoy everyone. Yet every time I have met him on one of his walkabouts, he is friendly, funny, interested and relaxed.

So I was curious to see how Sally Bedell Smith would handle the paradox of a likeable man who so often I don't particularly like. In general, Prince Charles: the Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life gives a balanced overview of the life of the Prince of Wales so far. But she is far from an apologist, and tackles the good and the bad. Her sources are many, and are usually named in the extensive notes, though some are confidential. There is not very much in the way of new material, but it is an engaging read.

There is, of course, no avoiding the elephant in the room. The late Diana, Princess of Wales features prominently in the book, but Miss Smith does not give a blow by blow account of the whole sorry mess. Suffice to say incompatibility and jealousy, on both sides, destroyed the marriage. Personal opinions on the late Diana, Princess of Wales, will determine how the reader reacts to Miss Smith's conclusions. But, for me, they seemed reasonable, and were supported by appropriate evidence.

The book is clearly written with an American audience in mind. The Prince's Royal Visits to the United States feature very heavily, while Commonwealth visits barely get a mention. Miss Smith shows her ignorance of the Commonwealth Realms by referring to republican movements as a independence movements. She also claims that Jamaica is the fourth largest of the Queen's realms, after Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Jamaica actually comes after Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Finally, one of my pet hates. Every country in the world uses the metric system, apart from the Republic of Liberia, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and the United States of America. Even if the author is American, measurements should be in metric in books published for international distribution.

In conclusion, Prince Charles: the Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life is a readable book. It keeps the drama of his first marriage in perspective, and shows how the Prince's second marriage finally brought some happiness and stability to his life. It helped me appreciate the good qualities of the Prince of Wales, and understand his less than attractive behaviour. His reign is destined to be short, but I think he will make a thought provoking, and generally likeable King when the time comes.
 
Last edited:
Wonderful synopsis and review of SBS's biography of Charles. Its definitely earmarked for my library one of these days.

Thanks!
 
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.


I wouldn't say that.
The biography isn't a whitewash, but the author doesn't trash Charles, either.
It seemed fairly balanced to me.
 
from what I've read from people's mentioning it, I get the feeling that it is rather harsh in its view of Charles too. However I found her bio of Diana extremely unkind and unfair...
 
I wouldn't say that.
The biography isn't a whitewash, but the author doesn't trash Charles, either.
It seemed fairly balanced to me.

I agree. :flowers: Same for the Diana bio imo. Plain good journalism. Her works stand as major source material for those working on today's social history in the future (imo). Invaluable.
 
Weeelll.... I just read it over the weekend - was able to reserve a copy from the public library and I must say it was both worth the wait and $2 reservation fee. Contrary to what the Daily Fail was leading some to believe, its not the Chuck 'n Di show over again, but it's defiantly one of the better accounts and refreshingly pro-Charles. A lot of this is about PC's efforts of finding both his public role and I guess himself, as well as the future of the monarchy as an institution in the 21st century. SBS also gives probably in the absence of a proper biography of her own one of the best accounts of Camilla in any work hands down - a major plus.

Despite the utility of the Dimbleby biography as a primary source, its tone and style always makes me want to scream and throw it in a fireplace. SBS's did not. She is most certainly on Charles's side but she is also willing to draw attention to his bigger problems, the tendency towards self pity, the sometimes glaring lack of self awareness about his lifestyle (I personally wouldn't call it hypocracy as he does try), and biggest, his low capacity for critical and analytical thinking, which needs to be balanced against his quite high emotional intellegence, and how these all could be pitfalls as well as strengths as king.

I do personally think it could have benifited from a little more comparison on how Charles desire to use the throne as a bully pulpit isn't actually that outregeous in the grand scheme of things and that a number of other European monarchies do this woithout being dragged over the coals by the yellow press and the chattering classes - and that its no co-incidence that those have their constitutional settlements more clearly defined under law esp the monarchs powers (the same comparative approach could have also thrown some useful light on the breakdown of his and Diana's marriage but that's somthing else...). However, that's just me and I know that the book had to be kept fairly simple for general readers who probably aren't au fait or interested in European Royalty overall so I'm ok with that. SBS is also very good at explaining and spelling out a number of UK specific social/political/cultural phenomena and SBS has a good feel for the mores and values of PC's social milieu without being judgemental, as the book is written for a primarily American audience.

TL;DR - read this book, you won't regret it and its the best and most balanced Bio of Prince Charles to date.
 
Back
Top Bottom