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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

WreathOfLaurels

Courtier
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
592
City
Wellington
Country
New Zealand
"Prince Charles: The Passions & Paradoxes..." by Sally Bedell Smith (2017)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...on-prince-charles-on-planet-windsor/18538341/

Sally Bedell Smith, who is the author of biographies of both the queen and Diana, next planned project is what is being pitched as the "first full biography of the Prince for twenty years". Coming on the heels of Catherine Mayer's study, this should be interesting.

The article posted is about Catherine Mayers book but Smiths volume is mentioned toward the bottom. I found out about this most exciting development via the Goodreads app.
 
Thanks for posting this, Laurels. I enjoy Sally's biographies. I'm looking forward to it.
 
Oh good! Her bios are typically very well sourced and researched


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
I will be interested to see what Bedell Smith's take on Charles. The man seems to be the royal equivalent of a Roarshach test - often the authors view of C says more about themselves.
 
I will be interested to see what Bedell Smith's take on Charles. The man seems to be the royal equivalent of a Roarshach test - often the authors view of C says more about themselves.


I think that's true with many royal figures honestly.

I always use Anne Boelyn as an example of how history changes depending on the perspective of the teller- and Anne's story has always been heavily influenced in its telling by the perspective the writer has on women.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
I think that's true with many royal figures honestly.

I always use Anne Boelyn as an example of how history changes depending on the perspective of the teller- and Anne's story has always been heavily influenced in its telling by the perspective the writer has on women.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Touché :)
 
I wasn't impressed by her Diana bio
 
I'm currently reading it and haven't formed an opinion on it yet. :D
 
Why do people write things kind of things? If it happened, it's private and no one really needs to know
 
Oh please, are we back in 1992 ?
And still 6 months to go ...

It will only get worse as the anniversary approaches and the Diana fanatics demand that everyone wears sackcloth and ashes and moans and groans about the passing of the Sainted One and that includes demonising Charles and Camilla as the Devil Incarnate.

Fortunately these days most intelligent people have figured out that Diana was the innocent she portrayed herself as and that Charles wasn't quite as evil as Diana would like us to believe.

However the Diana fanatics are a very vocal minority and insist that everyone sees the main players in the same way that they do rather than admit that they were wrong in their interpretation Diana.
 
I would hope that Sally Bedell Smith will give a balanced view in her biography of Charles. I liked her biography of Diana in spite of my being a Diana fan. She was fair in pointing out Diana's foibles and faults in that book and I think she will do the same with Charles.

I mainly posted the DM link on this biography because in its usual way the Daily Fail article cherry picks, mistranscribes and sensationalises, which is why I called it their interpretation of this biography. Nevertheless, I've already preordered the book on Kindle and look forward to reading it.
 
Last edited:
It will only get worse as the anniversary approaches and the Diana fanatics demand that everyone wears sackcloth and ashes and moans and groans about the passing of the Sainted One and that includes demonising Charles and Camilla as the Devil Incarnate.

Fortunately these days most intelligent people have figured out that Diana was the innocent she portrayed herself as and that Charles wasn't quite as evil as Diana would like us to believe.

However the Diana fanatics are a very vocal minority and insist that everyone sees the main players in the same way that they do rather than admit that they were wrong in their interpretation Diana.
I understand that you have strong opinions on this subject, but I think this might be an overstatement.
 
Judging by the DM article, I'm not too impressed and don't plan to read it. Nothing new indeed.
 
It will only get worse as the anniversary approaches and the Diana fanatics demand that everyone wears sackcloth and ashes and moans and groans about the passing of the Sainted One and that includes demonising Charles and Camilla as the Devil Incarnate.



Fortunately these days most intelligent people have figured out that Diana was the innocent she portrayed herself as and that Charles wasn't quite as evil as Diana would like us to believe.



However the Diana fanatics are a very vocal minority and insist that everyone sees the main players in the same way that they do rather than admit that they were wrong in their interpretation Diana.



Really is there any need to use language like that . You can have your views of Diana without being rude to others who don't share your view. If you dislike her and as you say it's 20 years why can't you let it go too
 
Oh please, are we back in 1992 ?
And still 6 months to go ...
I understand that you have strong opinions on this subject, but I think this might be an overstatement.
No Nico, it's not the 1992 separation but the 20th anniversary of the death of Diana that will give rise to this sort of OTT rubbish.

Daenerys Targaryen, you may find Iluvbertie's statement strong but really, after the marriage ended in 1992, are we not all overdue for a little sanity. And here's yet another story . . . Diana smacking Charles around the swede every time he knelt to pray. Really?
 
Judging by the DM article, I'm not too impressed and don't plan to read it. Nothing new indeed.



The Kirkus review was really good though, and I can't imagine the Daily Mail choosing to excerpt the complicated parts or anything that didn't focus on salacious derails. I've liked her other books so I'm going to read it.
 
Judging by the DM article, I'm not too impressed and don't plan to read it. Nothing new indeed.

It's the DM, I personally don't place too much stock in what they say. SBS's biography of the queen was very good and although her Diana biography was flawed (to say the least) it was still one of the first attempts at a critical look at Diana in the round, and personally I didn't think it was too bad - Sarah Bradford had good things to say of it and that's a good endorsement as far as I'm concerned. The other non-DM reviews have said that there's a lot more about his public activities as PoW and its much broader than the "Chuck 'n Di" show it's made out as being, as well as a look at his approach to being king when the time comes, SBS has contacts and the palace regard her as a safe pair of hands following her queen biography so from what I've heard she can go further than Catherine Meyer's 2015 book was able to.

I, for one, am keen to read it.

Edit: I need to clarify about the SBS bio of Diana, although SBS shouldn't have tried to posthumously diagnose Diana as it's very poor journalism ethics unless you have supporting evidence from medical records and expert opinion, it wasn't the worst bio on aher and some of SBS's observations I felt were valid and worth taking into consideration.

I do wonder how much of the reaction to the idea that Diana was BPD - an idea that was given serious consideration in her own lifetime by some who knew her and a number of experts - has to do with the sigma of personality disorders and how much with the presumption of diagnosis at a distance (see the Goldwater rule).

(Just for the record - I don't think D was BPD)
 
Last edited:
I read SBS's biography of the late Princess of Wales years ago. I was concerned that she seemed to make a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder on a woman she never treated-indeed she has no MD or psychiatric training at all.

By Bedell's own admission only met the late princess once in the 90's during a visit to Martha's Vineyard.

Now she rehashes almost the identical comments and phrases in this new study of Prince Charles that she used in her Diana bio.:bang:

She admitted(in the forward to the Diana book) that she was disappointed when Diana sort of blew her off on Martha's Vineyard during that 1990's meeting. If only Diana had been a little friendlier we might have all been spared this continuing post mortem armchair analysis of the late princess as a certifiable nut case.:cool:
 
What dismays me is that so much has been written about Charles, Diana and Camilla, that there's very little "new" information about the relationship, marriage and divorce, and with Camilla's role. All that come bash Charles, Diana, or Charles and Camilla. It's an endless line of taking advantage of events such as the 20th anniversary of Diana's death. The press also takes advantage of the situation by plugging the books as containing "shocking new facts" when there is not that much to write about except one incident that happened that may not have been reported before. It's an endless circle that after 36 yr. there's nothing new to discuss. Everyone has their argument for or against C/C/D.
 
Yes, I do agree that it was very irresponsible of Bedell Smith with no medical training at all to make a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder with regard to Diana. As a fan of Diana's though, I never felt there were gratuitous digs at her in the book as I have noticed with Penny Junor, for example.

Moonmaiden quote
She admitted(in the forward to the Diana book) that she was disappointed when Diana sort of blew her off on Martha's Vineyard during that 1990's meeting. If only Diana had been a little friendlier we might have all been spared this continuing post mortem armchair analysis of the late princess as a certifiable nut case.
End Quote __________________

On the other hand, MoonMaiden, Tina Brown, in her biography of Diana, made rather a lot of Charles cracking his knuckles and seeming anguished when she met him in the US.

I suppose all authors of biographies of royals seek for a hook on which to hang their book, some personal anecdote, especially with such well-worn ground as the Wales marriage. Nevertheless, Borderline misdiagnosis excepted, I do like Sally Bedell Smith's style of writing and I have the new biography of Charles on pre order on Kindle.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Bedell-Smith is an easy, engaging read Curryong. I flew through her Diana book in a couple of days.

I also agree about Penny Junor's gratuitous digs at Diana. The woman appalls me. I won't have anything to do with her books anymore.
 
Last edited:
"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
 
These snippets in the DM article seem terribly unbalanced, and full of statements by Charles's relatives and friends, including some who have already stated publicly that they disliked Diana. Pamela Hicks has even complained about Diana sending Charles for her handbag when she first met her. Where are Diana's friends? They're certainly not quoted here. These extracts almost make Charles appear a saintly martyr in charge of a 'mad' wife. I want to be fair, which is why I've pre-ordered this book but this all reads like a Junor piece. I hope the DM are just cherry picking.
 
:previous:

Amen. As if being barely out of ones' teens and married to a man whom you have suspected from the beginning is in love with another woman is not enough of a reason for "instability".:bang::cool:

I do wish the DM would provide some opposing views in the name of balance if nothing else, but knowing who the author is does not give me hope...Junor and Bedell-Smith are cut out of the same cloth when it comes to the Wales marriage and Diana's culpability in it's ultimate failure.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom