"The Royals" by Kitty Kelley (1997)

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Bertie if you can't recognize why Kitty didn't want to go through the hassle of publishing her book in a country that has happily built up walls of lies to protect the BRF then I am not going to try and convince you.

If you can't see that a publishing decision to not produce a book for a particular market because of the libel laws that apply in that market is an admission by the author and publisher as being libelous - that is wrong - then I won't convince you.

Seeing as how much of what Kitty wrote has been written by other biographers writing about the family I am much more inclined to believe she was at least on the right path. Never said I believed everything she said, mostly the things she says that 3 or 4 other writers have also said probably rings of some truth.

She had some provable facts right of course but it was the hearsay stuff, and there is heaps of that, that has always been the stuff that is questionable - as any decent historian will be able to tell you.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Well then clearly we do not have a problem because as I have said numerous times on here I DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT SHE WRITES!
I just finished the book and IMO, the things She says about the early years George V to Elizabeth II has the most truth to it. And I stand by my criticism of George for his Germaphobia. I've also read othe sources that mention similar things that Kitty mentions about Princess Margaret. It is late in the book ESPECIALLY with Fergie hearsay and the Charles and Di separation that things get more "gossipy", less credible and downright National Enquirer. But one thing from that period I've got to look into is the supposed records of Diana's phone calls to the Hoare's.
For now it is time to read "George, Nicholas, and Wilhelm".

[Lenora]

I have the mixed impression about Kitty Kelly's book.The first part of the book(before the young Windsor generation) is written in better literary style,it seems more documented,while the other part is more bassed on gossip papers.
But generally I like the reading and I do think on the surface the facts presented in it are true.

[AristoCat]

I've got to look into is the supposed records of Diana's phone calls to the Hoare's.

That actually did happen.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

That actually did happen.

Unfortunately, when it is written in a book by Kitty Kelly people find it hard to believe. Kitty Kelly is such a sleazy liar and writes such trash that some of her books now have disclaimers and refer to them as as works of fiction.

Even the truth coming out of her mouth has become impossible to believe.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Lenora, that's what I think as well. Early 19th century was probably true, I don't know why her writing style changed with the younger generation, especially when Diana showed up.

[MARG]

Because writing anything remotely connected with Diana is a goldmine of course!!

[AristoCat]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Lenora, that's what I think as well. Early 19th century was probably true, I don't know why her writing style changed with the younger generation, especially when Diana showed up.

Well, it's because it got that much more scandal ridden and the tabloids ended up being correct in many things. It was all drama with Diana and Fergie and the scandals sold copies in the millions.