"The Royals" by Kitty Kelley (1997)

[Warren]

"The Royals" by Kitty Kelley

News - The Independent
16 September 1997
Royals Besieged: Sources close to Kitty Kelley reveal it's all muck-raking

"Kitty Kelley, the controversial American biographer, will set the world gossiping this week about the loves and private lives of the Royal Family.
But is it all tawdry hype rehashing ancient and unproven gossip? Paul McCann talks to some of the people cited as `sources'. The veracity of the Kelley muck-raking book The Royals crumbled yesterday after her named sources emerged as professional gossips, left- wing republican journalists or were simply dead.

Much of the information in the book is attributed to "confidential sources" in the royal household, but many of those who are named denied yesterday providing Ms Kelley with any useful information while others turned out to be the third-hand reminiscences of dead aristocrats.

Dame Barbara Cartland, the romantic novelist, is quoted as the source of information on Earl Mountbatten and Prince Charles, but she denied ever having met, spoken to or corresponded with Kitty Kelley: "My secretary told me she wasn't safe," said Dame Barbara yesterday. "So she wouldn't let me speak to her." A close reading of The Royals reveals that Dame Barbara's information is in fact lifted from an old interview."

v covers
image 1: first published 1997
image 2: reissued with new material 2010

images are promotional material and not subject to copyright

[IloveCP]

A couple of days ago I was at the bookstore and walked to the royal books(of course) and spotted "The Royals" by Kitty Kelley.I wanted to see what was all the fuss about the author and read a few pages and I was hooked.


Its been four days and Im almost done with the 500 page book.

But there are some things that I dont want to believe like Margrete was a snob and treated her friends poorly,she was too lazy too to royal duties and insulted the Irish.

What do you think?Have any of you read the book?

[Lenora]

Yes,I read this book some years ago,there was specifically entitled "The Windsors" and it was divided in two parts.It's true there were many speculations,as the rivalry between Queen Mother and Missis Simpson for king Edward VIII's attention before the marriage.But it seems Kitty Kelly is a professional writer-biographer as she wrote many biographies of celebrities.

Generally,I enjoyed the first part of the book,the second one which is about Queen Elizabeth II's kids and Diana's death seemed to be the recollection of all more or less scandalous or poor taste press articles.I think some facts could be trustworthy but take the facts put in it with a grain of salt before making the final conclusions.

The facts about Margaret being snob I do agree,as there were many people declaring this fact.I think the best Windsors' biography author is Sarah Bradford that wrote precise statements and facts.

[EmpressRouge]

I read it when it first came out in 1997 when I was very young, so didn't realize you had to take everything with a grain of salt. Some of the stories were well-known. Others were nothing more than tabloid fluff (the worst probably being that the Queen was quite the nympho as a newlywed). Then there are stories that probably have a unreliable source but are probably true: when her marriage to Charles soured, Diana threw out all her low-heeled shoes (so she wouldn't tower over him in public) and said "Won't need these anymore."

[Katrianna]

I've read The Royals and it's trash. There's a lot of false information in it that stands out especially if one has read other books on the Royals from Sarah Bradford and Robert Lacey. Kitty Kelly is an author who, if she doesn't know the situation or subject, often writes from the tabloids instead of doing real research on her subjects. A lot of what she's written about the Royal Family and the War of the Wales is, in fact, not true. She's a cheap hack writer and I wouldn't even bother with anything she wrote.
CNN finally got rid of her as their "royal" authority because she was stupid and what she didn't know about Royal Weddings and such, she made up. I complained enough time to CNN about her, I'm sure they were tired of me.

[Mermaid1962]

Ms. Kelly is a writer who IMO finds the worst gutter trash about her subject, puts it all under one cover, and calls it a biography.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

The Royals was a good read but I recall that Prince Philip and either Margaret or Elizabeth QM came off looking bad.

[Meadow]

I agree about Kitty Kelly her research seemed to be very limited. I picked up a few errors and some things just didn't ring true. I think it was Prince Phillip who came off pretty badly she pretty much trashed the marriage between the Queen and Prince Phillip. I thought it was more a fictional account to make for some good tabloid headlines which is the theme for all her books.

[Super Baroness]

I picked up "The Royals" last summer at a thrift shop - and it got me hooked on royalty. I knew absolutely nothing about the BRF except for bits about the Queen, Charles, Diana, William and Harry. When I read it the first time, still confused about titles, I stumbled over the fact there was a Prince of Wales, a Duke of York, and then a Queen Elizabeth running around in the 1930's. Each time I read the book, I learn more and see more careless mistakes. A very obvious one is that one of the pictures is labeled as Queen Victoria with her "son" The Duke of York (the future George V)!

Originally Posted by Meadow

I thought it was more a fictional account to make for some good tabloid headlines which is the theme for all her books.

That's exactly what I think - "The Royals" is basically one long, detailed tabloid (subject: the British Royal Family).

[IloveCP]

If the book is not true,than Kitty does have a lot of guts saying that Margaret,Philip,and Queen Mother are "racist" and a lot of other stuff she claims they have done.

No wonder it's banned from Britain!

[Elly C]

Originally Posted by IloveCP

No wonder it's banned from Britain!

I wasn't aware it was banned - is this still the case? I find it hard to believe the book has been censored given the liberal attitude to publishing unauthorised material here in the UK

[IloveCP]

It said so on the back of the book.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by IloveCP

It said so on the back of the book.

Kitty Kelley writes sensational books; blurb's on the back cover conform to this style, and truth be damned.
The book is NOT banned in Britain; it has never been published there due to the libel laws and neither Ms Kelly nor the publisher were prepared to place themselves at legal risk.

unofficialroyalty.com- Pandora's Box- Urban Legends of the Royal Kind

Legend: Kitty Kelley’s book was banned in the UK
Status: False
Explanation: Kitty Kelley’s book has never been published in the UK, leading many conspiracy theorists to allege that it was banned. The story has now risen to the level of urban legend but it is completely untrue. Britain’s tough libel laws differ greatly from those in the US and would certainly have led to a large verdict against Ms. Kelley and her publishers. As a result, neither was willing to take the risk of publishing the book in Britain. At no time did the Royal Family ban the book.

[IloveCP]

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Biri]

I heard that she had written that Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret were conceived via IVF; and IVF didn't exist in that times.

[Princess of Durham]

Originally Posted by Biri

I heard that she had written that Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret were conceived via IVF; and IVF didn't exist in that times.

Was it that or artificial insemination? Not the same thing ... in any event completely tasteless. Whose business is it anyway?

[Sonjapearl]

Kitty Kelly has been sued and denounced numerous times with her books on Frank Sinatra, Oprah Winfrey and Jackie O. "The Royals" should be no exception.

I remember after Diana died, Kitty would tear up during interviews by the mere mention of her. That came across as phony to me.

[Eve2Eden]

Originally Posted by Princess of Durham

Was it that or artificial insemination? Not the same thing ... in any event completely tasteless. Whose business is it anyway?

It was artificial insemination.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Im re-reading her book now. Pretty interesting, although the British Press seem to not understand the freedom of the press theory, nor do I know if it is practiced in England. They give in far to easily to the morons around the BRF and their stupid demands. "Thou shalt not mention the royal bosom".
As for trashing the marriage of Philip and Elizabeth I don't think she did that; I actually found myself sympathizing with Philip and thinking his rumored affairs were ok.

[AristoCat]

I suspect that quite a bit of it is true; it is true that George V sacrificed his family for the sake of his image/PR and it is true that Fergie was running around with her hands wide open, grasping at all she could get. There was a lot going on with the RF that hasn't been really paid attention to and I don't see how it would be banned if it were just rubbish.