I've started reading this. I didn't think that I liked Anne de Courcy's writing but this particular book is well-written.
She states that Snowdon did indeed authorise this (!) and she regards him with affection. He's certainly very complicated. de Courcy blames his bad relationships on his upbringing. His parents were divorced and his mother was rather cold and preferred the sons of her second marriage to the children from the first. It all sounds incredibly old-fashioned and difficult. The children were not allowed in certain rooms, for example.
When Snowdon became a photographer he was looked down on by many in 'society'. He was even beaten up a few times! After one instance he dressed himself up and turned up again at events as if nothing had happened.
He's courageous and charming, but not especially likeable so far!
Unfortunately no library with English books so I will have to buy it but that doesn´t worry me I love books, I have some on the way and then I am going to get this one, it will be interesting to see his side of the story, but then we don´t really know Princess Margaret´s side of it and probably never will.
God, he sounds like such a hedonist. I don't think I could read this book. The biography of Princess Margaret was excessively hedonistic and was rather depressing to read.
I don't think I could take another book like that.
__________________ "One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
Funny how this book has come out now that Margaret is dead. I have her authorised biography, which of course makes for tame reading compared to what this book promises. Interesting though how his own biography doesn't seem to be any kinder to him than hers was.
I've recently finished reading Robert Rhodes James "political biography" of George VI and am interested in discussing it here with anyone who's interested. What I found fascinating about it is how much influence a monarch can have while still being within constitutional bounds.
They're not like us, the Royal Family. Or are they? We simply don't know and we're all intrigued to find out. Remember the headlining story of Charles' 'choosing the egg' ceremony? We Are Amused is the practical miscellany of the royal family that everyone's been waiting for. True or false - the Queen Mother gave her clothes to charity? Hundreds of people send Her Majesty boxes of chocolates on her birthday - what happens to them? Where are the best places to go to see the Royal Family? Does the Queen hold a driving licence and did she pass a test? What are the correct days and hours when it is permitted to fly a flag above Buckingham Palace? Including fascinating facts on Abdication, Birthdays, Christmas, Dining, Equerries, Fashion, Garden Parties, Hairdressers, Insignia, the Jewel House, Kensington Palace, Liveries, Maids of Honour, Nannies, Orbs, Protection Squads, the Queen's Piper, Racing, Tartans, the Union Jack, Queen Victoria, Weddings, the X-ray Machine at Buckingham Palace, Yachts and Zara Phillips - this is an unbeatable little guide to our great Monarchy.
promotional use, free of copyright
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."
image 1: first published 1997
image 2: reissued with new material 2010
images are promotional material and not subject to copyright
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.
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.
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."
Real princesses always wear sleeves so why do we all go for strapless?
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.
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.