Eve2Eden
Aristocracy
- Joined
- May 25, 2004
- Messages
- 113
Princess of Durham said:Was it that or artificial insemination? Not the same thing ... in any event completely tasteless. Whose business is it anyway?
It was artificial insemination.
Princess of Durham said:Was it that or artificial insemination? Not the same thing ... in any event completely tasteless. Whose business is it anyway?
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
I don't think George was worried about "many people", but he was worried about his position and the volitile times. It is just a statement, I happened to like him, but that doesn't excuse his lack of courage to save others.
True, but being worried about his position doesn't mean being worried for his own sake. If the Throne was toppled, it would be by revolution and not by peaceful means. In a revolution, the only people who don't suffer are the ones who get out of the country fast.
It is obvious that XeniaCasaraghi and AristoCat failed to understand the difference between a book being banned and the overwhelming evidence (in the book) that would result in a libel suit that would clean her out!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.
Huh? We have a Constitutional Monarchy not a Banana Repulic Dictatorship! Just pick up any Tabloid in the supermarket and you will see how "intimidated" they are and how gullablie you are.Why is everyone so intimidated by the FR?
Most bio's get stuff wrong, Kitty's problem seems to be she angered people by expressing unflattering aspects of the family. Some of the things she mentions have also appeared in other works.
Right now I am in the Sarah years, wish I could see a picture of some horrendous outfit the author is describing. Poor Sarah and the BRF, her honeymoon period with the public lasted around 30 seconds.
Even if most of the book is false there is a quote from it that is true.Someone said,"Royal children will always be lonely,that's something they can't do about".
Kitty also claims that Elizabeth and Philip missed a lot of birthdays,first days of school,etc.
I think personally the one who deserved it the most was Fergie. In the US we have strict libel laws, but there are a huge variety of books out there that are quite frankly blatantly insulting and sya all sorts of stuff. "The Royals" is actually really, really tame compared to many of the things published in the US. Kitty was actually really, really decent about the Queen Mother and about many of the royals, even Charles. There was really nothing about the RF that wasn't already covered by other biographers. There was no reason for it to be banned really. It talked about the Windsor's dealings with Hitler and that isn't something that the RF themselves did, but hte Duke and Duchess.
I agree; stripping princely families of their rank over a breakout of anti-German phobia was basically stripping them of their heritage.The whole Germanphobia going around reminded me of the "Freedom Fries" debacle in the US during the build up to the Iraq War.
How may times do you have to be told that the book is NOT, and NEVER has, been BANNED in the UK? Or is it that you refuse to accept any information that is contrary to your mindset?Well for some people the fact that a book was banned would give it more credence, that there was something in the book that people didn't want to be made public.
Of course it is telling! Reading libel about people you may like and/or admire is never pleasant, but from the tenor of your posts, this is obviously not a problem for you.I'm not saying everything in KKs book is right; but the reaction to it by the British and especially royalists is telling.