"Charles: The Heart of a King" by Catherine Mayer (2015)

[soapstar]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

I think its semantics on the part of Clarence House. Mayer did in fact interview many of Charles's friends and staff. Whether one wants to call this 'special access' or just plain access is a matter of spin.

The funny thing is the book isn't that critical of Charles. The upcoming BBC documentary if released will prove to be much more damning from a PR perspective.

Yep, agree. She did get access, but only for the article. Now she's using that access for a book and Clarence House is (understandably) upset, because they didn't grant her access so she could write a biography.

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess

The comment about the book being unofficial and the author having not actually had access to Charles and his staff is strange. I wonder how she knew all the information about Charles in the "12 things we now know about Prince Charles" article from The Telegraph...

I still think it would be an interesting read.

According to Clarence House, she was given access for a Time article. They never expected her to use that information for a biography. So they're upset because it makes it seem like they cooperated for this book, when they really didn't.

[gerry]

Originally Posted by soapstar

Yep, agree. She did get access, but only for the article. Now she's using that access for a book and Clarence House is (understandably) upset, because they didn't grant her access so she could write a biography.



According to Clarence House, she was given access for a Time article. They never expected her to use that information for a biography. So they're upset because it makes it seem like they cooperated for this book, when they really didn't.

Indeed, Ms Mayer decided to make money out of her 'exclusive access' story; she was apparently included in a dinner at Dumfries house with 'stonkingly rich people' (with such language, you know there is going to be a problem' and went from bad to worse. If anyone is willing to part with the fee to read this article,be my guest.
EXCLUSIVE: Prince Charles, Born to Be King but Aiming Higher | TIME.com

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

I think its semantics on the part of Clarence House. Mayer did in fact interview many of Charles's friends and staff. Whether one wants to call this 'special access' or just plain access is a matter of spin.

The funny thing is the book isn't that critical of Charles. The upcoming BBC documentary if released will prove to be much more damning from a PR perspective.

I think you will find them even handed when it comes to what slant they put on the Prince. Just because she said a few nice things does not change the fact that she had limited access for a Time article as opposed to the degree intimated that would almost equate to that of a personal biographer.

Originally Posted by Sapstar

Yep, agree. She did get access, but only for the article. Now she's using that access for a book and Clarence House is (understandably) upset, because they didn't grant her access so she could write a biography.

According to Clarence House, she was given access for a Time article. They never expected her to use that information for a biography. So they're upset because it makes it seem like they cooperated for this book, when they really didn't.

Correct me if I am wrong but the amount of access required to research for a personal biography would surely entail far greater access and input from Charles himself let alone the Butler to the Bootboy with sonic ears!

[Rudolph]

Queen's concerns over Prince Charles becoming king, claims new book | Royal | News | Daily Express

Catherine Mayer's unofficial biography, Charles: The Heart of a King, claims that the Prince of Wales' activism could give rise to a "potential new model of kingship".

Charles is known for speaking out on issues including the environment, architecture and farming.

The Government has routinely resisted pressure from a national newspaper to publish the Prince's private letters to ministers - named the 'black spider letters' because of his scrawled handwriting.

The tussle began when Guardian journalist Rob Evans applied to see the letters under the Freedom of Information Act in 2010.

The application was rejected and became the subject of an ongoing legal battle, which ended up in the Supreme Court.

It has now been claimed Her Majesty fears that the British population will not tolerate Charles' differing view on the role of the monarchy, when he succeeds her on the throne.

In an excerpt of the new biography – currently being serialised in The Times - Ms Mayer said: "In defining his role as heir apparent, the prince has signalled a redefinition of the monarchy.

"Some courtiers - and the sovereign herself - fear that neither the Crown nor its subjects will tolerate the shock of the new."

[Dman]

Queen has total confidence in Prince Charles, say aides over writer's claim she 'fears' her son's reign-
Queen has total confidence in Prince Charles, say aides over writer's claim she 'fears' her son's reign - London - News - London Evening Standard

[Rudolph]

Author of Prince Charles biography denies overstating royal access | UK news | The Guardian

The author of a new biography of Prince Charles that claims his court is so riven by infighting it is known as “Wolf Hall” has hit back at royal aides’ allegations that she has overstated her access.

Clarence House aides have described as “unhelpful” the comparison with Hilary Mantel’s vision of the brutal court of Henry VIII in Catherine Mayer’s book, Charles: Heart of a King, which is published on Thursday. They have alleged “artistic licence” is being used to describe the amount of time Mayer, a senior editor at Time magazine, spent with Charles.

But Mayer on Monday insisted: “My Prince Charles biography is unauthorised and makes no over-claims about access.” She joked that a “meta-author” had apparently “gone round claiming to have written an authorised bio with oodles of special access”.

[hernameispekka]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Author of Prince Charles biography denies overstating royal access | UK news | The Guardian

Well, this is good. She seems to not be claiming as much as the papers are.

[wyevale]

The writer of this book, was all over the Breakfast News channels this morning, publicising her work..she admitted she'd had limited access to the Prince, just 'two walks in the garden', [with other journalists present].
How she can claim to know 'the heart of a King', on that VERY limited basis, is beyond me..She had spoken 'to his friends [un-named] and other 'officials', however..

[Jacknch]

Originally Posted by wyevale

The writer of this book, was all over the Breakfast News channels this morning, publicising her work..she admitted she'd had limited access to the Prince, just 'two walks in the garden', [with other journalists present].
How she can claim to know 'the heart of a King', on that VERY limited basis, is beyond me..She had spoken 'to his friends [un-named] and other 'officials', however..

So basically it's not going to be worth my reading unless she verifies exactly who she spoke to and they confirm that they spoke to her. Yet another, unauthorised biography based on a few minutes chat and idle gossip! I may as well re-write Cinderella and pass it off as something new and make a few quid too!

[Rudolph]

Up in the Heir - The Prince of Wales can be a monarch or an activist, but not both

Peter HuntVerified account ‏@BBCPeterHunt
Following its serialisation of @catherine_mayer book, @thetimes has published this editorial on Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/BBCPeterHunt/sta...56114173833217

I'm surprised The Times is being so critical of Charles. It is a serious newspaper that usually leans pro monarchy.

[Iluvbertie]

Pro-monarchy doesn't necessarily mean pro-Charles as there are many monarchists who would like Charles to step down or be by-passed as they see Charles as a threat to the monarchy.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Up in the Heir - The Prince of Wales can be a monarch or an activist, but not both

Peter HuntVerified account ‏@BBCPeterHunt
Following its serialisation of @catherine_mayer book, @thetimes has published this editorial on Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/BBCPeterHunt/sta...56114173833217

I'm surprised The Times is being so critical of Charles. It is a serious newspaper that usually leans pro monarchy.

Just by reading that article, I can tell some members of the media and others have a major case of anxiety when it comes to the future King Charles III. Everyone is so used to how Elizabeth II has run things, they can't even imagine an actual active and engaging Monarch.

[Rudolph]

Londoner's Diary: Catherine Mayer sets the record straight over royal book - Diary - News - London Evening Standard

Where lies the truth? Prince Charles’s principal private secretary William Nye wrote a dusty letter to The Times about the “ill-informed speculation” on the heir to the throne off the back of Catherine Mayer’s book Charles: The Heart of a King. And to boot, Kristina Kyriacou, the Prince’s communications secretary, told this paper that “the author did not have the access she claimed”.

But Mayer herself says the drawbridge is being pulled up a little late. The editor-at-large of Time magazine launched her book at Foyles in Charing Cross Road last night to friends including the BBC’s Andrew Marr, London mayoral hopeful David Lammy, David Baddiel and Angus Deayton.

“The past days have read like a comedy of miscommunication and catcalls,” she said as she gave her thank-you speech. “I don’t suppose it’s been funny for anybody firefighting in any of the palaces. It may in the circumstances seem hideous to thank any of them by name. I don’t want to do that. But of many friends there is one person who I thank by name in the book, so it’s too late to spare her. So I will thank Kristina Kyriacou. Contrary to recent reports, we have spoken recently and cordially.” Mayer had a sit-down meeting with Prince Charles at Dumfries, and followed him on international tours, but further contact is not specified. Kyriacou confirms they spoke but reiterates access was limited.

As a footnote, today’s Times has a letter from Philip Moger. “As programme editor at ITN I was involved in the coverage of Andrew Morton’s book on the Princess of Wales,” he writes. “I well recall the furore and the denials. Subsequently, the book was found to be not only broadly accurate but the princess herself was one of the main sources. Royal spokesmen have form in these matters.”

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Up in the Heir - The Prince of Wales can be a monarch or an activist, but not both

Peter HuntVerified account ‏@BBCPeterHunt
Following its serialisation of @catherine_mayer book, @thetimes has published this editorial on Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/BBCPeterHunt/sta...56114173833217

I'm surprised The Times is being so critical of Charles. It is a serious newspaper that usually leans pro monarchy.

I dont think they are being that critical TBH. Charles has been extremely outspoken, some would say meddling, on any number of subjects while POW. Some of those, for example homeopathy vs regular medicine, have been vigorously debunked by authorities on the subject. I think it would be very hard for him to suddenly strap down his life long habit of speaking out/writing letters lobbying ministers when/if he ascends.

[cepe]

Originally Posted by scooter

I dont think they are being that critical TBH. Charles has been extremely outspoken, some would say meddling, on any number of subjects while POW. Some of those, for example homeopathy vs regular medicine, have been vigorously debunked by authorities on the subject. I think it would be very hard for him to suddenly strap down his life long habit of speaking out/writing letters lobbying ministers when/if he ascends.

In the face of criticism, embarrassing phone taps, embarrassing siblings, etc etc; Charles has gone out and done his job - head up. His will-power must be strong. Doing the work in hand is 2nd nature and the work of a Monarch will be the same.

So I don't think he will ever speak out in any way that is political. He may mention his beliefs and he may get criticised BUT in a country that has had governments promoting multi-culturalism etc etc., HMQ has steadfastly promoted Christianity in every Christmas message she has given. And no one has complained.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by wyevale

The writer of this book, was all over the Breakfast News channels this morning, publicising her work..she admitted she'd had limited access to the Prince, just 'two walks in the garden', [with other journalists present].
How she can claim to know 'the heart of a King', on that VERY limited basis, is beyond me..She had spoken 'to his friends [un-named] and other 'officials', however..

Wyevale and Jack, I think you have nailed it. From other headlines it seems as though she tells one story here and a different story there, so who knows what is true. But the thing that bugs me most is the inference that whatever "truth" she is peddling, it is actually the real truth and, just in case anyone was not convinced, similarities between this book and Andrew Morton's have been drawn;

As a footnote, today’s Times has a letter from Philip Moger. “As programme editor at ITN I was involved in the coverage of Andrew Morton’s book on the Princess of Wales,” he writes. “I well recall the furore and the denials. Subsequently, the book was found to be not only broadly accurate but the princess herself was one of the main sources. Royal spokesmen have form in these matters.”

So, by obvious inference, any and all denials from the BTF must be treated at lies.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

This book is full of nonsense and gossip that I have heard several times before. This book is not worth reading.

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by scooter

I dont think they are being that critical TBH. Charles has been extremely outspoken, some would say meddling, on any number of subjects while POW. Some of those, for example homeopathy vs regular medicine, have been vigorously debunked by authorities on the subject. I think it would be very hard for him to suddenly strap down his life long habit of speaking out/writing letters lobbying ministers when/if he ascends.

I agree he hasn't kept his views to himself and I don't think any prime minster would enjoy their talks with Charles. I know it's his right to speak out but that doesn't mean it is right


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by royal rob

I agree he hasn't kept his views to himself and I don't think any prime minster would enjoy their talks with Charles. I know it's his right to speak out but that doesn't mean it is right.

I disagree here a bit. Men of stature approach these things so differently in my experience. They value articulate differences, and they respect achievement, both of which Charles possesses. (The opinion of tabloids should not blind one to Charles' considerable life's work). I suspect there would be a lively interchange no matter who the prime minister was, as well as mutual respect. Instead of an ordeal to be endured, I think the prime minster would be intrigued, of whatever stripe. At this stage of the game, Charles has to be as adept (and charming) at dealing with all manner of folk, like any politician risen to the rank of prime minister. JMO.

[royal rob]

Mmm I couldn't cope with his views on alternative medicine and modern architecture especially if he kept banging on about it and I think I've read that he does and I doubt others would either JMO


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community