"Rebel Prince: The Power, Passion and Defiance of Prince Charles" by Tom Bower (2018) - Page 2

Rudolph · #21 03-19-2018, 01:08 PM

From The Sun. A rebuttal from royal photographer Arthur Edwards.

ARTHUR EDWARDS: Pampered prince isn’t the Charles I know and new book has left me incensed

Nico · #22 03-19-2018, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph

From The Sun. A rebuttal from royal photographer Arthur Edwards.

ARTHUR EDWARDS: Pampered prince isn’t the Charles I know and new book has left me incensed

Well, well, well, now that's interesting !

Denville · #23 03-19-2018, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

Charles cannot be controlled. The knives are out. JMO.

Charles canot be controlled/?? He most certainly can. As King he will not be free to speak out on anything the way he has been doing as POW....

Osipi · #24 03-19-2018, 01:18 PM

Thanks for posting this article, Rudolph. *This* is the man I've come to know as The Prince of Wales. I most certainly would believe Arthur Edwards words over Tom Bower's anyday.

Lady Nimue · #25 03-19-2018, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville

Charles canot be controlled/?? He most certainly can. As King he will not be free to speak out on anything the way he has been doing as POW....

No he cannot.

By his very history, his charities, all his public actions and speeches, where he stands is an open declaration. He is a challenge to the conservative establishment (curiously very like his Uncle the Duke of Windsor). He may not 'speak' once King, but he has far more powerful modes of expression at his disposal than just speech.

ladongas · #26 03-19-2018, 02:06 PM

So the author-or his sources- just made everything up?

WreathOfLaurels · #27 03-19-2018, 04:15 PM

Tom Bower, author of investigative studies of subjects like Tony Blair, Richard Branson and the state of English Football, has turned his attentions to Prince Charles and according to reports, the palace isn’t happy as Bower has a reputation for being a little on the negative side.

http://http://www.harpercollins.co.n...rince-charles/

I dont think this will say anything majorly new but here’s a heads up if anyone’s interested.

Moonmaiden23 · #28 03-19-2018, 05:17 PM

I've read excerpts from the this book over the weekend and all I can say is that I don't blame Clarence House if they are ticked off.

It paints Charles as almost a cartoon caricature of an out of touch prima donna. Some of the allegations are frankly not believable...such as Charles and Constantine of Greece putting their heads together in the corner at a social gathering whinging about how "we pulled the short straws" in the lottery of life.

Or the one where the PoW, by all accounts said to have exquisite manners, bellowed at a fellow diner at a formal dinner in India not to touch some Italian bread that had been set on the dinner table because "it's mine...all mine!"

I just have to roll my eyes!

WreathOfLaurels · #29 03-19-2018, 10:22 PM

I personally find the comment that all bio’s of PC so far have been too adulatory and somehow Bower has come across smoking guns that we missed 20 yrs ago a little hard to swallow. Anthony Holden (one of PC’s bigger critics) has always been very critical of him and Despite best efforts otherwise and the Dimbleby book I still think did more harm than good. I’m sceptical of Bower - I’ve read bits of his book on PM Blair and although I have been critical of Blair in the past, much of Bower’s book was lacking historical context of his govt and ignored positive achievements Blair had such as the Good Friday agreements and improvements to infrastructure and poverty reduction, so how he will handle PCmakes me nervous. I’m still going to read this though, although I think I might regret it as my gut tells me it’s just a rehash of old gossip and mostly ex-employees and disgruntled courtiers with axes to grind.

Here’s some more info on Bower https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bower

Dman · #30 03-19-2018, 11:39 PM

The Difficult Past between Camilla, Charles and The Queen:
TOM BOWER: The Queenâ€™s Cold War against Camilla | Daily Mail Online

Nico · #31 03-20-2018, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman

The Difficult Past between Camilla, Charles and The Queen:
TOM BOWER: The Queenâ€™s Cold War against Camilla | Daily Mail Online

How sneaky to post something like this...

For me it's the confirmation that this book is pure garbage. How on earth the author could know some private dialogues between Charles and the Queen ?
HM didn't speak to camilla after the 2005 wedding ? She pronounced a speech for the couple !
"difficult past" ? Give me a break ! Looks like a scenario for a lifetime movie (Sarah pursuing Charles with a bible ????!!!!!!, i mean, really ?).
This book was tailor-made for the readers of the Daily Mail (and the American ones with that).
Penny Junor's book was panned because it was seen as biased (and far too anti Diana so to speak). And now magic, magic we have the exact opposite and of course it's the ultimate tell-all book about a "difficult past".
Ah i laugh !

Dman · #32 03-20-2018, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nico

How sneaky to post something like this...

For me it's the confirmation that this book is pure garbage. How on earth the author can now some private dialogues between Charles and the Queen ?
HM didn't speak to camilla after the 2005 wedding ? She pronounced a speech for the couple !
"difficult past" ? Give me a break ! Looks like a scenario for a lifetime movie (Sarah pursuing Charles with a bible ????!!!!!!, i mean, really ?).
This book was tailor-made for the readers of the Daily Mail (and the American ones with that).
Penny Junor's book was panned because it was seen as biased (and far too anti Diana so to speak). And now magic, magic we have the exact opposite and of course it's the ultimate tell-all book about a "difficult past".
Ah i laugh !

There’s a lot of made up stuff. That’s expected in these royal books. Lord knows we’ve dealt with Penny Junor stuff. Although we do know that Camilla wasn’t in favor with The Queen and Queen Mother. It was all a hard pill to swallow for some time. Pretty much the same sentiment from the public and media.

As I said before, “Mark Bolland’s Campaign worked.”

Nico · #33 03-20-2018, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman

There’s a lot of made up stuff. That’s expected in these royal books. Lord knows we’ve dealt with Penny Junor stuff. Although we do know that Camilla wasn’t in favor with The Queen and Queen Mother. It was all a hard pill to swallow for some time. Pretty much the same sentiment from the public and media.

"Penny Junor stuff". How interesting. Maybe it was a bit too "pro-Charles" for your personnal tastes i guess.
Well be happy! Tom Bower's materpiece seems made for you

Enjoy ...

Dman · #34 03-20-2018, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nico

"Penny Junor stuff". How interesting. Maybe it was a bit too "pro-Charles" for your personnal tastes i guess.
Well be happy! Tom Bower's materpiece seems made for you

Enjoy ...

Nope. I don’t care about any of it. Just posting about the article.

Nico, we all know about the drama that got Camilla to where she is today. Let’s not act like she sailed into royal life on the Royal Yacht Britannia. The facts isn’t pretty, no matter what side you’re on.

You’re talking to a pro-Charles guy. So don’t pull that stuff with me.

Nico · #35 03-20-2018, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman

Nope. I don’t care about any of it. Just posting about the article.

Nico, we all know about the drama that got Camilla to where she is today. Let’s not act like she sailed into royal life on the Royal Yacht Britannia. The facts isn’t pretty, no matter what side you’re on.

You’re talking to a pro-Charles guy. So don’t pull that stuff with me.

And you made a point to post the most dubious stories of a "difficult past" from the most dubious book. But thank you very much

Just a bit hypocritical maybe ?(just a bit, i'm talking to a pro-Charles after all).

Well done Tom Bower , we are talking about your book ...

Dman · #36 03-20-2018, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nico

And you made a point to post the most dubious stories of a "difficult past" from the most dubious book. But thank you very much

Just a bit hypocritical maybe ?(just a bit, i'm talking to a pro-Charles after all).

Well done Tom Bower , we are talking about your book ...

Like I’m the only one that’s posting articles. Hell, I didn’t start this thread. Try again, Nico. None of the drama that went down is pretty.

Nico · #37 03-20-2018, 09:23 AM

If you say so.
Hopeless ...

Mbruno · #38 03-20-2018, 10:12 AM

Whatever their past history may be, the Queen seems to have resigned herself to the fact that Camilla is the PoW's legal wife and should be treated accordingly. That is why Camilla was made a PC and a GCVO.

I have no doubt that it would be politically better for the future of the monarchy if Charles renounced his succession rights, but that would be a difficult process nowadays (with so many Commonwealth realms) and is totally unlikely to happen. Charles could take the easy path though and simply convert to Catholicism. Most people would thank him .

Osipi · #39 03-20-2018, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I have no doubt that it would be politically better for the future of the monarchy if Charles renounced his succession rights, but that would be a difficult process nowadays (with so many Commonwealth realms) and is totally unlikely to happen. Charles could take the easy path though and simply convert to Catholicism. Most people would thank him .

Then again, should any of the events happen that you've pointed out actually happen, I think it would be the first gate opened into abolishing the monarchy in total.

Mbruno · #40 03-20-2018, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

.

Then again, should any of the events happen that you've pointed out actually happen, I think it would be the first gate opened into abolishing the monarchy in total.

Of course not. We have already been over this before: King Juan Carlos and King Albert II abdicated and the monarchies of Belgium and Spain (two very difficult countries) are in fact much stronger today because of that. Likewise, Edward VIII abdicated and that was not the end of the British monarch. On the contrary, despite his personal limitations, George VI was a much better monarch for the times he lived in than his brother would ever have been. Could you imagine Edward VIII as king during World War II for example ?

Despite what their title may say, monarchs nowadays don't rule by the grace of God, but rather by the consent of the people. The debate on whether a monarch can be removed by the people without necessarily abolishing the monarch was already settled in England way back in 1688. There is no need to reopen that debate again.