Royal Gossip
April 25, 2019, 09:17:30 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Charles: The Heart Of A King by Catherine Mayer  (Read 3828 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« on: January 30, 2015, 11:33:43 pm »

Haunted by guilt, a Prince of Wails: Portrait of future king emerges in new biography

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2933834/Haunted-guilt-Prince-Wails-Portrait-future-king-emerges-new-biography.html#ixzz3QLoNuZAE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Prince Charles 'has talked to Queen about what sort of king he should be', aides say on eve of new biography
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/11380995/Prince-Charles-has-talked-to-Queen-about-what-sort-of-king-he-should-be-aides-say-on-eve-of-new-biography.html

Quote
Niraj Tanna @IkonPictures  ·  2h 2 hours ago

Seems Clarence House have been giving stories to the papers prior to the release of @catherine_mayer book. Trying to kill it?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 11:58:04 pm by Alexandrine » Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Fly on the wall
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 13802


Lady of Threads


« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2015, 01:39:16 am »

Prince Charles's treacherous household 'like Wolf Hall', courtiers say
A new book paints a devastating portrait of the future king grappling with insecurities while struggling to manage his courtiers


 Prince Charles’s household is so torn apart by power struggles and treachery that courtiers have nicknamed it Wolf Hall, according to a new book.

Staff working for the Prince have reportedly likened Clarence House to the Tudor court of Henry VIII, where backstabbing and infighting was commonplace.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/11381370/Prince-Charless-treacherous-household-like-Wolf-Hall-courtiers-say.html
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2015, 01:51:46 am »

If Charles weren't so determined to grab as much power as he can, things would be different.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6035



« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2015, 04:37:41 am »

his ideas about overhauling the honors system sound solid but I'd bet many people just so dislike any change that they would find reason to object
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2015, 05:44:28 am »

If only Charles had not married Camilla! He would be a single dad, liked, powerful, and he would be easily more admired. Camilla was good as a mistress and I do think powerful men should have women as mistresses as long as it's mutually consensual and so what, it would have been better than this way, as a consort.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4633


« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2015, 06:31:26 am »

his ideas about overhauling the honors system sound solid but I'd bet many people just so dislike any change that they would find reason to object

The trouble with overhauling the Honours system under Charles is- it sounds great in theory, but which bits? The Government of the day is in charge of implementing 99% of those awards. The monarch can only follow his/her own inclinations with regard to the Garters (Bath and Thistle) the Order of Merit and the Victoria family Order, which usually only goes to relatives, member of the Household, anyway.

I can't see politicians allowing Charles huge leeway in very much at all, unless they're a very accommodating Conservative administration. At the moment he is tolerated, just. As a politically neutral monarch he'll just have to get used to proffering suggestions.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2015, 06:37:34 am »

If he would stop trying to have it all and wanted to restrict himself to reforming stuff like the honors system and puttering around his hobbies, no one would mind, but what will cause endless problems will be his determination to have a substantial say in affairs of state, despite no education, training, or hard core experience.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11197


« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2015, 03:02:04 am »

If only Charles had not married Camilla! He would be a single dad, liked, powerful, and he would be easily more admired. Camilla was good as a mistress and I do think powerful men should have women as mistresses as long as it's mutually consensual and so what, it would have been better than this way, as a consort.

Charles did not care if his wife minded or not. I don't think it shows "power" for a man to have a mistress, it shows lack of moral compass. After his treatment of his first wife some may have reservations about admiring the man to say the least. Charles had to marry Camilla since he named her. He gave perks to her family too, her sister got a job with huge salary to decorate his lodgings, her kids got trust funds, and he tries to rewrite history. Once Charles chose to keep the other woman in his first marriage it was all down hill. Camilla sure was good as a mistress she saw off the wife and got most of what the first wife had.

It's interesting about the referrals to Michael Fawcett I think the one true non-negotiable in the Prince's life. Interesting to see how this man will wield power when Charles is king.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2015, 03:41:24 am »

I wonder if half of William's problems and resentment come from seeing his step-siblings get so many perks, but minus the pressures.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
AnaBolena
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3614


We Read To Know We Are Not Alone - C.S Lewis


« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2015, 09:01:00 pm »

Throughout history the male members of royalty have virtually been expected to have a mistress - that is documented in many history books, and I suspect Will and Harry know this.
Logged

“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
Little light
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1306



« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2015, 09:57:17 pm »

That's the problem. The male members of the rf, in the past and maybe even now, have been expected to have a mistress, including PC, but women's expectations have changed and those with any self respect would avoid them like the plague if they were expected nowadays to put up and shut up. But there will be exceptions, I know.

As if having a title means it is OK for them to be emotionally abused in this manner. It is not.

The rf have not moved forward in this regard, and the very women of substance that they so desperately need, will have nothing to do with them. And, IMO, rightly so.

After all, PD was a member of the aristocracy and she was practically kicked to the kerb when the marriage unravelled.

Most women get to keep their children, or at least have custody of the children, after divorce, rightly or wrongly.

So what do the rf have to offer a woman that she can't get down at the pub? Or the docks, or wherever? Not much. A title? Money? Aggravation and separation from her child/ren? Or her private life to be trashed, I'm thinking PD being accused of being unstable, whilst portraying the royal to be pristine?


Who wants that? Not me, thank you.

And so the downward spiral of the brf continues.
       

 
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2015, 11:05:48 pm »

That came out wrong.

The one thing that Charles has done, is made it clear that not only would a royal wife be vulnerable to being attacked by the mistress on a regular basis, but also driven out and then have her place usurped. Then have a reputation trashed.

When Edward VII was married to Alexandra, he ended up making sure his mistresses KNEW their place. He as far as I know NEVER let his mistresses badmouth his wife in the public sphere and if Alexandra had died, he never would have married Alice Keppel.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11197


« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2015, 12:35:08 am »

Throughout history the male members of royalty have virtually been expected to have a mistress - that is documented in many history books, and I suspect Will and Harry know this.

Sure, back centuries ago when women were chattel and expected to put up and shut up, even those princesses of royal blood who had the babies and put up and shut up. Alexandra lived in the 19th and early 20th centuries, a woman of royal blood who got treated like dirt by her womanizing husband. She used passive aggression with her husband and was a smothering mother to her children. She also was sickly.

George V did not cheat, George VI did not cheat, Prince Edward (Wessex) does not cheat, Prince Andrew apparently did not cheat on Fergie, and so on. This is the 21st century women are no longer chattel.

Many US presidents cheated too but it does not make cheating OK.
Logged
Rebecca
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 653



« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2015, 01:28:34 am »

^ thumbsup
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11197


« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2015, 02:19:19 am »

That came out wrong.

The one thing that Charles has done, is made it clear that not only would a royal wife be vulnerable to being attacked by the mistress on a regular basis, but also driven out and then have her place usurped. Then have a reputation trashed.

When Edward VII was married to Alexandra, he ended up making sure his mistresses KNEW their place. He as far as I know NEVER let his mistresses badmouth his wife in the public sphere and if Alexandra had died, he never would have married Alice Keppel.

Edward would never have gotten away with divorcing Alexandra and marrying Alice or any of his other mistresses. Charles was never Diana's widower, he was her divorced husband and he married a divorced woman who was the other woman in his first marriage. Edward would have been made to step aside for his son if he dared do what Charles did. Alice never played hostess in Alexandra's home. Charles flowery PR articles IMO are a waste of time, just makes him look clueless and in lala land.
Logged
CathyJane
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5377


« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2015, 02:38:20 am »

Exactly right, Sandy!  thumbsup
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 38563



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2015, 12:14:21 am »

^This is why no one decent wanted to marry William and it's not likely Harry will find someone decent. This family is trash, treats the marry-ins like trash.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Stephanie
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5865



« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2015, 12:52:54 pm »

Back in the old days sex was out of the question during pregnancy.
A king was expected and even encouraged to take a mistress otherwise he would look weak and impotent.
Chuck took a mistress/nanny because he is selfish and weak.
Campon is rumored to have to take the lead otherwise Chuck cannot perform(just like the duke of Windsor).
Diana on the other hand  expected normal husband-wife relations and as a 19 year old virgin needed Chuck to be a man and not a perverted weakling.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937377/I-won-t-used-sell-weapons-says-Charles-Controversial-new-biography-claims-Prince-discreet-objections-role-arms-deals.html
Chuck the alleged pedo's pet.
Logged
AnaBolena
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3614


We Read To Know We Are Not Alone - C.S Lewis


« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2015, 02:49:07 pm »

So going against the entire belief of any marital guidance- it was all Charles fault.  Sorry, it takes 2 to make a marriage and 2 to break it.

I do not condone adultery, but I don't condone sleeping around everywhere either, which ALL have done.
Logged

“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
Snowpea
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3153


« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2015, 01:48:03 am »

^This is why no one decent wanted to marry William and it's not likely Harry will find someone decent. This family is trash, treats the marry-ins like trash.

Depends on who the marry-ins are.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!