Books on Current and Recent British Royals


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
XeniaCasaraghi said:
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. I'm not saying everything in KKs book is right; but the reaction to it by the British and especially royalists is telling. The entire system of the BRF seems to be to make excuses for their bad behavior or cover it up; Kitty is just throwing back that cover on some aspects of the family. Plus she wasn't all that negative towards them, except maybe Margaret who honestly seemed to deserve it.
Click to expand...


The book was NOT banned. That is the first point you have to get clear.

It was KK and her publishers who decided not to publish it in the UK. Why? Because of the UK's strict libel laws and thus the potential for them to be sued and lose in the British courts. The only reason to not publish in the UK taken by KK and her publishers is that the author is acknowledging that she was writing incorrect/libelous material and knows that she wouldn't get away with in in the UK.

Put the blame where is belongs - with KK and her publishers - for the book not being available in the UK. It was NOT banned there at all - it was not available because of the publishers' decision - made out of fear of losing their credibility as publishers for publishing lies.

Then ask yourself - why didn't KK and her publishers want to publish the book in the UK? Now what reasons could there be for not wanting to publish a book in the country whose royal family is the centre of the book - and you should come to the obvious conclusion - it is libelous and incorrect.
 
Bertie if you can't recognize why Kitty didn't want to go through the hassle of publishing her book in a country that has happily built up walls of lies to protect the BRF then I am not going to try and convince you. Seeing as how much of what Kitty wrote has been written by other biographers writing about the family I am much more inclined to believe she was at least on the right path. Never said I believed everything she said, mostly the things she says that 3 or 4 other writers have also said probably rings of some truth.
I just finished reading a section she wrote about Prince Philip and his horn dog ways with anyone with a uterus. That part came across as fabricated, but it downtown discredit the whole book for me.
 
XeniaCasaraghi said:
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..
Click to expand...

Which part of "the book was not banned" do you not understand? :bang:The book was simply not published in the UK, apparently because of concerns over our rather strict libel laws.

If Kitty and her publishers felt they could make money in the UK and back up her story in court if necessary I am sure they would have done so. They are after all in the business of selling books and making money. Perhaps they didnt want to put a spotlight on Kitty's already dubious reputation as a biographer.
 
NGalitzine said:
Perhaps they didnt want to put a spotlight on Kitty's already dubious reputation as a biographer.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As I mentioned before Kitty Kelly's other biographies on Frank Sinatra, Jackie Kennedy Onassis and Oprah Winfrey were all denounced as lies. Why wouldn't this book on the Windsors also be?

I remember reading that she claimed that the Duke of Leeds helped her with this book. But there hasn't been such a person - or even a Duchess - since the 1950s.
 
Just researched the Internet and some people say it was banned, others that it was just road blocked from being published, and others that the 2 countries laws didn't run together smoothly so she just decided to skip England altogether; but apparently those in England who want the book have a he11 of a time getting it even from American stores.
Either way if people want to continue to to blast the book as a bunch of lies despite the fact that some things have been proven or at the least rewritten in other bios be my guest.
As one reviewer said "it's interesting, sensational, and a good read". The problem with the subjects throwing hissy fits over unflattering stories is that they are likely to do so whether they are untrue stories or just unflattering.
I've stated before I don't believe everything I read in this book or any non-fiction book.
 
Last edited:
"why lets facts get in the way of a good story".
 
Well I'm going to assume you have never watched a historical movie about real events or people; I'm assuming I am speaking with a bunch of people who have never seen Elizabeth, Young Victoria etc. Nor have read biographies about people who have been dead so long that the facts can't be checked; and I'll also assume no one read Diana:Her True Story
Neither AristoCat nor myself claimed this book was 100% true or an encyclopedia. There are just some of us who can read non-fiction and do our own research and find out the truth. Whether the book was banned or not, or whether it is gossip or not, there is truth into some of what she says, some of which has been discussed by Aristo and myself. I have no problem admitting some of Kitty's stories are made up, I listed one I believe is a lie or fabrication, it's just sad that some on here can't accept that some of what she says is also true.
 
Well the point of writing non-fiction is that it is not supposed to include fiction which seems quite obvious to me. By including the fiction it calls into question what is supposed to be non-fiction.
Movies have more creative licence since obviously dialogue has to be largely made up but one still expects the producers to keep to the basic facts, and no reputable author is likely to use a movie as a source dicument for a future work of non-fiction like a biography.
 
(New member here)

I recently picked up a mass market paperback edition of Kelley's The Royals and I noticed that on the the third page, the very first paragraph is a disclaimer that indicates that "This book is a work of fiction" and goes on to state that names, characters, etc. are ficticious and any resemblances to those who are living is purely coincidental. So there you have it.
(By the way, I am located in Canada, but the book is said to have been printed in the United States)

Since the book, or novel, as it should now be referred, was banned in the UK, and the presence of a disclaimer within the first few pages, I wonder if the RF had anything to do with it. Hmmm....
 
"Since the book, or novel, as it should now be referred, was banned in the UK, and the presence of a disclaimer within the first few pages, I wonder if the RF had anything to do with it. Hmmm.... "

Please see above.....it was not banned in the UK it simply was not published in the UK.

Is your book a revised copy? I am wondering if those comments you cite were added after it was first published to avoid legal problems, much like to lines that appear in movie credits " any resemblance to real people is purely coincidental".
 
List of Official British Royal Biographies

I'm looking to expand my collection of royal biographies and I'm looking for a list of official biographies written about members of the BRF (ie. Biographers appointed by the RF).

I already own William Shawcross' Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, Philip Ziegler's King Edward VIII: A Life, and I read in a Daily Mail article that the first official royal biography was written by Theodore Martin who was appointed to write a biography (which turned out to be in five volumes) on Prince Albert.
 
I hope you get more responses, as I am very interested too. Loved The Queen Mother more than I ever thought I would, but I am hoping to go a little further back in time and then back to more present times. Is Prince Albert worth the 5 volumes (I feel terrible for putting it that way, but did anyone read it and love it?)
 
MARG said:
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?
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.

Your belief that Kitty Kelly being an American, means that she can only write the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth does your countrymen no great service!
Click to expand...

Actually, if Xenia were the principle example of American belief or sentiment on this topic, Brits would surely hate us - and I don't think they do.

Many of us (wish I could say most) try to be discerning readers. And I'm thinking at this point Xenia might be what on other forums is sometimes called a troll on this topic. But then, Kitty Kelly has her own troll like qualities, and while I ignore both Kitty and other trolls, I will defend to the death to spout their opinions (I just wish people wouldn't think they were correct just because they're in a book).
 
skye.009 said:
I'm looking to expand my collection of royal biographies and I'm looking for a list of official biographies written about members of the BRF (ie. Biographers appointed by the RF).

I already own William Shawcross' Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, Philip Ziegler's King Edward VIII: A Life, and I read in a Daily Mail article that the first official royal biography was written by Theodore Martin who was appointed to write a biography (which turned out to be in five volumes) on Prince Albert.
Click to expand...

What did you think of the Shawcross biography? I read it all, twice - and I felt I learned absolutely nothing about what made QEQM "tick". For example, I'd have liked to know what made her change her mind about marrying Prince Bertie and how she felt about the marriage of Prince Philip and Princess Elizabeth, just for examples.

To me, it was more like reading one long hagiographical court circular on QEQM's public duties than it was true biography which is supposed to give insight about the person behind the public face. Of course, I know better than to expect sensationalistic or very private new material to appear in an officially commissioned work. Nevertheless, every other official biography of the BRF during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been enlightening, including some of the older examples. Nicolson's excellent "George V", for instance.
 
I would love to get the Edward and Albert books.

Sorry,I don't know other official bios.
 
IloveCP said:
I would love to get the Edward and Albert books.

Sorry,I don't know other official bios.
Click to expand...

The Edward VIII bio by Ziegler is a classic and is also pretty even-handed, IMHO. I found the official Albert biography to be heavy furniture and too laudatory, although I did enjoy the first volume, which is generally agreed to as being written by Victoria, herself. I wish a good biographer would attempt a modern biography of the Prince Consort. I really think it is long overdue. All the modern works only delve into his relationship with Victoria and a man's relationship with his wife, even if she is Queen, only forms a portion of his life story, IMHO.

As far as I know, there is no official biography of Diana, Princess of Wales. I don't believe there will be one in the near future; I think we'll have to wait for William's reign before access will be permitted to the papers necessary to attempt that work... It's a real shame how her mother, Frances Shand Kydd, destroyed so much of Diana's papers. For that matter, Princess Margaret regularly went through and destroyed many of QEQM's papers, with her Mother's knowledge!

If anyone has read Hugo Vickers' biography of QEQM, I would be most grateful for any opinions about it. I'm trying to decide whether or not to buy it as after the Shawcross experience, I would even more like to discover the person behind that smile and those feathery hats. Don't we all still miss her!!!:flowers::flowers::flowers:
 
I thought "The Royals" had just enough truth to it to prevent it from being catalogued under "fantasy".

Pick one of Kelley's earlier works, such as, "Jackie Oh!", and compare it with serious works on Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis that have become available since Jackie's death. It's like spun sugar or cotton candy (depending where you come from, LOL). Artificially coloured, very sugary, and pumped with air to give volume where none really exists. If one could put "factual water" on "The Royals", what would be left is the same as what remains when water is dumped on cotton candy; a very sticky, tiny amount of dyed sugar that has no nutritional value whatsoever and rots your teeth.

Warren is correct: IT WAS NEVER BANNED IN THE UK. Rather, Kelley chose not to even try to publish it there due to the libel laws. That, in and of itself, should be a warning as to the veracity of the book. If it were all true, what would Kelley have to fear enough that it was legally not worth the financial risk to publish it in the UK where it would have received the most promotion and would have sold in great numbers, particularly as it was released just after the death of Diana, when interest in slamming the BRF was at its height? Sorry, and I don't mean to offend anyone - but that book is nothing but rubbish and the facts she does get right can be found in every other worthwhile book on this subject.
 
Is Hugo more "honest" than Shawcross?

Anyone?
 
IloveCP said:
Is Hugo more "honest" than Shawcross?

Anyone?
Click to expand...

Well, his other biographies have certainly not been as superficial as Shawcross' work... He obviously didn't have access to the same papers as Shawcross did, which is what makes me wary of purchasing it. I wish my local library would get it in and then I can test before I buy!:D
 
Agreed. Though I overall enjoyed Shawcross' work on The QM, I felt that the book was a fact machine. Fact, after fact, after fact. Wasn't transported into QM's mind as I wanted to be, but still, accuracy is enough to seal the deal for me.

The reason why I'm seeking these "official" biographies is solely for accuracy. I think I already own enough Andrew Morton, Sarah Bradford, etc. - type biographies.
 
So, with a little more research and a quick tip from Aliza, I was able to compile a list of all the official bio's I've found so far:

Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother: The Official Biography
by William Shawcross
King George VI: His Life and Reign
by John Wheeler-Bennett
King Edward VIII
by Philip Ziegler
The Life of His Royal Highness The Prince Concort (in 5 volumes)
by Theodore Martin
King George V, His Life and Reign
by Harold Nicolson
Queen Mary, 1867-1953
by James Pope-Hennessey

Now looking for Victoria, Edward VII, Alexandra (his wife) and Margaret (though probably a long-shot, since I haven't heard a word about the production of an official biography on her since she died), Wallis (another long-shot) and maybe even others that I'm not thinking of at the moment.
 
Just off the top of my head, the bio of Queen Alexandra is by Georgina Battiscombe. There is no official bio of Victoria, I'd recommend two: Victoria RI by Elizabeth Longford and the latest and most complete: Queen Victoria by Walter L. Arnstein. The official biography of Edward VII is by Sidney Lee but leaves much out; I'd recommend King Edward the Seventh by Philip Magnus. Diana Mosley wrote the best, IMHO, biography of Wallis Windsor, you're correct, there has been no official bio commissioned (yet?). I am also hunting about Princess Margaret; please let me know if you discover anything and I'll do the same if I find an official or at least an approved biography of the Princess. Right now the best I can offer is Theo Aronson's work, "Princess Margaret: A Biography". Hope this helps!

Other serious biographies worth checking out are Kenneth Rose's "George V", Sarah Bradford, "George VI" and the Michael Bloch edited letters between Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII - I'll check for the exact title. Happy reading!:flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
XeniaCasaraghi said:
Bertie if you can't recognize why Kitty didn't want to go through the hassle of publishing her book in a country that has happily built up walls of lies to protect the BRF then I am not going to try and convince you.
Click to expand...
If you can't see that a publishing decision to not produce a book for a particular market because of the libel laws that apply in that market is an admission by the author and publisher as being libelous - that is wrong - then I won't convince you.

Seeing as how much of what Kitty wrote has been written by other biographers writing about the family I am much more inclined to believe she was at least on the right path. Never said I believed everything she said, mostly the things she says that 3 or 4 other writers have also said probably rings of some truth.
Click to expand...

She had some provable facts right of course but it was the hearsay stuff, and there is heaps of that, that has always been the stuff that is questionable - as any decent historian will be able to tell you.
 
Well then clearly we do not have a problem because as I have said numerous times on here I DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT SHE WRITES!
I just finished the book and IMO, the things She says about the early years George V to Elizabeth II has the most truth to it. And I stand by my criticism of George for his Germaphobia. I've also read othe sources that mention similar things that Kitty mentions about Princess Margaret. It is late in the book ESPECIALLY with Fergie hearsay and the Charles and Di separation that things get more "gossipy", less credible and downright National Enquirer. But one thing from that period I've got to look into is the supposed records of Diana's phone calls to the Hoare's.
For now it is time to read "George, Nicholas, and Wilhelm".
 
Last edited:
I have the mixed impression about Kitty Kelly's book.The first part of the book(before the young Windsor generation) is written in better literary style,it seems more documented,while the other part is more bassed on gossip papers.
But generally I like the reading and I do think on the surface the facts presented in it are true.
 
I've got to look into is the supposed records of Diana's phone calls to the Hoare's.
Click to expand...

That actually did happen.
 
AristoCat said:
That actually did happen.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, when it is written in a book by Kitty Kelly people find it hard to believe. Kitty Kelly is such a sleazy liar and writes such trash that some of her books now have disclaimers and refer to them as as works of fiction.

Even the truth coming out of her mouth has become impossible to believe.
 
Lenora, that's what I think as well. Early 19th century was probably true, I don't know why her writing style changed with the younger generation, especially when Diana showed up.
 
:previous: Because writing anything remotely connected with Diana is a goldmine of course!! :doh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EliseLadyofLancaster
  • Locked
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession 1: Ending 2022
30 31 32
Replies
943
Views
140K
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom