Exactly.
There's a saying "She Remembered Who She Was and The Game Changed "
It's a shame they didn't!!!
Good Morning Thursday 9th July 2026
What words annoy you when used wrong or people don't know the meaning of?
Gransnet forums
News & politics
King Charles shocking and disloyal book exposing royal secrets and attacking his family
(278 Posts)AKA, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
It’s a story that, for 38 years, people have not been able to get enough of. But the release of SPARE, despite its promise of “raw, unflinching honesty,” has also been met by huge criticism from the same people rushing to click on or write stories about him.
The dramatic pearl clutching would have you believe that this is, to borrow a cliche from the royal reporting dictionary, an unprecedented moment for the House of Windsor. One of the Royal Family’s very own breaking their (questionable) “never complain, never explain” mantra to share private stories that supposedly should have been taken to the grave.
But short-term memory loss will do that to you, because Harry is far from the first senior royal to open up like this. In fact, he only needed to look at the actions of his own father (and mother) for a set example.
Many forget that our current Head of State did exactly the same.
As a man who felt so misunderstood during the breakdown of his marriage and his journey to the throne, Charles turned to BBC journalist Jonathan Dimbleby in 1994 to write a once-in-a-lifetime biography on his life so he could be better understood. Sound familiar?
Just like Harry’s ghostwriter J.R Moehringer, the then Prince of Wales spent countless hours sitting down for interviews with Dimbleby, as well as providing access to his friends and aides, and opening up his private archives of 10,000 private letters, journals and diaries.
The result was a tome that offered a deeply intimate look at Charles like never before. The story of an heir's emotionally repressed childhood, his “detached” and often absent mother who was too “preoccupied” with her career to show warmth, and a capricious, judgmental father who just wanted his son to grow up to be a thicker-skinned, aggressive leader.
Writing about both books, a New York Times critic said at the time that each biography painted pictures of “hapless victims — victims, for all their wealth and glamour, of emotionally deprived childhoods, a voracious press, unfortunate circumstances and duplicitous friends”.
For Charles, the negative response from the British press and public was intense. Accused of ferociously attacking his family and disgracing the monarchy, newspaper polls and opinion pieces declared him unfit to be king and some journalists even suggested he should be stripped of his titles. (Sounds familiar again?).
But there have been no regrets about sharing his story, sources have told me in more recent years. If he didn’t do it then, he would have had to forever deal with the fact that only tabloids, newspapers and unauthorised biographers told his story in their words.
uk.news.yahoo.com/harry-book-stop-pretending-shock-following-charles-footsteps-omid-scobie-115905887.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD6vgibNPVCxJLtCVixLM2a2XhHQvkS0V_gy4VZol9d-s4ELdm6YLBNHUI4VWh_QUepyBufgLYtl6ikcJiyw7LglwbBLqhJWbAqktjoEdprq5PMx87fqJZor3RnEHP1slXIbCgWe6qXaMXCcaJ68gTpZUhcn4r4CI6KxKWf2ZGgC
(sorry, couldn't shorten url for some reason)
OnwardandUpward
I just wish they would get on with their jobs and stop trying to drum up public sympathy.
When Matt Hancock went on Im a Celebrity and said he wanted people to "see the real him", I was also disgusted.
I do not want to see the real person. I just want them to do what they are supposed to be doing and keep their private lives private. I am not interested how any of them conduct their lives as long as I don't have to read about it and I also feel that they should stop looking for approval or trying to gain public sympathy.
They have very privileged lives. There is no correlation. It is not us who should care about them. They have got this so wrong. As politicians or members of the RF they are supposed to Serve the country and CARE about the people they are paid to serve. That is all.
With you on this👏🏻👏🏻
Why any celeb thinks we need to see the real them is a mystery.
The Queen never put a foot wrong, at least.
If only KC , H & some others had remembered who they were and behaved accordingly, none of the books would ever have been written and none of it would need to be discussed.
Callistemon21
^They have got this so wrong. As politicians or members of the RF they are supposed to Serve the country and CARE about the people they are paid to serve. That is all^
It sounds as if King Charles has got it right then.
I'd say KC has got this bit right.
Maybe in some ways KC has. I mean, the Princes Trust is good ... but not H and not Matt who seem to be trying to be some sort of celebrities.
The more I hear about them, the less I want to know- because people are going through hardships in this country and in the world, so no one really wants to hear some privileged person bleating about how they just want to be liked or how hard their life has been. We all have hard times, but we don't all get chauffered about or live in a palace.
They have got this so wrong. As politicians or members of the RF they are supposed to Serve the country and CARE about the people they are paid to serve. That is all
It sounds as if King Charles has got it right then.
I just wish they would get on with their jobs and stop trying to drum up public sympathy.
When Matt Hancock went on Im a Celebrity and said he wanted people to "see the real him", I was also disgusted.
I do not want to see the real person. I just want them to do what they are supposed to be doing and keep their private lives private. I am not interested how any of them conduct their lives as long as I don't have to read about it and I also feel that they should stop looking for approval or trying to gain public sympathy.
They have very privileged lives. There is no correlation. It is not us who should care about them. They have got this so wrong. As politicians or members of the RF they are supposed to Serve the country and CARE about the people they are paid to serve. That is all.
KC is playing the long game, 74 years experience. Seems for some he can't do anything correctly, even for good. I suspect he'll continue.
Dumfries House has revived the area significantly. There is a place for philanthropic and charitable organisations as well as tax funded ones.The amount spent on DH is miniscule compared to the billions gobbled up by the NHS.You could argue the jobs created in that area and sense of purpose and regeneration and any similar schemes probably save the NHS money by improving living standards,mental health etc.The NHS needs reforming completely and diverting money from other causes .Well where do you start or where do you stop ?
This has got nothing to do with the Princes Trust or any other charitable concern.
This has to do with whether KC decides to use money that would otherwise go into the taxation pot, for thing that he decides on.
Better for it to go into the taxation pot.
So in the short term his choices may well be good, but they are not what we need for a good future
I might tend to disagree somewhat.
Governments should be using taxpayers money (and ensuring that no-one finds a loophole to avoid paying tax) to provide us all the a decent standard of education, healthcare and, I think, housing.
Schemes like the Prince's Foundation, the Prince's Trust, don't just save buildings like Dumfries House, they provide education and training in crafts and skills, help people to find jobs and careers, often fill in the gaps where education has failed many young people.
I hope that for thousands they help towards a better future. Perhaps even an alternative, sustainable future to the one we seemed intent on, where old skills were being lost and we lived in a throwaway society.
But we're talking about 2 different things.
By citing Dumfries House I'm making the point that KC supports good causes.
But they may not be the good causes that are best for society overall.
So in the short term his choices may well be good, but they are not what we need for a good future. We have a government to do that. We may or may not agree with what they choose to do with taxpayers money, but we're not relying on the munificence of the rich.
But given the choice between Dumfries House and an effective NHS, I know which one I'd have.
We should be able to have both, I think, we're not a poor nation; it shouldn't have to be a choice but Dumfries House is part of The Prince's Foundation.
The NHS should be properly funded.
Of course, The Prince's Foundation is a charity which has been criticised for possibly accepting donations from very wealthy people, some of whom allegedly have rather suspect connections.
Is that acceptable if it is for the good of the thousands of people it helps?
Catch 22
Charles spent a lot of his own money on Dumfries House, which is a wonderful place.
But given the choice between Dumfries House and an effective NHS, I know which one I'd have.
It can't be left to individuals to decide where taxpayers money is spent. The support of society can't be left to individuals' pet projects. Unless you are Carnegie and provide all those libraries, of course 
You could be right Casdon. But I think Charles might use the money on schemes that are good things, but in the grand scheme of things they are not actually all that useful for the common good
I think Charles would spend the money on schemes for the future, to benefit the common good of future generations rather than just let the money be used to fill gaps where governments fail.
volver
Yes, any of those things.
If he wanted it to go to "good causes" he could have kept it and put it towards nurses pay
Nurses pay , ambulance workers ? teachers ?
I don't see how that could work. It would have to go through the Government for that to happen anyway.
And, yes, who is most deserving?
🤔
You could be right Casdon. But I think Charles might use the money on schemes that are good things, but in the grand scheme of things they are not actually all that useful for the common good.
We have a system in this country where society is supported according to the government we vote into power, not the whims of an unelected king. The current government is terrible, but its still better than relying on the rich folks to get it right. The city local to me, by the way, got £14million to do up a car park under the levelling up grants. That's just weird. 🤣
I suppose I am disappointed at the belief that KC is giving £250 million for good causes when he's not. The power of the Royal PR machine in action. 🤷🏼
volver
Had it not remained with the treasury, it would have gone to Charles and his family, and we wouldn't even have known about it. At least until some journalist had done some digging and found out that the sovereign grant had increased by nearly 300% in one year by dint of the king and his family owning the seabed.
It's being done as a PR exercise, is that not obvious? If he wanted it to go to "good causes" he could have kept it and put it towards nurses pay. And seeing as the new taxation percentage that he has decided he wants to pay doesn't come in until at least 2024, he'd have plenty time to think about it.
We are looking at this from different perspectives. You’re right of course, and it won’t be invested in specific schemes to benefit the population. I’m annoyed with the government for their half cracked levelling up schemes, all I’m saying is that I think given a similar amount of money to spend on schemes, Charles would in fact make a better fist of it.
I don't believe Charles should have written a book any more than I believe Harry should have. I would not read either of their books or any other "revelatory" books by the RF. I do not believe it is dignified or in keeping with their royal status.
I am critical of Harry for putting out his dirty laundry as well as Charles. It is disgraceful behaviour whoever does it. There is no excuse.
None of them, in actual fact.
None of them. None of them will get anything out of this. Neither will any of us. Just £250 million more for the treasury to spend as they see fit.
Mind you, but the time it filters through we might have a more sensible government.
But which one ?
Yes, any of those things.
Nurses pay , ambulance workers ? teachers ?
Had it not remained with the treasury, it would have gone to Charles and his family, and we wouldn't even have known about it. At least until some journalist had done some digging and found out that the sovereign grant had increased by nearly 300% in one year by dint of the king and his family owning the seabed.
It's being done as a PR exercise, is that not obvious? If he wanted it to go to "good causes" he could have kept it and put it towards nurses pay. And seeing as the new taxation percentage that he has decided he wants to pay doesn't come in until at least 2024, he'd have plenty time to think about it.
Whitewavemark2
Weirdly as a republican, I think that Charles would put the money to better public good than this dreadful government ever would.
That’s what I think too Whitewavemark2. Adding it to the Treasury’s sinking fund won’t make the best use of it.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »