The appearance of a hefty, 740-page tome documenting the often poisonous gossip and machinations which surrounded the relationship of the Prince and Princess of Wales may be greeted with the rolling of not a few eyes. After all, hasn't everything that could be said now been said about both Diana and Charles?

The answer would seem to be a definitive 'no'.

Charles: The Man Who Will Be King takes a new, up-to-date and thoroughly fascinating look at the life of the man who continues to divide public opinion.

The book explores all aspects of the Prince's life, from his childhood right through to his present day relations with his second wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, and his increasingly independent sons, Prince William and Prince Harry.

The heir to the throne once said his sons are just ordinary people born into an "extraordinary" life and circumstances. With 'ordinary' comes 'fallibility'. And so it is that the royals are as fallible as the people over whom they (figuratively speaking) 'rule'.

This we can see from this and the numerous books which regularly appear documenting the flaws in the characters of Charles and Diana, two people who were unfairly built up as "saints" only to, at times, be ultimately condemned as "sinners".

From page one of Charles: The Man Who Will Be King, it is unashamedly clear that the Prince's latest biographer, Howard Hodgson, is an ardent admirer of a man whose good works are so often overlooked in preference of seemingly endless analysis of his private life.

However, by being such a loyal admirer, the irony is that the Prince's latest biographer has possibly fallen into the very trap which caused Charles to fall from such great heights as a popular 'Action Man'-like figure to almost unbelievable despair and public humiliation.

The author essentially builds Charles up to unattainable heights. With the greatest respect for the two years of in-depth research which has gone into producing what is a page-turner for all those interested in the more recent history of the Royal Family, it is unlikely that many people would, as the author has done, call the twice-married Prince of Wales "virtuous".

Such hyperbole as this did, I have to admit, make me step back and wonder whether this is an unbiased portrayal of the life of the heir to the throne. Then again, the author is unashamed in his admiration for the Prince, alerting the reader to this fact from the outset.

In reality, so much has been written from the angle of Diana that is is fascinating to read a revisionist history of a man who has suffered one of the most damaging character assassinations in modern history.

Unfortunately, though — and this is true of many books on the heir to the throne — the comprehensive coverage of Charles's public life, including his decades of work for The Prince's Trust — is invariably overshadowed in this latest publication by the apparent wish of many within the royal establishment to blame the majority (if not all) of the Prince's problems on anyone but H.R.H.

As has occured so many times in the past (and likely again in the future), the positive portayal of Charles is at the huge cost of Diana. This is not the author's fault. The fact is that, as with her husband, Diana has been subjected to endless gossip and innuendo, much of which was put into the public domain by the Prince's friends and allies.

Such was her impact that the ultimately strong-willed Princess who was initially deemed "a mouse" by the Prince's great love Camilla, continues to cast a long shadow over any biography of the future King.

It's only right and fair to say that Charles: The Man Who Will Be King is not an altogether happy read for fans of Diana, portraying as it does the late Princess at her most complex. She is, to be frank, portrayed in some instances as being almost psychopathic, such were her alleged rages and 'paranoia'.

The book recounts all of the controversies and closely examines what Hodgson (as with Penny Junor before him) deems to be a "mental illness" which resulted in Diana allegedly being physically restrained during especially violent periods of anger.

It makes for very uncomfortable reading, for we are after all discussing here a woman who can no longer publicly defend herself or her reputation. However, so exhaustive is this book that all aspects of the Prince and Princess's lives — the good, the bad and the downright ugly — are examined in detail.

That is not to say that this book should not be read by even Diana's most ardent fans, for it does offer a fresh insight into the lives of its primary subjects, as well as reminding us all that the Prince of Wales has done far more than simply marry the woman who ultimately became one of the world's most popular (and at times controversial) figures.

Sometimes one could be forgiven for thinking this is a biography of Diana, rather than Charles, such is the amount of coverage she is given. However, the fact is that she was a major part of the Prince's life, and the way in which he is seen today. Therefore, such exhaustive coverage is, in my opinion, only right for one who wishes to examine all facets of Charles's life and character.

An especially disconcerting revelation in Charles: The Man Who Will Be King is the allegation that Diana and her eldest son, William, were at serious odds in the weeks leading up to her death. The two are said to have engaged in a string of massive rows over the Princess's ability to attract what she deemed to be 'unwanted' media attention.

According to the author, Prince William — who once harboured a deep hatred of the press — is said to have felt his mother was using him as a "pawn" in her 'manipulation' of the media, one which saw her wearing a leopard-skin swimming suit to out-do Camilla on the day of her 50th birthday in June 1997.

The book offers an interesting new angle on one of the most unexpected aspects of Diana's final weeks: the summer holiday in France during which she engaged in an unofficial chat with a boat-load of media representatives.

The author reminds readers of a bikini-clad Diana's comments in which, as she pleaded for privacy, she revealed to journalists: "My sons are always urging me to live abroad and be less in the public eye. Maybe that is what I should do, given the fact that you won't leave me alone. I have to be protective of my boys. William gets very distressed and he can get freaked out by the attention."

Interestingly, Hodgson alleges that the Princess hid from the journalists another of William's sentiments.

The Prince, then aged just 15, purportedly told his mother he wished she would essentially go away, such was his misery at her constant desire to be in the headlines. Hodgson writes of Diana: "What she hadn't articulated was that it had been said in anger and that they {William and Harry} had added that they wouldn't be joining her."

"In fact there had been one massive row between Prince William and his mother – a terrible tragedy given that she was never to see her sons again once the holiday was over."

Personally speaking, I'm as equally interested in the early life of the Prince of Wales as the more recent times which saw his public persona almost destroyed by endless, often murky, allegations about his private behaviour.

The author gives an excellent account of Charle's early life, one which none of us can truly appreciate, so different was it to that of our own childhoods.

We're reminded once more of the horror of his years at Gordonstoun school, a place where an inititation ceremony for new pupils saw the youngsters expected to make themselves bleed by repeatedly scratching their arms.

Such character-building — which in the outside world would be deemed bullying — was an ordeal for someone as gentle as Charles Philip Arthur George, a young man sheltered from 'reality' from the moment of his birth behind the shielded walls of Buckingham Palace in November 1948.

However, it is undoubtedly Diana who is the focus of so much attention.

The book does offer some new revelations, a remarkable feat considering just how much we know of the lives of the main characters.

Whilst overall a far more positive take on Charles than Diana — the Prince of Wales equivalent, perhaps, of Sarah Bradford's recent highly positive appraisal of Diana — the author does take time to applaud the late Princess's public works.

Sadly, though, such praise is at times accompanied by a reminder of Diana's apparent desire to manipulate the media with feel-good images of a caring, sharing royal. Then again, perhaps we are simply overly sensitive to any even minute criticism of Diana, knowing as we do that the woman who, in life, was at times built up to almost goddess proportions was, at the end of the day, just as human as the rest of us?

According to Charles: The Main Who Will Be King, in May 1997 the Princess — who was elated by the election victory of Tony Blair's 'New Labour' party — was determined to embark on a new public role, one which would have seen her attempting to help bring lasting peace to Northern Ireland.

With the IRA (Irish Republican Army) having now decommissioned their arms following years of intense political negotiations, it's easy to forget that at the time Diana was still alive, the terrorist organisation was still a significant threat.

Having seen for herself the distress of families who'd lost loved ones to the bombings, the author reveals that Diana had a plan: to become, in effect, a Northern Ireland peace ambassador.

However, the new Prime Minister — perhaps fearful of treading on royal toes by aligning himself too closely with the Queen's former daughter-in-law — refused to follow up on Diana's offer, instead convincing the Princess to continue her controversial anti-landmines campaign.

As the book reveals, this wasn't the first time Diana had forged plans for a new life as a roving ambassador, although much to her distress they were always thrown back in her face. One unnamed former Government minister tells Hodgson: "The Princess lacked the training, the consistency, the discipline and I'm bound to say the intelligence to be trusted with such tasks and as such was never considered for such a post."

"Moreover, as far as I am aware, she never formally requested us to consider her for a position in the first place."

Admirably, for one who clearly respects the future King, the author does cover all angles of Charles's life. This includes those allegations which Clarence House would prefer to remain firmly beneath the increasingly frayed royal carpets.

And so it is that Hodgson writes about the claim, perpetuated by an increasingly distraught Diana and the Prince's former aide George Smith, that Charles is gay.

It's rare that any books actually reveal the full "allegation", the reader usually being left to put two and two together when reminded of the threatened royal scandal of 2003 which saw Charles's Private Secretary, Michael Peat, appear on TV to rebut the allegations. In actual fact, said allegation was never  actually aired: this being that Smith found the Prince and a male member of staff in bed together.

It is an admirable move, one which the author clearly feels is necessary so as to finally put to rest what is widely deemed to be utter nonsense, just another weapon in what was undoubtedly one of the unhappiest marriages the royal establishment has ever seen.

The fact the author includes such reference is indicative of just how much depth the book goes into with regards to Charles's life, all of which makes for interesting reading.

The story of Charles and Diana feels, at times, exactly that: 'a story'. Sometimes it is difficult, as an outsider, to know what to believe, such is the amount of information which has seeped — make that poured — out of the separate courts over the past two decades.

The Prince is lucky, of course: he has people — often powerful people, at that, not least 'The Establishment' — who continue to promote his cause. He himself can continue to win us over with his extensive public duties. Surely even his most ardent critics have to acknowledge that the Prince of Wales — as with all of the royals — does an exhorbitant amount of work on behalf of we, the people?

The Prince continues to be seen on a regular basis via our TV screens and newspapers, as recently during his successful visit to America.

The main reason he is 'lucky' is far more pertinent: he is, quite simply, alive. He can continue to fight his cause, have an impact when necessary. As Palace insiders regularly say whenever a new poll shows what is actually increasingly less public apathy towards the reign of King Charles and Queen Camilla: they have time to turn it all around.

There is no doubt, as can be seen throughout Charles: The Man Who Will Be King, that the character assassination was vicious and cruel.

Of course, that sentiment can be completely reversed: Diana too has much ground to make up, her character having also been taken to the verge of being utterly destroyed, in her case often through the equally cruel and vicious actions of her husband's powerful band of allies.

And this is where we, the public, face a problem: who on earth do we believe? Is Charles more sinned against or sinner? What about Diana? As Charles's new biographer attempts to discover: was she more saint or devil?

The reality is that Charles: The Man Who Will Be King — as with every new book on the royal couple whose marriage turned from fairytale to nightmare — likely won't shift the opinions of anyone, be they opponents or supporters of Charles or Diana.

As already noted, the author himself does not attempt to hide the fact that he is a fan of his subject, concluding after years spent interviewing some of the Prince's closest circle: "There can be no doubt that the image of this caring and mostly virtuous man was lost under the fabrications of {Andrew} Morton, the humiliation of Camillagate, the scandal of Squidgygate, the indignity of the Panorama interview and the heap of idiotic stories of brake cables, homosexual rape and death conspiracies."

However, such was (and is) the level of intrigue surrounding both Charles and Diana that we, the public, likely won't ever truly know the man behind the headlines and caricatures.

They may be 'extraordinary' people thanks to their titles and birthrights, but beneath it all they are also 'ordinary' human beings who face/faced the same swirling emotions and conflicts as the rest of us.

The difference is that our flaws are not shared with the rest of the world.

Aware of just how tricky is the task of trying to unravel one of the most complex and at times sensational royal stories of all time, the author is unafraid to reveal his own thoughts on the seemingly perennial debate surrounding the character of 'The People's Princess', saying: "You have to come to three conclusions with Diana — one, she was a saint. Two, she was wicked and manipulative. Or three, she was poorly. I have come to the conclusion, after speaking with her doctors, that she was poorly."

However, Hodgson acknowledges that it was because of her own problems — the extent of which will always be the topic of huge conjecture — that Diana showed her true strengths as somebody who could associate with people from all sections of society. Claims the author: "It was her mental illness that made her a saint."

Indeed, the conclusion to the book is that there will continue to be never-ending debate as to the true character of the woman who has forever more changed the public perception of monarchy. As Hodgson wisely asks: "So who was the real Diana? Which person should we believe in, the angel or the devil? The answer is both, because both existed. And here lies the real problem."

"Those who love Diana can only see the angel and refuse to accept that the other Diana really existed in any form but in the imagination of her detractors' minds."

"Equally, the Princess's detractors, horrified by her dishonest behaviour that brought such heartache, damage and pain to the Royal Family, can't see beyond this and therefore judge any good that she might have achieved as just being an act of one who is only attention seeking and wanting to manipulate the media."

Having read Charles: The Man Who Will Be King, I can highly recommend it to anybody who is fascinated by the life and times of the undoubtedly complex future monarch.

My own thoughts regarding the overall negative portrayal of the late Princess which exists in this and, increasingly, a number of books? Read this latest biography and decide for yourself....and perhaps have one hand ready to reach for Sarah Bradford's recent examination of the world's most famous lady.

I have a feeling that "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is somewhere in between....