"Diana" by Sarah Bradford (2006)

[love_cc]

Have anyone read about Sarah Bradford's new book about Diana? Please discuss your thoughts. I am a bit dispointed in this book since this book does not show some new information. Moreoevr there are too many quotes from a royal friend, a royal relation.....even the author is creditable to trust her sources but I want to know more details.

 

[sassie]

I enjoyed it. I didn't expect any new information, though. Bradford makes a strong attempt to present a thorough and balanced view of Diana's life. She does show some slight prejudice against Prince Charles-but her descriptions of him are honest, not vindictive. It's a fair book overall, and an enjoyable one.

 

[Sammy]

I found the book to be very fair. She didn't put anyone on a pedistal nor did she make any one person the "bad guy". While there was really no new information for Diana followers, it would be the book I would recommend to someone wanting to learn about Diana.

 

[tara1983]

I haven't read the book yet. so now i have mixed thoughts if to read it or not

 

[Elspeth]

It's a fairly authoritative book, so if you're looking for a biography that doesn't mindlessly repeat mistakes, you might want to give it a try.

 

[TheTruth]

Just finished the book (the new release). I found it very fair (which is quite rare with the subject it's treating). Bradford didn't blame anyone. She saw the lonelyness of Diana behind the adulation of the world and did an incredible job of research to give the truth to the readers. A really great book !

 

[Mermaid1962]

I bought this book yesterday and have read through chapter five. So far, I'm finding it quite balanced. The author gives lots of footnotes and includes the dates of her various interviews, which IMO is more authoritative than the tabloid "a source close to the Royals/Spencers/Diana/Charles." What I like about this book so far is that its tone is non-judgemental. The various people are given full responsibility for their actions.

Just finished the book (the new release). I found it very fair (which is quite rare with the subject it's treating). Bradford didn't blame anyone. She saw the lonelyness of Diana behind the adulation of the world and did an incredible job of research to give the truth to the readers. A really great book !

 

[ghost_night554]

Along with the footnotes and dates given does it say who they interviewed cause I know alot of books say "a friend" but don't give the name, possibly to protect identity. Cause what I'm getting from the original post is that they use the words "royal friend", "royal relation" etc alot I don't have the book I'm trying to decide which one is the best to get that's why I'm asking this.

 

[Elspeth]

Most biographies of royals and high-profile people like Diana will have a lot of quotes from people who requested anonymity as a condition of speaking to the author. I don't think you'll find a royal biography (with the possible exception of official biographies) that doesn't do that.

So if you're trying to avoid these sorts of quotes from anonymous sources, there aren't going to be any books that'll fit the bill. This one is very fair, authoritative, and well researched; it's probably one of the best books out there if you're looking for a general biography.

 

[ghost_night554]

Thank you for that information Elspeth

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I bought this book yesterday and have read through chapter five. So far, I'm finding it quite balanced. The author gives lots of footnotes and includes the dates of her various interviews, which IMO is more authoritative than the tabloid "a source close to the Royals/Spencers/Diana/Charles." What I like about this book so far is that its tone is non-judgemental. The various people are given full responsibility for their actions.

I am currently reading Sarah Bradford's treatment of Diana and I have to say it is one of the best. She doesn't trash her subject nor is she into the type of hagiography presented by Anne Edwards in "Ever After"...which is why I tend to believe Bradford. She is sympathetic, yet critical and honest. It's a tragic, tragic story but one can learn so many things for Diana's brief life, I think.

I have also read her biography of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis..once again it is amazing...thoroughly researched and honest without being a hatchet job.

She is my kind of biographer!

 

[Boris]

Sarah Bradford's is certainly the best biography of Princess Diana so far.
By comparison, Sally Bedell Smith's bio amounts to a hatchet job based on one premise: Trying to prove the author's theory that Diana had a borderline personality in the clinical sense and reading this into nearly all of her actions, an approach which makes it redundant and questionable.
Anne Edwards' bio is unashamedly pro-Diana. Surprisingly, it includes quite a few facts which are usually overlooked, but she's wearing rose-tinted glasses indeed.
Tina Brown's bio is fair enough but draws heavily on Bradford - all in all it was an over-hyped book.
Sympathetic but critical, plus reliable and written with intelligence, would really be correct terms to describe Bradford's biography. In order to read up on the Princess, I'd therefore pick this.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Sarah Bradford's is certainly the best biography of Princess Diana so far.
By comparison, Sally Bedell Smith's bio amounts to a hatchet job based on one premise: Trying to prove the author's theory that Diana had a borderline personality in the clinical sense and reading this into nearly all of her actions, an approach which makes it redundant and questionable.
Anne Edwards' bio is unashamedly pro-Diana. Surprisingly, it includes quite a few facts which are usually overlooked, but she's wearing rose-tinted glasses indeed.
Tina Brown's bio is fair enough but draws heavily on Bradford - all in all it was an over-hyped book.
Sympathetic but critical, plus reliable and written with intelligence, would really be correct terms to describe Bradford's biography. In order to read up on the Princess, I'd therefore pick this.

I agree wholeheartedly...I was very disappointed in Sally Bedell Smith's book because I am familiar with her writing and her treatment of Diana was full of pseudo psychological analysis which she frankly was not qualified to make. It was apparently down to a snub from the late Princess when both women were at a party on Martha's Vineyard...Bedell-Smith admitted to being disappointed that Diana didn't seem to warm up to her.

Anne Edward's on the other hand just made me cringe...it was almost sappy in it's gushing sentimentality.

Tina Brown's bio was okay..what I liked about it was that it was fair to all sides.

But Sarah Bradford as biographer to Elizabeth II, Grace of Monaco, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and now Diana strikes me as a more authoritative writer than all of the above. She is both sympathetic and critical..in short the type of writing that I tend to believe in and trust most.

Hatchet jobs AND hagiography both leave me cold.

 

[sirhon11234]

After reading Sarah Bradford's "Diana" I have concluded that it is the best book I have read on the Princess of Wales.

I rather enjoyed Anne Edwards' "Ever After" but Bradford as CaliforniaDreamin stated is sympathetic, critical and honest.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Just finished the book (the new release). I found it very fair (which is quite rare with the subject it's treating). Bradford didn't blame anyone. She saw the lonelyness of Diana behind the adulation of the world and did an incredible job of research to give the truth to the readers. A really great book !

It's quite interesting to read the opinions presented here about the book as I have just finished reading it and found it disappointing. I read it parallely with Brandreth's "Elizabeth and Philip" and Brown's "Diana Chronicles" and found it to be the least amusing of the three.

I liked that Bradford did not dabble that much in gossip and did not present in the appendix on close to any page articles from tabloids as her "sources" for things she stated as facts as did Brown.

But fairly balanced? Huh? Bradford is a Diana-ista if I ever read one. Yes, she very often refrains from commenting on things she presents as facts and is obviously able to name sources, even if they are anonymous ones, but ones she could present if challenged, I guess.

But one thing si overly clear: Bradford believes that the fact that Charles did not give Diana the kind of love Diana craved is responisble for all the negative, self-destructive and fiendish things Diana did. so charles is responisble for all that happened to him through Diana, as he did not love her enough, because he had the wrong choice of friends, because he dared to fight back when provoked. Bradford names these happenings, she describes how Diana after her divorce "liked to make trouble for St. James's palace", how she enjoyed to "muddle her ex-husband's household" but she is quite open in her understanding for this behaviour of Diana's. That it was very hard for Charles to cope with the fact that on doing so, Diana posed a permanent threat to him is nothing Bradford allows for an excuse or just explanation of Charles' reactions.

Oh yes, Bradford sees the "dark side" of Diana, but I got the impression that she thinks that as Charles was not able to tone down this "dark side" he is responsible for all she did and it is okay that he suffered for it.

Sorry, not my way to see Diana at all! I was very disappointed in the book.

 

[pgm1952]

I want to find this book! I have great respect for Sarah Bradford and hope it is much more respectful in tone and grounded in good research than Tina Brown's "The Diana Chronicles".

 

[CyrilVladisla]

This is an excellent book. Sarah writes very well about Diana as she progresses from a nobleman's daughter to become the Princess of Wales.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

I have this along with the Tina Brown Diana bio and this is the better one. Bradford's sources are better and her writing style had more gravitas than Brown's which gets really annoying, especially when she is talking about her preferred subject - herself. This would be the Diana bio I would recommend as definitive of the current lot.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

I have this along with the Tina Brown Diana bio and this is the better one. Bradford's sources are better and her writing style had more gravitas than Brown's which gets really annoying, especially when she is talking about her preferred subject - herself. This would be the Diana bio I would recommend as definitive of the current lot.

Brown that is, not Bradford

 

[Denville]

I want to find this book! I have great respect for Sarah Bradford and hope it is much more respectful in tone and grounded in good research than Tina Brown's "The Diana Chronicles".

I woud not fault Brown as regards research, I think that she did a good job there. The writing style is not to my taste...

 

[aigulminimalist]

the author tries to convey the idea "Charles was mean to diana thats why she made these self-destructive mistakes"