"The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown

[LOSSEAN]

I would agree with you Anbrida and of course Polly's excellent analysis quoted above in post #274 by Duchess. Diana was a phenomenon - the manisfestation of what I felt in fairytales. And perhaps that is the only way to describe her: as you said 'magical'.

When a child, I was an avid follower of the Royal Family and dutifully maintained scrap books. The devotion to duty of Her Majesty, the sacrifice of HM the Queen Mother when she became Queen Consort and during WWII made a deep impression on me. Princess Alexandra and Princess Anne fitted into that mold.

I detested celebrities because I felt they did not do anything for their fellow-men but lived a life of leisure from the spoils of exploiting their fellow men. But we were attracted by the glamour.

Jacqueline Kennedy and Princess Grace of Monaco were two first ladies with a glamorous fashion sense. I was resigned to the fact that the Royal ladies are wearing the clothes that befits their status. Sometimes, in the 70s they appeared overloaded with jewels but I reasoned, it was the demands of the positions they hold.

Then there was Mother Teresa whose life of servanthood to the disadvantaged was an inspiration.

But Diana combined the dutiful, the glamorous, the compassionate into one neat little package and yes! it was magical. The fairytale fell apart but I am glad it happenned.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by LOSSEAN

But Diana combined the dutiful, the glamorous, the compassionate into one neat little package and yes! it was magical. The fairytale fell apart but I am glad it happenned.

So it seemed like the image of Diana had a little something for everybody - she was not just a princess, not just a humanitarian, not just a humanitarian, a beautiful glamourous figure, not just a glamourous figure, a humanitarian.

Originally Posted by anbrida

But if I were asked why I always thought of her, I couldn’t come out even one word. And I’ve already given up the effort to explain why. To me she was just simply “magical”. If you ask me to use one word to depict Diana, or the Diana phenomenon, I would choose “magical”. However, this world become so rational that people didn’t believe “magic” any more.

I think Diana's magic was her message that it was OK to use your heart rather than your head.

I'm interested to see what Tina Brown makes of all this in her book.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

From the excerpt I read it seemed that Tina Brown was chronicling Diana's move from the royal society to a more celebrity-driven society. Since I still believe that Tina is an expert in this celebrity culture, I think she may be more qualified to talk about Diana's move to celebritydom and her interactions with that set rather than about Diana's relationship with the Royal Family since as you say, it is a different culture.

I know that Diana was aristocratic in blood but in many ways she did not seem to act very aristocratic. It was said of Diana once that while she had the common touch and could easily relate to underprivileged people and people in pain, she had a hard time relating to people of her own social class. skydragon, I don't think you would say Diana was a typical example of anstocratic English girl, would you?
.... think because Diana didn't seem to fit within her class very comfortably and did fit into the celebrity culture more comfortably than the aristocratic class, that Tina Brown could understand Diana and what motivated her and probably moreso what drove the decidely non-aristocratic public to adore her.

I agree with all your points. I expect I have trouble 'understanding' what other people call the phenomenon and the book because I have trouble with the celebrity culture. Many years ago I met the Beatles, but was distinctly under impressed, so much so, I gave their autographs to a friend!
Diana could be very well aware of her position and didn't mind using it when she wanted, IMO. She was more taken with the adoration of 'common people', which she hadn't had as the youngest daughter, from people of the same class.

[Duchess]

isn't it funny that diana didn't really fit into any "mold". she felt more comfortable with people that were in a lower social class than her own, yet all those people that she felt comfortable with still saw her in a higher social class.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Duchess

isn't it funny that diana didn't really fit into any "mold". she felt more comfortable with people that were in a lower social class than her own, yet all those people that she felt comfortable with still saw her in a higher social class.

Well, when you're Princess of Wales you can't be in a low social class, know what I mean ? Although I understand you if you're talking about when she wasn't princess.

[LOSSEAN]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

She was more taken with the adoration of 'common people', which she hadn't had as the youngest daughter, from people of the same class.

Is the adoration of higher class worth more than the those of the lower class? As I see it (from afar off, of course, thank goodness), the higher class (especially in Britain) are somewhat restrained in displaying adoration, even to Her Majesty.

The exception of course is that venerable statesman Sir Winston Churchill, incidently, a kinsman to Diana. It's quite something to see pictures of him greeting his young Queen when she came back from Kenya on that memorable occassion or at other functions. Head bowed in reverent affection whenever he shakes her hand. And in his speeches, always with deep respect to his sovereign. Ahh but how times have changed!

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by LOSSEAN

Is the adoration of higher class worth more than the those of the lower class? As I see it (from afar off, of course, thank goodness), the higher class (especially in Britain) are somewhat restrained in displaying adoration, even to Her Majesty.

The exception of course is that venerable statesman Sir Winston Churchill, incidently, a kinsman to Diana.

Winston Churchill was half-American so I think that is where he got his effusiveness from, LOSSEAN! Americans have never been known to hold back and Churchill's mother Jennie Jerome certainly didn't. She scandalized Britons by campaigning for her husband by directly asking for people to vote for her husband for his position in Parliament. The Britons were scandalized; in Britain, politicians didn't directly solicit votes!

No LOSSEAN, I don't think the adoration of the higher classes is worth more than the adoration of lower classes, but if Diana felt uncomfortable with people of the upper class then I think it may be because she was uncomfortable with some aspects of herself since she was herself a member of the upper class. I think it would be impossible for her to totally discard her upper class upbringing even though she didn't exhibit the upper class parts of her personality too much to the public, does that make sense?

Originally Posted by skydragon

Many years ago I met the Beatles, but was distinctly under impressed, so much so, I gave their autographs to a friend!

Oh I would have killed for an autograph of George Harrison, skydragon. But for the most part, I'm the same way as you about the celebrity culture but I like to learn why other people think as they do.

Originally Posted by skydragon

She was more taken with the adoration of 'common people', which she hadn't had as the youngest daughter, from people of the same class.

Interesting, skydragon. I heard some of Diana's schoolteachers say that they thought Diana needed more attention than she was getting from her family (in particular her father) at the time, even though the teachers themselves could tell that the Earl was clearly very fond of his daughter. I haven't gotten the book from the library yet. In the book does Tina Brown mention this at all?

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Interesting, skydragon. I heard some of Diana's schoolteachers say that they thought Diana needed more attention than she was getting from her family (in particular her father) at the time, even though the teachers themselves could tell that the Earl was clearly very fond of his daughter. I haven't gotten the book from the library yet. In the book does Tina Brown mention this at all?

I didn't read the book yet either so can't help you there. Although I'm pretty sure Sarah Bradford mention a part like that. If you have read the book, maybe you know what I'm talking about.

[ysbel]

Thanks TheTruth. I've ordered Bradford's book too.

[TheTruth]

You're very welcomed. I found it was a great book, very balanced without making someone the 'bad guy'. Tina Brown's one seems quite interesting but I'm waiting less of it. Just my opinion though . Have a good reading

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Interesting, skydragon. I heard some of Diana's schoolteachers say that they thought Diana needed more attention than she was getting from her family (in particular her father) at the time, even though the teachers themselves could tell that the Earl was clearly very fond of his daughter. I haven't gotten the book from the library yet. In the book does Tina Brown mention this at all?

There is another one liner regarding this I think, but I can't find it at the moment.

There are one or two sections that show, IMO, Diana's need to be see as better than anyone else. When she heard her Grandfather the Earl had died, instead of a few tears, she rushed along the school corriders telling everyone 'I'm a Lady now, I'm Lady Diana now'.

I also think it is unfortunate that Brown seems to blame the nannies for giving up on Diana, but some of the torture she inflicted was awful. Apart from the pins in a cushion treatment of one, she flushed anothers engagement ring down the loo. These nasty episodes only get a short write up and I find it incredible that everyone seems to gloss over them, including Brown.

IMO, Diana was too busy making sure people from her own class, know she was now a step above them and if they failed to realise that and treat her accordingly, she could I think be quite vindictive. Most of the public treated her as she believed she should be treated, but I don't think she could work out why those from her own class, or Charles' friends didn't treat her that way as well.

[ysbel]

Interesting, skydragon. I'm surprised one of her former nannies hasn't released a tell-all book then.

Unfortunately, on the subject that I am most interested in, how she got along with Charles' friends, I don't think Tina Brown is in a good position to write about. I do think that played a large part in the scheme of things.

Well I just realized that I reserved Sally Bedell Smith book at the library not Sarah Bradford's book. It was Smith's book I read before, not Bradford's. I can't believe I got those two mixed up. Smith had the analysis of Diana's media appeal that I thought was so striking so I wanted to compare her impression with Tina Brown's.

[Warren]

What should be kept in mind was that a good part of the appeal Diana had to ordinary people (on an international scale) was that on marriage she immediately attained the royal mystique. Without that, she would have been just another largely anonymous aristo.

What makes the "Diana phenomonon" so interesting, and maybe unique, is how, while at the pinnacle of society, she used that mystique to project herself not only as the protector of the downtrodden, but as a victim herself. While she undoubtedly had an ally in the media, she would certainly have been very well-aware of the public persona that was being presented to the world.

The flaw is that on closer examination heroes may have feet of clay; the tragedy is that it all began to unravel towards the end. Like many, I cannot understand why she so willingly became associated with (and allowed herself to be used by) the al-Fayeds, a lapse of judgement which was to prove fatal.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Interesting, skydragon. I'm surprised one of her former nannies hasn't released a tell-all book then.

Give it time!

Unfortunately, on the subject that I am most interested in, how she got along with Charles' friends, I don't think Tina Brown is in a good position to write about. I do think that played a large part in the scheme of things.

I can't see any of Charles friends making any comments that could be made public and certainly not to Tina Brown.

[susan alicia]

"..............Like many, I cannot understand why she so willingly became associated with (and allowed herself to be used by) the al-Fayeds, a lapse of judgement which was to prove fatal.........."

To humiliate Charles imo

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

There are one or two sections that show, IMO, Diana's need to be see as better than anyone else. When she heard her Grandfather the Earl had died, instead of a few tears, she rushed along the school corriders telling everyone 'I'm a Lady now, I'm Lady Diana now'.

Well, she rarely saw her grandfather who was by the way, a greedy person, obsessed by 'his' Althorp more than everything, even his own children. With someone like that, I wouldn't cry.

[Duchess]

i agree that diana's association with the Al Fayed's was a big mistake and i think it still would have been had she not died. the popular opinion (or at least the one that's been planted by the media) is that she felt Al Fayed's seemingly unlimited resources/wealth could provide her with the kind of protection (and luxury?) she wanted. i guess we'll never know for sure. the only people that she would probably have discussed this with have not, and probably never will, tell the media about it.

[ysbel]

Well the library told me it will take awhile to get Tina Brown's book but I did get Sally Bedell Smith's book and its interesting to read her analysis of the Diana phenomenon in light of Tina Brown's book.

Smith wrote that Diana's enigma was partly the uniqueness of being a royal princess, partly her espressive beauty (especially her eyes which communicated modesty) and also her air of vulnerablity and accessibility. The total made up a package that was unique. This is similar to quotes I heard from Brown's book.

On the second reading, Smith's analysis is annoying me a little more than before. When I first read it, no one had described Diana from this angle yet so it seemed revolutionary but now on the second read I wish she would support her argument more, if not by quotes at least by explaining how she arrives to some conclusions. She does better when she's writing about Diana's family. It appears that a lot of Diana's family on both sides talked to Smith and their revelations about themselves or each other sound more unguarded and therefore seem sometimes more revealing of Diana's environment and what shaped her than their remembrances of Diana herself.

Smith does seem like she differs greatly with Tina Brown on the impact of Diana's fame but I want to reserve judgment until I read Brown's book. Smith's goal in the book seems to be to uncover the human being underneath the Diana mystique and her opinion was that the fame damaged the flesh and blood human being that was Diana. Tina Brown, from what I've read, apparently frames the postive effects of Diana's media presence in terms of how it affects others so the two viewpoints may not be as contradictory as they first seem.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Smith wrote that Diana's enigma was partly the uniqueness of being a royal princess, partly her espressive beauty (especially her eyes which communicated modesty) and also her air of vulnerablity and accessibility. The total made up a package that was unique. This is similar to quotes I heard from Brown's book.

Very similar, however, don't forget that Diana apparently posed for hours for her father to take photos and spent further hours in front of a mirror, to cultivate just such a look. Martin Bashir said on the BBC programme about her interview, that Diana spent almost an hour having the camera and chair moved, so that she looked up and seemed 'vulnerable' to the lens.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Very similar, however, don't forget that Diana apparently posed for hours for her father to take photos and spent further hours in front of a mirror, to cultivate just such a look.

Okay she posed for her father but I think you say that this way because you don't like Diana. Why do you get her down like that? I mean, I don't do this for Camilla and I'm sure there's thing to say about her but I never said a bad word on her lol.