"The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

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.

These are published or spoken accounts about Diana's cultivated look and relevent to what was being discussed on this thread regarding Tina Brown's book.
If there is a book on Camilla, or somebody making a statement about Camillas actions before giving a TV interview, then I'm sure we will all be able to discuss that in the appropriate thread.

Just because you don't like it, will not stop anyone putting their opinion or distasteful, to you, facts.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Just because you don't like it, will not stop anyone putting their opinion or distasteful, to you, facts.

Facts for you but none of it was filmed, photographed or something else that let an objective view. And it's not because I don't like it, it's because nobody can proves it. Although I agree with you one the Panorama interview.

[ysbel]

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. 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.

Diana may have cultivated a 'vulnerable' look for Bashir's interview, but I don't think she was just playacting vulnerability all the time. I think she had a real vulnerable core there which both critical and praising authors seem to agree on.

Its interesting you mention the camera episode with her father. Sally Bedell Smith mentions it only briefly, saying that Johnnie's paternal attention manifested itself in taking home movies of his family and that Diana was more extroverted when he was filming the family. Tina Brown apparently traces Diana's fascination with the camera and the media to those early home movies and it plays a bigger part in her analysis of what made Diana what she was.

[TheTruth]

Very true ysbel. Anyway, Johnnie did this with all his children which doesn't make Diana the 'center' of the family and she wasn't more on photos than other of her siblings.

[Duchess]

i think diana definitely cultivated an image. the stories (if they're true) of her demeanor in private with charles and the public image would be proof of that. any celebrity will cultivate their image...it's their trademark. i don't know if it's good or bad but it definitely happens. i think diana turned it on when she was in front of the press. i will say that in diana's case her carefully cultivated public image was a good thing. she made people happy, put people at ease and gave them comfort and that's a good thing regardless of what she was like in private. some may call it hypocritical though.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Facts for you but none of it was filmed, photographed or something else that let an objective view. And it's not because I don't like it, it's because nobody can proves it. Although I agree with you one the Panorama interview.

Most people accept that Diana, more than her sisters and brother posed for Johnnie, a lot of authors, be it books or articles have spoken of it, her own family have apparently spoken of it. Martin Bashir and his production staff spoke of her checking the camera angle, make up etc to project the shy Di, vulnerable hard done by look in "The Princess and the Panorama Programme" shown on BBC2 on the 8th November 2005.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Its interesting you mention the camera episode with her father. Sally Bedell Smith mentions it only briefly, saying that Johnnie's paternal attention manifested itself in taking home movies of his family and that Diana was more extroverted when he was filming the family. Tina Brown apparently traces Diana's fascination with the camera and the media to those early home movies and it plays a bigger part in her analysis of what made Diana what she was.

I think Tina Brown may be right, to Diana the camera meant being loved.

Originally Posted by Duchess

i think diana definitely cultivated an image. the stories (if they're true) of her demeanor in private with charles and the public image would be proof of that. any celebrity will cultivate their image...it's their trademark. i don't know if it's good or bad but it definitely happens. i think diana turned it on when she was in front of the press. i will say that in diana's case her carefully cultivated public image was a good thing. she made people happy, put people at ease and gave them comfort and that's a good thing regardless of what she was like in private. some may call it hypocritical though.

The trouble is Duchess, that Diana seemed to be more interested in her celebrity image than in being a member of the royal family.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

The trouble is Duchess, that Diana seemed to be more interested in her celebrity image than in being a member of the royal family.

I think she tried to combine both, and she certainly succeeded in becoming "Princess Superstar" (and that is meant as a compliment). Probably what we realise now is that playing the media game as a royal is not really a long-term proposition, and it's not the Royal Family's role to immerse themselves in celebrity culture.

[Polly]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

It seems to me, that Brown has perpetuated all the inaccuracies that were in other peoples books, added more than a few unsubstantiated rumours, her own outsider looking in angst and a lot of imagination.

Be that as it may, a family member of mine is quoted in this book and he does not cavil at what Tina Brown's written!

Not one participant in the Princess Diana phenomenon has any reason to be pleased or happy. Most of us, striving to be fair-minded, admit to liking Diana for her 'breath of fresh air' propensities, but can still retain our affection for Her Majesty I see no dichotomy or disservice to one or the other in this view.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Polly

Be that as it may, a family member of mine is quoted in this book and he does not cavil at what Tina Brown's written!
Not one participant in the Princess Diana phenomenon has any reason to be pleased or happy. Most of us, striving to be fair-minded, admit to liking Diana for her 'breath of fresh air' propensities, but can still retain our affection for Her Majesty I see no dichotomy or disservice to one or the other in this view.

I'm sure many on here can make claim to know someone who never even spoke to Brown but has been quoted. There are also many who would deny emphatically speaking to the woman (and be proud of it) and those she would never have got close enough to ask. We are of course discussing the book and what each person gets from it, not who likes/dislikes who or why. And of course what we read into some of the sections that we quote. You understood Brown to go into some things 'explicitly', I did not.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

The trouble is Duchess, that Diana seemed to be more interested in her celebrity image than in being a member of the royal family.

i think, given the way things turned out with her marriage, she definitely was more interested in her celebrity image. but if things had worked out with the marriage then i don't think she would have been. she once said something about her and charles would have made a great team and i think she was right on the money about that.

[TheTruth]

I agree with you Duchess ! The most important for her was the love of Charles. When she saw that it was hopeless, she took a step and kind of had her revenge. I won't blame her for that.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Duchess

i think, given the way things turned out with her marriage, she definitely was more interested in her celebrity image. but if things had worked out with the marriage then i don't think she would have been. she once said something about her and charles would have made a great team and i think she was right on the money about that.

I think Diana went into the marriage with the wrong attitude, based on the interview she gave. In the early days she could also have made an effort to ensure that she supported her husband, things I don't think Brown really covers. Many couples need time to adjust to married life, Charles expected his life to carry on as before with his workload unchanged, Diana IMO, expected to become the centre of his universe, I don't think she realised for one moment that he couldn't just tell people to cancel. To her way of thinking, he could because he was the Prince of Wales. In his defense I would say he wasn't prepared for how 'needy' Diana was.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Many couples need time to adjust to married life, Charles expected his life to carry on as before with his workload unchanged, Diana IMO, expected to become the centre of his universe, I don't think she realised for one moment that he couldn't just tell people to cancel. To her way of thinking, he could because he was the Prince of Wales. In his defense I would say he wasn't prepared for how 'needy' Diana was.

I think you have a good point there Skydragon. What bothers me is that he had time for Camilla and his friends (don't take it personnaly, just a reflection)

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Duchess

she once said something about her and charles would have made a great team and i think she was right on the money about that.

Based on what I know of Charles, I don't think Diana and Charles would have made a great team.

While waiting on Brown's book I got Sally Bedows Smith's book out of the library and the chapter on Diana's and Charles' courtship is quite interesting. From what Diana and Charles apparently said they wanted in a marriage it was impossible for the two to give what they need to each other

Charles, from what his friends said, apparently wanted a wife to live in his world and support him - and yes always walk two steps behind him because that is what royalty was used to. He said in an interview before the marriage that he saw the position as Princess of Wales as a tough job which he doubted that few girls would want. So it appears he didn't have romantic thoughts about a future bride but saw it as satisfying a job position. One of his friends also said that with the Prince, his work came first, his polo came second, and women came third. In my opinion, that didn't give him much time to act as a father figure. It looks like to me that he was not looking for a woman to fall in love with him but he was looking for a woman to fall in love with his world and share it with him.

Diana said later that she thought that Charles would take care of her and act as a kind, paternal father figure, giving her support and encouragement when she needed it and she said that she was bitterly disappointed when she found out that she got none of that.

According to Smith, apparently, both Charles and the Royal Family overestmated Diana's familiarity of their world because they had grown up with her; she had spent her childhood at Sandringham. Also apparently, Charles miscalculated Diana's character by her infatuation during the courtship. She apparently was very deferential to his wishes at all times and showed great interest in anything he was interested in: hunting, fishing at Balmoral, scholarly pursuits. So he concluded quite wrongly that she could fit into his world, always stay a couple of steps behind him and act as a helpmate to his work. However, even though she acted deferential to him during the courtship, it later became clear that Diana was not deferential in nature and it was impossible for her to keep up the appearance of deference over the course of a marriage.

I find Smith's analysis quite interesting, given that it was made from published interviews from the two principles but I think she does miss one point. I think that Charles can be capable of great kindness and sensitivity in certain situations. We've seen with Camilla that he can be quite gallant, romantic, and solicitous when the woman in question (Camilla) is fitting into his schemes and not making her own waves and I imagine that Diana's sweet and deferential behavior during the courtship did bring out the romantic fatherly figure in him which probably fooled Diana into thinking she had found her dream man.

I, personally, would understand Diana's need for revenge if at one point Diana and Charles had a happy life which Charles then carelessly destroyed by having a casual affair with an attractive woman but that does not seem to be the scenario. It seems that both of them made assumptions about each other that proved to be wrong and these assumptions were very important to be right for the two of them to have a happy marriage.

In that case, if Diana and Charles misjudged what they could give each other from the beginning and mistakenly married each other based on those misjudgements, I don't see the need for one to take revenge on the other.

Now my own opinion, that may change as I read both books, is that Diana was looking for approval and affirmation and she didn't really care where she got it from. If she wasn't going to get it from the Royal Family, she was going to get it from the press and public opinion.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

I think you have a good point there Skydragon. What bothers me is that he had time for Camilla and his friends (don't take it personnaly, just a reflection)

I believe they tried to include Diana in their friendships, but Diana as a much younger person always felt uncomfortable with these older friends. It is hard work not being able to join in the conversation of shared 'adventures'. There was a 12 year age difference, it can be summed up by comparing the likes and dislikes between an 8 year old and a 20 year old. To surmount differences like that you have to have the same interests and/or be besotted with one another. It is also harder, IMO, for men to adapt to much younger friends of their wife/fiance/girlfriend.

[Emily]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I think Diana went into the marriage with the wrong attitude......I would say he wasn't prepared for how 'needy' Diana was.

Agree. I think Diana was a boat adrift looking for a safe harbor emotionally, and I think her perception of what the monarchy offered was that safe harbor. What relatively few could have imagined was the depth of her emotional neediness: her hurt from childhood wounds and the anger/revenge that would result when that hurt got stirred up inside her. The "emotional abandonment" of her childhood, IMO, made her hypervigilant in her own adult life of that sort of thing happening again. To prevent this, she first became a difficult partner, testing Charles, as it were to be insured of his complete devotion to her without the least hint that he would abandon her. And, I believe her demand of 'complete devotion' was not only flawed from the start because it was really her own inner sense of control/having needs met that lacked and she looked for that to be met by someone else in the form of 'complete devotion' and that is an unreasonable expectation. So she turned to an eating disorder as one way to get 'control' and then she cultivated the public when she realized they were a powerful feedback mechanism for 'how important she was' and, this gave her control in the sense that she got leverage within the BRF. I think she cultivated the public in a short term/manipulative/"celebrity" kind of way and used her royal status as the platform for this cultivation. What she didn't/couldn't have realized is that her needs were quite out of step with what most 'normal' people, raised with love and relative stability, have. I don't really like or dislike Diana. I just view the whole situation as sad. She was a woman whose life was bound to play out the sad emotional residual of her childhood, as her brother's is doing, and it could have been done in a more obscure way than on the royal stage.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I believe they tried to include Diana in their friendships, but Diana as a much younger person always felt uncomfortable with these older friends. It is hard work not being able to join in the conversation of shared 'adventures'. There was a 12 year age difference, it can be summed up by comparing the likes and dislikes between an 8 year old and a 20 year old. To surmount differences like that you have to have the same interests and/or be besotted with one another. It is also harder, IMO, for men to adapt to much younger friends of their wife/fiance/girlfriend.

Yes, your explanation is very true. 12 years plus their different activities and hobbies couldn't help them. When you met someone and they become your friend, often it's because they share the same interests than you. Charles' friends couldn't get on with Diana because she was different from Charles, so from them. He was too old for her, he had already experienced lovestories, etc. So it was hard for Diana as well as for him to realise a successful marriage.

[Polly]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

We are of course discussing the book and what each person gets from it, not who likes/dislikes who or why. And of course what we read into some of the sections that we quote. You understood Brown to go into some things 'explicitly', I did not.

First, apologies for time-lapses between replies. Unavoidable, I'm afraid, particularly lately, as I've been empanelled on a jury.

I merely wanted to observe that we are indeed discussing who likes/dislikes who(m) and why, specifically because our opinions are all predicated on what we read, hear or are told, i.e. second hand information. Such has it always been.

The apparent disagreement between us, so far as I'm concerned, is based on your original response in #246 that you would not give the book more than a cursory glance. Simply, I could not fathom that assertion, given your inimical position on Brown's 'history'. Further, you have expressed doubts, if not contempt, over a relatively minor matter, that of the lemons. (I think it a charming and delightful little vignette whereas you perceive it as an evil plot to discredit the Queen Mother.) I have been to that particular area and I remember,full well, that the nearest shops are about 5 miles away and were closed on the day (Thursday, according to my diary) when I visited Thurso.

In sum, I find it difficult to understand why there is such a lingering desire to discredit the late Princess of Wales. Like most of, she was a combination of good and not-so-good, even silly, but so was everyone else, according to Brown. Mrs Parker-Bowles is the only implied 'casualty' of this book and I certainly don't quibble with Brown's assessment of her role in the marriage's collapse. On the other hand, she is now married to the Prince of Wales and I hope that they'll be happy and contented forever. The past is the past, and holding grudges is both unedifying and pointless.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, serious and professional historians have given approbation to Tina Brown's book. Whether we like it or not, it's bound to be seen as seminal by many, in much the same way as Shakespeare's unfair and political portrayal of Richard III is seen. Loosely, it's called the power of the press.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Polly

As I've pointed out elsewhere, serious and professional historians have given approbation to Tina Brown's book.

Hi Polly,

I hope your jury duty is short so you can come back and join us. When you get a chance, would you mind sharing which reviews you are referring to?

Perhaps you included them in an earlier post but if you did, I'm afraid they got lost in the Sturm und Drang of the thread's discussion.

Cheers.