"The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown

[Skydragon]

Further, you have expressed doubts, if not contempt, over a relatively minor matter, that of the lemons. (Ithink 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.

You see it as a minor matter, I see it not as an evil plot, but a figment of imagination that illustrates how inaccurate many things are in this book. That far from being part of the set she says she knows, she actually has very little knowledge of it at all.

Look at it logically, for a moment - Just like everyone else, when any of the royals are going to stay at their Scottish homes, they notify their staff, who then ensure that they have everything their employers might require. If by the remotest chance the kitchen staff were out of lemons, would they go running to their employer, of course not, they would pop to the shops. Although Thurso has a half day on Thursday (Brown does not mention the supposed day of the week in my book), Wick's half day is Wednesday, Castletown, Dunnet all have shops and can you really see any of them refusing to serve the QM's staff, all of whom are known in the area? I don't have to look in my diary, I know the area, very, very well indeed. If by another remote chance none of the shops in the immediate area were willing or able to supply these mysteriously disappearing lemons and there was no time to travel to Golspie, Dornoch, Tain, Dingwall or Inverness, is it likely that the QM would contact her daughter on board a boat, or would it have been the staff of one contacting the other. When and where did this unnamed guest supposedly see this communiqué between Castle Mey and Britannia?

..... I certainly don't quibble with Brown's assessment of her role in the marriage's collapse....

I don't for one moment believe that Camilla played a major role in the breakdown of the marriage. They were an unsuited couple and because of their different likes, dislikes and expectations of married life, were doomed from the start. There were faults on both sides and if they had both been happy in the marriage, neither would have looked elsewhere, so far from blaming Camilla for the disintegration of the marriage, Charles and Diana were clearly at fault.

[Duchess]

Originally Posted by ysbel

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.

very interesting analysis and i think it's quite right...in hindsight. however i think what diana meant when she said she thought they'd make a great team was purely in their "public" life. having said that, we now know that if the "private" life wasn't working (and it clearly wasn't) then the "public" life could never be. i think diana went into things never thinking of the long term consequences. she saw the fairy tale side of things but either refused to admit or just didn't see that things aren't always perfect. charles on the other hand has found what i think even he though he'd never find...a woman that he loves and is devoted to supporting him both personally and traditionally.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Duchess

very interesting analysis and i think it's quite right...in hindsight. however i think what diana meant when she said she thought they'd make a great team was purely in their "public" life. having said that, we now know that if the "private" life wasn't working (and it clearly wasn't) then the "public" life could never be. i think diana went into things never thinking of the long term consequences. she saw the fairy tale side of things but either refused to admit or just didn't see that things aren't always perfect. charles on the other hand has found what i think even he though he'd never find...a woman that he loves and is devoted to supporting him both personally and traditionally.

I think you're right, Duchess. At least what I'm reading about Charles' and Diana's first Australian tour from Smith's book, it was a resounding success for both of them.

I've always wondered how Charles who sometimes was so awkward in situations of the heart was able to find a soulmate so quickly after the marriage fell apart when Diana who was much more emotionally perceptive and demonstratively loving could never really find someone she could really share her life with.

I was struck with something that Smith said about Charles' and Diana's education. Charles although he was somewhat intelligent was no intellectual and he had problems adjusting to his school and studies as Diana had her own difficulties with her school levels. However, Smith said that the difference between Charles and Diana was that as a male and the heir to the throne, Charles got a lot more attention in school and there were a lot more people in the school who had a vested interest in seeing that Charles was well adjusted and well educated. Diana when she was growning up was just the younger daughter of a noble family and apparently didn't get that much attention by the teachers in her school. She didn't do well in school but it wasn't seen as a cause for alarm or for special attention.

It struck me that in their love life, Charles and Diana seemed to face the same situation. Throughout his life, Charles has had women in his life who truly cared for him and his well-being, not only Camilla but Lady Tryon, Pamela Parker-Tomlinson and others. Perhaps they were attracted first by being friends with the Prince of Wales but but all of them stayed around for a long time and looked after him almost like clucking hens.

On the other hand, Diana seemed to attract what I would call charming scoundrels, like James Hewitt. Very charming and says the right thing but when push comes to shove, they're going to look after their own interests and not Diana's.

Of course, Charles' title had something to do with women being so willing to look after him but I also wonder whether women are more likely to wholeheartedly support a man than men are likely to wholeheartedly support a woman. It just seems that when it comes to love and support, Charles got the real deal with Camilla, and Diana, even after Charles, just ended up always getting what looked like love from the outside but wasn't a relationship born from someone who was really interested in looking after her best interests.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Of course, Charles' title had something to do with women being so willing to look after him

I think Charles is a really nice chap and that is how he attracted women willing to look after him. It could also be due to the fact that he gave off the signal that he didn't need mothering.

Diana on the other hand seemed to want, want, want, it is attractive to certain men to start with and then the moment they stop trying extra hard, Diana lost interest. I think Brown got it right when she said that Diana saw herself as one of the heroines in Cartlands bodice ripping books, she couldn't grasp that real life wasn't like that.

[Duchess]

i think charles is attracted to women that are independant, strong and decisive. camilla appears to be the kind of woman that can stand on her own and is definitely not needy while diana always needed someone to protect her. while that may be attractive to a lot men, i don't think it's something that charles was looking for in a woman. it's not all that different from wallis spencer...at first she just wanted to be friends with the prince and was a strong figure in his life. the allure of being friends with a prince can be intoxicating for a lot of people i'm sure but it takes a strong woman to maintain her best qualities when the going gets rough and i think both camilla and wallis were the best examples of this.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I think Charles is a really nice chap and that is how he attracted women willing to look after him. It could also be due to the fact that he gave off the signal that he didn't need mothering.

Diana on the other hand seemed to want, want, want, it is attractive to certain men to start with and then the moment they stop trying extra hard, Diana lost interest. I think Brown got it right when she said that Diana saw herself as one of the heroines in Cartlands bodice ripping books, she couldn't grasp that real life wasn't like that.

Well according to the Smith book, both Charles and Diana just seemed to want, want, want. Charles had the good fortune to find others who would give it to him. Diana didn't.

It will be interesting to see how Tina Brown makes a triumph of this story because in reading Smith's book, it reads like a Greek tragedy.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I think Charles is a really nice chap and that is how he attracted women willing to look after him. It could also be due to the fact that he gave off the signal that he didn't need mothering.

You honestly don't believe that his being the Prince of Wales had anything to do with it?

[acdc1]

I'm reading the book at the moment, and one point I found interesting was that it says that Charles wasn't the love of Camilla's life (at that time). Andrew Parker-Bowles was. But it also says that Camilla was the love of Charles' life. Does this mean that he married Diana because she was a pretty young girl who could produce good heirs to the throne and someone that people would like? I personally think that he didn't hate Diana, and that he truly cared for her; he probably still would today if she was still alive. What did Diana think of him at first?

Sorry if this is wrong thread. The topic seemed to go.

[Elspeth]

If you want to discuss Charles and Diana in more detail, as opposed to discussing what the book says, you might want to have a look at this thread and see if it's appropriate:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...iana-2444.html

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I think Charles is a really nice chap and that is how he attracted women willing to look after him. It could also be due to the fact that he gave off the signal that he didn't need mothering..

Actually my view is opposite on this. I think Prince Charles shows very clear signals about the need of being looked after. I had such an impression in 1997 HK returning to China ceremony and this was the first time I saw him and it was just on TV. I was only 14 that year.

Prince Charles gave me an impression of a very lonely and very sad man at the first glance that makes me unable to forget for years. I regard him as a very much little Prince's type which can attract many women's sympathy easily. The more he talked, they more they feel. They more they feel, the more they want to protect him and offer him warmth and understanding. I find him a very attractive chap in many ways: his eyes, his grins, his knowldge and his ideas,his kindness and his thoughfulness. No doubt, many women likes him very much and they are interested in looking after him as much as they can. Prince Charles make them happy.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

You honestly don't believe that his being the Prince of Wales had anything to do with it?

It put a great many off a friendship with him, IMO. Charles seems happiest with people who are comfortable with him, not the lick spittles who want to be friends with him because of who he is or what being associated with him can get them. I think he is very clever at weeding them out, that is why so few of his or Camilla's friends have ever spoken out.

He apparently has a wicked sense of humour and that attracts women.

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by Duchess

i think charles is attracted to women that are independant, strong and decisive. camilla appears to be the kind of woman that can stand on her own and is definitely not needy while diana always needed someone to protect her. while that may be attractive to a lot men, i don't think it's something that charles was looking for in a woman. it's not all that different from wallis spencer...at first she just wanted to be friends with the prince and was a strong figure in his life. the allure of being friends with a prince can be intoxicating for a lot of people i'm sure but it takes a strong woman to maintain her best qualities when the going gets rough and i think both camilla and wallis were the best examples of this.

I guess probably it was because Windsors men have similar characters in general and they are quite used to strong woman who can support him during their life. Sorry, I don't put Camilla and Wallis together. I find Camilla has a similar natural character with Queen Mother instead. I think it is a very natural thing for Charles and Camilla becoming best friends. It is not an ambition but a natural course between they two. I am quite convinced Charles and Camilla are rare examples of soulmates destined to be together for life. Charles and Camilla are just different sides of a coin. I do think Camilla was born for Prince Charles and it was a great pity that he did not have much chance to marry her at the first place.

[norwegianne]

I picked up this at the airport five weeks back when I was going on holiday - and only started reading it on the plane back yesterday. I have to agree with the poster (can't recall who at the moment... sorry) who mentioned that it was strange that a book about the a very photographed woman, should have no photographs. As someone who doesn't own every book about Diana in existence, it might have been nice to have some illustrations with the text. Especially when it seems that Brown has been looking at childhood pictures of Diana on the last page of the chapter "A slide show" p. 21. (Speaking of p. 21, I also find the comment about how in America a Kennedy would be sleeping with the nannies if they were as pretty as these, unnecessary in a biography about a non-Kennedy.)

At the moment, I'm not overly impressed.

[Polly]

Originally Posted by ysbel

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.

Apologies again for the delay.

I was particularly thinking of Simon Schama, among many, viz -

"With "The Diana Chronicles" the story of the world's favorite tragic princess at last leaves the realm of soap opera. Nothing comes close to Tina Brown's book for its tight grip on the dark human comedy that was Diana's life and death. Brown knows the ritual dances, the shouts and whispers of the tribes of Britain -- the Sloanes, the paparazzi, the aristos, and the cocktail lounge lizards -- better than anyone who has ever written this story, but she also has a perfect ear for the way ordinary people responded to the doomed Princess. The result is a compulsively page-turning trip to the poisoned place where class met glamour and the result was catastrophe. At last we have a book that measures up to its subject -- not just the wide-eyed, long-legged, good-hearted, muddle-headed woman at its center -- but the endlessly fascinating peculiarity of Britain itself."
– Simon Schama, University Professor, the Department of Art History and Archaeology, Columbia University and author of "Rough Crossings: Britain, the Slaves and the American Revolution," "A History of Britain" and "Citizens: A Chronicle"

"Tina Brown has produced a delightfully smart and insightful book that captures both the personal tale of Princess Diana as well as the astonishing cultural phenomenon that she became. Nobody has a better feel for both aspects than Tina. With great reporting and savvy judgments, she weaves a compelling human drama into a rich social history."
– Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute and author of "Einstein: His Life and Universe"

[ysbel]

Thanks for your answer Polly. These quotes make me indeed interested in reading Brown's book. Unfortunately I'm afraid I have to wait a bit longer.

[hibou]

I am almost finished reading the Diana chronicles and I must admit I went into it with a great deal of skepticism. I find that Tina Brown has been pretty even handed in her approach and does not seem to spare anyone nor side with anyone. I came away with a much clearer picture of what happened. It is a very sad story all around. JMO

[Skydragon]

That is worrying, that anyone would believe they have a clearer picture after reading this book. Many of the facts Brown presents are just recycled unsourced items from other people's books and magazine articles, (she even gives the Mail as a source).

As ever, it can only be someone else's idea of what they think may have happened in the relationship.

[hibou]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

That is worrying, that anyone would believe they have a clearer picture after reading this book. Many of the facts Brown presents are just recycled unsourced items from other people's books and magazine articles, (she even gives the Mail as a source).

As ever, it can only be someone else's idea of what they think may have happened in the relationship.

I beg your pardon? Do you have the facts? You personally know all the players to comment as such. While I am not an avid follower, I remember many of the events. I have a much clearer picture of why things unfolded they way they did. It took three for this mess to happen and three were portrayed in the book. Some of the missteps were well published as they happened and I'm not referring to the tabloid fodder nor proposed scenarios but those unnamed sources.

There are times when perfectly normal people put into the wrong relationship do stupid things, and I'm not just referring to Diana but all three of them. It took three and putting all the events into one book helps the timeline. I'm not concerned with unnamed sources in the book just the main events and I do remember them. If everything is so wrong why don't you write a book and straighten the facts out. It would be a good thing to do, so that those of us who are not so avid follows understand what really happened. JMO

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by hibou

I beg your pardon? Do you have the facts? You personally know all the players to comment as such. While I am not an avid follower, I remember many of the events. I have a much clearer picture of why things unfolded they way they did. It took three for this mess to happen and three were portrayed in the book. Some of the missteps were well published as they happened and I'm not referring to the tabloid fodder nor proposed scenarios but those unnamed sources.

I still haven't read it because I'm waiting for a second-hand copy (been buying too many books recently!), but I think it took a lot more than three for the mess to happen if you put it in context. However, if Tina Brown is going through the timeline and not sparing any of the principals when it comes to apportioning responsibility for things, she may have come closer than some of the biographers, who have been too narrowly focused and thoroughly biased one way or the other.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by hibou

I beg your pardon? Do you have the facts? You personally know all the players to comment as such.

The only people who could possibly have all the facts, have never spoken. Diana gave her distorted version to Morton, some of which Brown disputes, but apart from that no one else has spoken. Charles hasn't spoken, Camilla hasn't spoken, Charles' friends haven't spoken, Camillas friends haven't spoken, HM etc, etc. So if all these key players have never spoken to Brown or the press, I am puzzled as to how the picture becomes clearer.

As with any book or article, without statements from all sides involved, it can only be someone else's idea of what they think may have happened in the relationship. Their interpretation, good or bad, that is still, all it is.