"The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown

[kimebear]

Perhaps if Diana had not married so young, she would have had a chance to develop into a more healthy adult. She went from being a sheltered aristocrats daughter to being thrust into the world's spotlight, married to a much older man who really didn't know what to do with a teenager. There was really so much blame on both sides and the whole matter was just generally unfortunate.

[misselle]

I've just finished reading the book;Tina Brown has crammed so much information in her work! Both Diana and Charles were/are quite petulant at times. Both Diana and Charles threw things about when angry. That doesn't make them both mentally unbalanced,just uncontrolled and not so smart--
pushing Raine down the stairs was not a good thing to do, neither was terrorizing governesses(which,unfortunately is quite common,the Spencers are not the only children to have done so,and Johnny Spencer should have done something about that).

Since I've been following Diana for years and years,I've known that she was a far from perfect person, but, still a likable person because of her empathy for those battling diseases,injuries,unfortunate circumstances. She could be very difficult with those who disagreed with her... but that is a human failing.

And, yes,Diana was quite young and ill-informed with the ways of the world she married into. She really was not intellectually well-prepared; she disliked reading any thing but romances! If she had only read the many biographies about the Royals she would have had an idea about Royal men feeling entitled to having affairs.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by misselle

And, yes,Diana was quite young and ill-informed with the ways of the world she married into. She really was not intellectually well-prepared; she disliked reading any thing but romances! If she had only read the many biographies about the Royals she would have had an idea about Royal men feeling entitled to having affairs.

Oh dear, that same old chestnut about royal men having affairs. Diana had been brought up in aristocratic circles, she knew full well what was expected of a girl from her station, whether she achieved her goal of marrying the prince or not.

[love_cc]

Does anyone have opnions about Camilla's part in this book? Tina Brown made her conclusion that Andrew PB was the love of Camilla's life and Charles was just her lover to fulfill her ambition to be the mistress of the Prince of Wales. I don't agree with her of course. . Personally I think the age gap between Camilla and Andrew may also cause some unknown problems in their relationships and Andrew's attitudes toward ladies caused many heartaches to Camilla. Charles is almost born to have a strong woman as his wife and Camilla can suit the role perfectly.She was just born for him.

[misselle]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Oh dear, that same old chestnut about royal men having affairs. Diana had been brought up in aristocratic circles, she knew full well what was expected of a girl from her station, whether she achieved her goal of marrying the prince or not.

Diana did not want that kind of marriage;being a more modern-thinking person,she didn't want to accept that way of marriage.Not every person thinks in terms of the Queen Mother,that men have affairs,while the wives just accept it. The late Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was quite used to men being unfaithful;she saw how her father acted.She saw the womanizing ways of her father-in-law,and knew that he passed those ways onto his sons(maybe not all of them)so she cold-heartedly accepted that her marriage gave her power,security,family,but not marital-fidelity.She didn't like it,but she accepted it as a trade-off.
Diana wanted the whole package,I think,a romantic partnership,and a royal title(just my opinion).

Camilla was in love with Andrew Parker Bowles,first. Then she met Prince Charles and they got on very well.It;s been written that she didn't want all of the royal duties and expectations that came with marrying into the royal family.It could also have been that she wasn't so sure that Charles could gain approval for a marriage to her. But,she went on and married Parker Bowles. And they were quite happy with their arrangement.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by misselle

Diana did not want that kind of marriage;Diana wanted the whole package,I think,a romantic partnership,and a royal title(just my opinion).

You misunderstood my reply. It is always something bandied about that aristocrats and royal men expect to have affairs, it simply isn't any more relevant to royals or aristocrats, than it is to Joe Bloggs in the street. If a couple are mismatched, they leave or have an affair - very few men or women enter into marriage with the express thought that they are also going to have a lover, IMO. Charles was no different. However they didn't get on and both looked elsewhere.

Camilla was in love with Andrew Parker Bowles,first. Then she met Prince Charles and they got on very well.It;s been written that she didn't want all of the royal duties and expectations that came with marrying into the royal family.It could also have been that she wasn't so sure that Charles could gain approval for a marriage to her. But,she went on and married Parker Bowles. And they were quite happy with their arrangement.

I have trawled the net, asked about and can find nobody and no article to back up your statement about Camilla.

[mary62_87]

well she sure doesn't look like her father , and she looks like her grandmother but not really that ùuch , maube the hair and the eyes l guess

[misselle]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

You misunderstood my reply. It is always something bandied about that aristocrats and royal men expect to have affairs, it simply isn't any more relevant to royals or aristocrats, than it is to Joe Bloggs in the street. If a couple are mismatched, they leave or have an affair - very few men or women enter into marriage with the express thought that they are also going to have a lover, IMO. Charles was no different. However they didn't get on and both looked elsewhere.
I have trawled the net, asked about and can find nobody and no article to back up your statement about Camilla.

Over the past 25 years I've read a lot of books and articles on the royals,so some of the sources are older and probably not available for internet perusal,books by Ralph G. Martin,Unity Hall,Ingrid Seward... these were writen much before the time Diana talked to Andrew Morton and gave her side of the story and the cover was blown off of Wales's not so happy-ever-after marriage.

skydragon,you are entitled to your opinion and I am listening to your side of view and getting lots of information from your posts.Please don't belittle my posts.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by misselle

Over the past 25 years I've read a lot of books and articles on the royals,so some of the sources are older and probably not available for internet perusal,books by Ralph G. Martin,Unity Hall,Ingrid Seward... these were writen much before the time Diana talked to Andrew Morton and gave her side of the story and the cover was blown off of Wales's not so happy-ever-after marriage.

With an average of 1 out of 3 marriages ending in divorce now and not so many less in say 1975, not all of them were aristocrats or royals, the average Mr or Mrs is more likely to get divorced than a member of the royal family. Just because someone wants to sell a book and adds a little bit of sex, affairs etc to sell it, people should not take it as fact, I know many aristocrats who have never taken a lover and become tired of the way it is believed that they all 'do it'. Just thinking of the Queens children, Anne didn't, Andrew didn't and Edward, so far hasn't. Out of all the royals over the past 150 years for instance, how many are alleged to have lovers and how many was it proven actually did?
I don't know how you think I belittled your post, it certainly wasn't intended. I was just stating the facts and hoping you would say how you came by such information. I did look on the net, ask people I know for any statement or indeed comment from Camilla to back up your assertions that she loved APB first, I couldn't come up with anything.

[Panicgrl]

Originally Posted by love_cc

Does anyone have opnions about Camilla's part in this book? Tina Brown made her conclusion that Andrew PB was the love of Camilla's life and Charles was just her lover to fulfill her ambition to be the mistress of the Prince of Wales. I don't agree with her of course. . Personally I think the age gap between Camilla and Andrew may also cause some unknown problems in their relationships and Andrew's attitudes toward ladies caused many heartaches to Camilla. Charles is almost born to have a strong woman as his wife and Camilla can suit the role perfectly.She was just born for him.

I just finished the book myself, and I was quite intrigued with the idea that Camilla only wanted to be Charles' mistress. I really don't know what to make of that. I have always wondered if she married him to "save face" after her divorce from Andrew PB.

[TheTruth]

I think if Camilla only wanted to be Charles' mistress then she wouldn't have married him and would have made herself more discreet. Marrying the heir isn't the best thing to do so ... Perhaps at first she saw herself only as Charles' mistress but after his divorce she realised that he was the man of her life (I'm too romantic ). Or maybe she conclued that being his mistress is much more difficult than being his wife : you have to hide from everybody and you have to face the tabloids and the people in the morning .

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Panicgrl

I just finished the book myself, and I was quite intrigued with the idea that Camilla only wanted to be Charles' mistress. I really don't know what to make of that. I have always wondered if she married him to "save face" after her divorce from Andrew PB.

If she had wanted to 'save face', it would have been too late after Charles' confession and Diana's attack, they are the two things that caused her embarrasment, IMO. She could have done nothing about either. The divorce would I think have been a relief, APB had been having affairs for most of their married life.
I have serious doubts about her only wanting to be his mistress prior to the wedding. Not only was Charles divorced but his ex wife was dead, so in fact she was his lady friend not mistress.
I find myself agreeing with The Truth, I would imagine being a girlfriend, lady friend or partner is much harder in most formal circumstances than being the wife. Everytime Charles and Camilla were seen in public together, it was headline news!

[TheTruth]

In fact Diana and Camilla have something in common, their husband were both unfaithful

[CasiraghiTrio]

I don't like the idea of this Tina Brown book at all. It epitomizes the sensationalism of "the Diana/Charles" story. It's just another pile of rubbish, I'm sure of it. It's another unsourced pile from someone who claims to know what no one can know. Gossip and "he said, she said" from unidentified "insiders", "friends close to the couple", "Palace courtiers", whose words must all be heralded as authority because they know, they just know, so we must believe it.

[TheTruth]

Well we all know how it works, the more sensational the better. People work with money. What sells the book is the 'revelations'. I think Tina Brown thought it would be much better for her bank account to spice up her book ....

[CasiraghiTrio]

Well yes money makes the world go round, true enough, but Ben Pimlott did fairly well with his bio. of HM without any sensationalism. He wrote a thoroughly, academically respectable account of her reign. I only wish we could have something as respectable about Diana. I really liked Diana a lot and I feel that the current availability of writings on her fail miserably to do her proper justice.

[BeatrixFan]

It does amuse me that a book that shows Di in a bad light is automatically an evil and inaccurate tome whereas one that is paints her as a Saint is the gospel truth. Here's my pompous advice - read the book before you comment. By slamming it based on just what you've heard, you equate yourself with book burners and that just makes you look ignorant and foolish.

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

It does amuse me that a book that shows Di in a bad light is automatically an evil and inaccurate tome whereas one that is paints her as a Saint is the gospel truth. Here's my pompous advice - read the book before you comment. By slamming it based on just what you've heard, you equate yourself with book burners and that just makes you look ignorant and foolish.

Diana if you please. You are somewhat right we all should read this book before we judge and thats exactly what I plan do once it arrives in the Library.

[BeatrixFan]

If I want to call her Di, I'll call her Di - you're lucky I'm not calling her something else so don't push it. What do you mean, I'm somewhat right? I'm totally right. Ever heard of a little place called Nazi Germany? What we did there is, we heard books were bad and we burned them. And ever heard of a little lady called Mary Whitehouse? Who told people not to read books that contained sex or bad language without her actually reading the books she was so annoyed about? What both of those situations involve is ignorance. You can't offer an opinion on a book unless you've read it. If you haven't read it, you don't know what it contains, you don't know what point it makes and when you say, "This book is really bad" what you're actually saying is "I'm a total fruitloop who lets other people tell me what to think rather than making my own opinions".

This sort of thing really gets up my nose - it's ludicrous that in this day and age, we have people who make statements like "This book is trash" before actually reading the book in question. It's like people who say, "The Tate Modern is full of crap" when they haven't been. I've been there and in my opinion, it's full of crap. My going there doesn't make the opinion right but it does give me the right to make the opinion. It's the same with this book.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

This sort of thing really gets up my nose - it's ludicrous that in this day and age, we have people who make statements like "This book is trash" before actually reading the book in question. It's like people who say, "The Tate Modern is full of crap" when they haven't been. I've been there and in my opinion, it's full of crap. My going there doesn't make the opinion right but it does give me the right to make the opinion. It's the same with this book.

Well said BeatrixFan. You make a logical progression between seeing (hearing, reading, watching) and forming an opinion.

It's a bit like politics......if you don't bother to engage and vote, you don't have the right to b***h!

As yet I have not had the chance to read the book, however, I am enjoying reading the informed critics and apologists. Both have heaps to say, and IMO every right to say it. Those in my position have can only query a quote, or a context.

Even so, this thread makes for good reading.