"The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown

[sassie]

Hold onto your hats, because there is a new one coming out in June by Tina Brown that is described thusly:

"The Diana Chronicles, an exposé of the negative
feelings that people such as the Queen Mother, Fergie, Frances Shand-
Kydd, Raine Spencer, Ruth, Lady Fermoy and Princess Michael of Kent
had towards the late Diana. The book also allegedly makes the
claim that Earl Spencer was not Diana's real father.

Great. An 'expose of negative feelings'. Who would even want to waste the time reading that?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sassie

The book also allegedly makes the
claim that Earl Spencer was not Diana's real father.

There were rumours years ago that Spencer was not Diana's biological father and one strong contender was touted about!

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

There were rumours years ago that Spencer was not Diana's biological father and one strong contender was touted about!

Yes, I think it was Tina Brown who started that rumor-this book has been in the works for years, but, interestingly, is only being published now that Frances Shand Kydd and Jimmy Goldsmith can't refute Brown's claim about Johnnie Spencer.

The rumor has never carried much weight, though-a comparison of pictures of Diana and a younger Johnnie leaves little doubt that he was her father. The familial resemblance is just too strong.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sassie

The rumor has never carried much weight, though-a comparison of pictures of Diana and a younger Johnnie leaves little doubt that he was her father. The familial resemblance is just too strong.

As might be expected, I just don't see it, but I do think Diana and Jemima have a strikingly similar nose, which none of the other Spencer children appeared to have.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

As might be expected, I just don't see it, but I do think Diana and Jemima have a strikingly similar nose, which none of the other Spencer children appeared to have.

You don't see a resemblance between Johnnie Spencer and Diana, or you don't see any truth to the rumor of Jimmy Goldsmith being her father?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sassie

You don't see a resemblance between Johnnie Spencer and Diana, or you don't see any truth to the rumor of Jimmy Goldsmith being her father?

I don't see any resemblance with Spencer, as I said I do think there is a strong resemblance with Jemima.

[sirhon11234]

Well obviously this Tina Brown has no morales. Its soo disgusting that people are trying to defame Diana, nearly 10 years after her death.

[BeatrixFan]

I think it's important that we don't go on looks here. I have a cousin who everyone thinks is illegitimate because he looks nothing like any member of the family. Then there's a Great Aunt who looks so much like my Grandmother it's unbelievable but she was illegitimate. We see what we want to see.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I think it's important that we don't go on looks here. I have a cousin who everyone thinks is illegitimate because he looks nothing like any member of the family. Then there's a Great Aunt who looks so much like my Grandmother it's unbelievable but she was illegitimate. We see what we want to see.

Fair enough. And the fact remains that, as far as Johnnie Spencer was concerned, he was Diana's father. Allegations to the contrary-which can't be proven-are just a marketing tool to sell yet another book that will likely end up in the bargain bin after a week.

But, I still can't imagine even wanting to read a book of negative opinions about anyone. What a downer that would be.

[BeatrixFan]

"My Mother's Keeper" and "Mommie Dearest" were full of negative opinions but they were both best sellers. Dragging a public figure's name posthumously in the mud is a tradition that's still with us and will be for a very long time.

[BeatrixFan]

The problem is that Di has had such a good press for such a long time now. A decade of saintly headlines have managed to build up an image that is now threatened by a book that might just paint a different picture of her. But surely we've always had these books about Di, they just haven't had large coverage? For example, the Victim or Villain book was quite revealing about Diana's darker side and it never made headlines because she was still the media Princess of Hearts. Now it's a little different and times have changed. I guess it just proves Olivia de Havilland right, "You can't be on top all the time, it isn't natural".

[sirhon11234]

Now it's a little different and times have changed

How so? Is it because Camilla is now Charles' dearest second wife.
And maybe these books that try to paint Diana in a negative light hasn't gotten that much attention because alot people won't waste their money on a book that tries to defame a woman who is dead and can't defend herself.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

How so? Is it because Camilla is now Charles' dearest second wife.
And maybe these books that try to paint Diana in a negative light hasn't gotten that much attention because alot people won't waste their money on a book that tries to defame a woman who is dead and can't defend herself.

I don't think Charles or Camilla come into it really.

There have always been books that were negative, it's just that the press felt uncomfortable pointing them out. Even now, some people will only buy certain papers because they still try to put a positive spin on their idol, whoever that is.

To get a true and reasonably accurate picture of a person that you do not know personally and have never met, you need to hear and read about the good and the bad. It's called listening to both sides, something very few people do, before jumping to conclusions.

[hibou]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

How so? Is it because Camilla is now Charles' dearest second wife.
And maybe these books that try to paint Diana in a negative light hasn't gotten that much attention because alot people won't waste their money on a book that tries to defame a woman who is dead and can't defend herself.

That's usually the case. However, I think Diana did a good job of dispelling a lot of the negative press while she was alive by going public with her problems. This gave her the opportunity to set the record straight and also to spin what portion of it that was to her advantage. Diana was human after all and did come from a dysfunctional family as does Charles. Sometimes people bring out the best in each other and sometimes they bring out the worst. The later was the case with Diana and Charles. Camilla whether we like her or not seems to bring out the best in Charles. Which brings up the second part of the issue, as we don't know how much to believe in the role Camilla played in this triangle. I guess it will depend on how each of us interprets what information we have. I don't have a well formed opinion on this aspect so I look forward to reading here,what others have read, seen, or heard.

[sirhon11234]

I have read books on both sides of the story. A biography of Prince Charles by Penny Junor, Diana's book by Andrew Morton and A Royal Duty. Specifically in Penny Junor's book she pointed out that Diana suffered from borderline-personality and her behaviour was odd. Which there was no proof to support such evidence. I just find it hard to believe that authors could make statements that Diana was border-line or she may not be a true spencer. When they have never met or lived with Diana. I will admit that Diana wasn't the saint that some people tried to portray her. But she was a good person with faults.

[georgiea]

I have read books showing the different aspects of Diana-good and bad. I must have twenty or more of these books on Diana.

Though all the books I find Diana a person who had bad luck in her short, troubled life. I am the person who said the new book is trash. And in a way it is because she was RAISED AS A SPENCER and she had a special role in taking care of her father and brother after her mother left till her dad put her in boarding school.

I will read the new book and make a judgement again if the book is trash. But to me it is the author trying to get a lot of people to buy another book on Diana by making it controversial. I read everything I can on Diana and have been waiting for this book. There has been a big PR on
this book coming out in the ten year anniversay of her death.

I am a person who gives a author a chance. I have not read the second books by the psychic friend and bulter of Diana's because they are just trying to make money off of her.

So reading the book will tell me if it is trash or not.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by georgiea

And in a way it is because she was RAISED AS A SPENCER and she had a special role in taking care of her father and brother after her mother left till her dad put her in boarding school.

I believe she helped occupy her brother and worried about him as little girls do, but at 6 she did not take care of Johnny who had plenty of staff to take care of him and the children, not forgetting his 'lady' friends.
To some this book may be absolute truth, to others because it gives a different side to the one they choose to believe, they will call it trash.

I think it has been said 100's of times before, everybody always puts their own interpretation on a conversation or an event, books are no different.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

To some this book may be absolute truth, to others because it gives a different side to the one they choose to believe, they will call it trash.

I think it has been said 100's of times before, everybody always puts their own interpretation on a conversation or an event, books are no different.

Skydragon-I don't see I to I with you in most matters that concerns Princess Diana. (I have watched your posts for a while now.) I will only call a book trash when they trash a person who can not speak out. Don't you think if Diana was truly not Johnnie's daughter one of the other books written by Diana by now would have said this?

And it is true about a person puting their own interpretation on a conversation or event, but not always to they stay with that interpretation. If they did they would not grows as a person.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by georgiea

I will only call a book trash when they trash a person who can not speak out. Don't you think if Diana was truly not Johnnie's daughter one of the other books written by Diana by now would have said this?

And it is true about a person puting their own interpretation on a conversation or event, but not always to they stay with that interpretation. If they did they would not grows as a person.

Georgiea, before the very public split with Charles, very few people had the guts to come out and say, she was possibly not a nice person. They were edited out of the media. On the morning of her death, more than one paper was going to run some not very nice articles about her, one 'expert' who was on the BBC that morning, who was also less than kind about her, pointing out the trouble he believed she had caused and the lies she had been caught in, was never invited onto the BBC again.

If we only believe one persons interpretation of a person or an event, that would make every history book trash. There are many books, for instance that say Hitler was less than nice, but there are also books that believe he was a wonderful person. It is only those who believe he was nasty that call the books saying he wasn't 'trash' and those that believe he was wonderful, call the others 'trash'.

[BeatrixFan]

This idea of blotting out anything that might put Di in a negative light because she can't defend herself really is silly IMO. Does this mean that we can never write another book about anyone who dies because they can't give it a review?