"The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown (2007)

[love_cc]

The history during Diana's life is still undercovered in some aspects. And I think these aspects will be left to future historians to describe them, assess them,and judge them. Actually this book do change a lot of my perceptions about Diana, Princess of Wales because Ms Tina Brown she focused on Diana's sort of celebrity royal and her influence in the world than other royals during her lifetime. Tina Brown is quite insightful in this aspect and she is much sharp in words than other formal biographers.

Now I hope that in my lifetime I can read a biography about Camilla which tries to understand her own real philsophy about love, marriage, and life and some unreported characters.I am still not satisfied Camilla's sole biographies about her life because I seriously sense Camilla has a much sensitive side but she has sensiblity and toughness to cope with unexpected events in her life. She is constant and she is determined so she seldom changes. IMO Camilla can feel a lot but she is not interested which may be interpreted as snooty and insensitivity by some people. And this is her strength and the way she survives after so many storms because she protects herself from thinking about these pains. The funny thing is that I cannot help but believe there are plenty of simlarities in the two women but Diana prefered to reveal and Camilla prefers to hide. May be in the far future these two women will be put together and plus Charles then future generations can see how the three people have changed and are changing the course of the royal history.

 

[lallettac]

I think that the book is too mawkish in the final!

 

[pgm1952]

I have read and re-read this book a number of times. I appreciate the the interesting take on Diana's life but have issues with the tone throughout. It more than shows that Tina Brown works for a society magazine (the Tattler) with that certain catty style of writing that is the halmark of a gossipy magazine journalist, or even a society lady with too much time. I also question the idea that she knew Diana well, as I have hardly heard her mentiononed in major works on Diana apart from the article she wrote "The Mouse That Roared". I could be wrong and maybe missed her name, if so please let me know. All in all not a bad book but lacking in the gravitas of a formal biography.

 

[roseroyal]

I have a video of the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of York. Been a while since I watched it, but I believe she was one of the journalists who commentated on the wedding that day before attending the service as a friend of the couple.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

I've read this, it's not totally irredeemable and the emphasis on Diana's relations with the media is actually really useful as a counterpoint to Sarah Bradfords (superior) biography.

That said, the book was written for people who are more familiar with Diana as a celebrity and not as a Royal personage, and also that Brown's real ambition was to write her memoirs and was talked into doing this instead - at least that's the impression I got for the reason she inserts herself into the narrative at every opportunity.

The writing style is waaay too catty and frivolous and can be a real backfire as it undermines when she is trying to make a serious point. Browns portrayal of Camilla is a cardboard cutout - a cartoon bad guy who just goes around being a bitch for the sake of it - and given Browns own personal history, questionable to say the least(!)*

I would not recommend this as a Diana bio but it is interesting and useful if used with caution as a alternative angle on Diana's life and times.

*Tina Brown was the main reason for the breakup of Harold Evans first marriage - she was/is his second wife.

 

[Denville]

I have read and re-read this book a number of times. I, or even a society lady with too much time. I also question the idea that she knew Diana well, as I have hardly heard her mentiononed in major works on Diana apart from the article she wrote "The Mouse That Roared". I could be wrong and maybe missed her name, if so please let me know. All in all not a bad book but lacking in the gravitas of a formal biography.

Yes the style is rather slangy, but overall I think it is a good biography. I dotnt see what it matters that she didn't know Diana well or at all... she researched her life and is a journalist who knows the society and royal circuit. She met Di for lunch once, as she says, and has met Charles at least a few times.. but she has clearly talked ot a lot of people who knew Diana and many of them are quoted by name.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Brown does sensationalise sometimes and at times quotes dubious sources simply because they're the most dramatic or lurid - kitty Kelly gets mentioned a few times in the notes often in relation to people's sex lives. Most of her sources aren't people close to Diana - Bradford got to those first and when they do appear in the book it's been quoted from Bradford - but a lot of people with axes to grind against either Camilla (eg mark Bolland, Simon Parker Bowles) or disgruntled former Royal staffers. Bradfords review, which was posted earlier on this thread but I will post again for your reading convenience, makes for some gooood reviewer cattiness

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/27/monarchy.bookscomment

 

[Denville]

People who were closest to diana, aren't likely to talk, such as her family and her closest friends.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

I think there's a Diana bio by Ros Coward(?) that may have been commissioned by the spencer clan and had access to the family archive at Althorp but to my knowledge her siblings have not talked. I can't speak with any certainty about the extended spencer or fermoy families, but a number of Diana's friends did talk to Bradford.

 

[Mermaid1962]

This is Coward's book. She does an excellent job. There's a lot of discussion about Diana's charity work as well as information about her background. It's very matter-of-fact. Diana: The Portrait by Rosalind Coward — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

I think that "The Diana Chronicles" is compulsively good reading, which doesn't necessarily mean that it's a great biography. I'd say that it's a good biography that reads like a gossip magazine.

 

[Denville]

Ive seen that, and while I think it is a good work, It does seem to concentrate mainly on her charity work. Which is good because that's an important part of her life that gets overlooked because people keep on about the private life. But I'm not sure if Cowards book would count as a biography per se

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

A. N. Wilson's View of The Diana Chronicles:

A later, very clever piece of Dianalogy, by Tina Brown, posited a variation on the traditional version by suggesting that, at the time of the marriage, Charles had fallen besottedly in love with his young bride, and that it was Diana Spencer herself who was manupitively determined to become Princess of Wales, even though she was not in love - 'whatever "in love" means'. Whether the Tina Brown picture of a young blonde ruthlessly exploiting her sexual attractions and her charismatic personality for the purposes of self promotion, is accurate, is a matter which future Dianalogists will long debate. Perhaps all truly gripping biography entails a measure of self portraiture.

A. N. Wilson, Our Times: The Age of Elizabeth II, London 2008, p 325

 

[Denville]

I see that's a dig at Tina Brown, and It doesn't IMO gibe with the biography as I read it. Charles was not "besottedly in love".. but he was attracted to Diana.. adn she was keen ot marry him, but I hardly think she was being any more encouraging of him than any other young woman mgiht be.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

I see that's a dig at Tina Brown, and It doesn't IMO gibe with the biography as I read it. Charles was not "besottedly in love".. but he was attracted to Diana.. adn she was keen ot marry him, but I hardly think she was being any more encouraging of him than any other young woman mgiht be.

The above was A N Wilson's view of the book (which he actually gave a positive review for in the Sunday Times as a matter of fact) but he isn't the only one who has pointed the conflation of subject and author out about DC's. One theme that came up in a number of other reviews of DC was how Brown's Diana 'happened' to resemble Tina herself and, given how given Brown is given to inserting herself into the text when able, it was interesting to say the least. I'm reserving judgement. I just enjoyed Wilson's description and his invention of a very useful term - 'Dianalogy'.

The quotes source, Chapter 16 "Prince Charles and Lady Diana" in the book Our Times is in fact the best explanation of the whole saga I've come across. Do read if you get the chance.

 

[lionellebronmc]

I think a lot of people dislike Tina Brown, and some of the reasons are justified in my opinion but I have to be fair and objective when I consider that her biography of the princess Diana is probably our most concise one. I Think it was written very well. I feel that the others tended to take a side, pick a team, but Brown wrote objectively and brings it all together.