"The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown (2007)

[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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[TheTruth]

I would like to say something in the name of some Diana admirers. It's not because we like her that we worship a book that paint her as a saint. I actually hate those kind of books. I also hate those that take her down in every line. These two 'style' of books will never say the truth nor the reality. Life isn't all white or all black. A good writer, IMO, is the one who sees the good sides and the bad sides. So, sorry to tell you that BeatrixFAn, but I'm a Diana admirer and I don't believe every thing I read and I'm conscious that Diana was not a saint but not a demon either (and I don't hate Camilla, okay ...). I hope you have understood my point of vue .

 

[BeatrixFan]

TheTruth - your opinion is not the issue here, how you reach that opinion is what we're discussing. Your opinion on this book is that it's bad because it doesn't show Di in a good light, however, you haven't read it so I fail to see how your opinion has any foundation to it and that's what I'm criticising.

 

[TheTruth]

Wow, calm down. I'm not trying to start a fight with you. Just telling my opinion and how I see the books written on Diana. Okay, I didn't read this one but I'll do. All I said was that I don't like the books which show the person as totally good or totally bad. I have absolutely not said that her book was one of them. That's all and I'm sorry if I've offend you in any way.

 

[BeatrixFan]

No, I'm not offended at all and sorry if that came across as harsh. It wasn't an attack on you in particular, it was a general "read it and see" comment.

 

[TheTruth]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up . I agree with you on the point that if you didn't see or read you can't judge. I'll read the book and will make my own opinion as I already did for the documentary The Witnesses in the Tunnel . What I said below was based on other books I've read on Diana not on Tina Brown's.

 

[angiep]

Has anyone actually read this book yet? I am just wondering if 1. it is worth my time and 2. the same old drivel we are always given about Diana

 

[milla Ca]

The Diana Chronicles reviewed by Sarah Vine ( The Times)

The Diana Chronicles-Arts & Entertainment-Books-Biography-TimesOnline

´´ I should say at this point that in the great Camilla versus Diana debate, Brown is firmly in the Diana camp. The Duchess of Cornwall is seen as a throaty, feral temptress (“women who love horses usually love sex . . . Camilla Shand loved horses all right”), whose mature allure constantly undermined Diana’s girlish charms. The implication is that had Camilla not been on the scene, Prince Charles and Diana might have had a chance.´´´
_______
For me these statements are stupid and emty! First it is absolutely nasty and silly what is said about the character of Camilla and second it´s absurd to say that Charles and Diana had a chance without Camilla. Camilla was in Charles´heart before Diana. A statement what could happened without her is only nonsense and out of touch with reality!

 

[sirhon11234]

Are these comments stupid and empty because they portray Camilla in a very unflattering light? The book is on its way to the public library so I'll give it my own review when I finish reading it.

 

[TheTruth]

All right, after reading this I'll probably think before buying this book. My god ! Who is she to write something like that ! I really like Diana but I would never write such stuff on Camilla, I don't have a bit of hatred for her. I don't think you must hate Camilla to be in Diana's 'camp' (and the idea of camp is ridiculous!)

 

[milla Ca]

Are these comments stupid and empty because they portray Camilla in a very unflattering light? The book is on its way to the public library so I'll give it my own review when I finish reading it.

For me these kind of comments are empty and stupid if someone would say something like that about any woman !

 

[sirhon11234]

For me these kind of comments are empty and stupid if someone would say something like that about any woman !

Very good answer. I've read the reviews on Amazon and my curiosity has been aroused this book might be garbage or it might be a pleasent read.

 

[Warren]

More likely, you'll agree with some things Tina Brown puts forward, and disagree with others, as will every other reader of her book.

 

[sirhon11234]

Ten years after: Tina Brown’s spotlights royal superstar in ‘Diana Chronicles’
Ten years after: Tina Brown’s spotlights royal superstar in ‘Diana Chronicles’ - Book News & Reviews - BostonHerald.com

 

[Skydragon]

“women who love horses usually love sex"

Or could it just be that those that love animals (horses, dogs etc) are well adjusted, I have known of many women who appeared to be raving nymphomaniacs, that couldn't stand horses!

For me these statements are stupid and empty! First it is absolutely nasty and silly what is said about the character of Camilla and second it´s absurd to say that Charles and Diana had a chance without Camilla......

The book appears to be (according to the dozens of reviews) a rehash, (with an overactive imagination thrown in), of all the other books. What we have to remember is that Brown had to put in a few anti/blame Camilla parts, otherwise the picture she appears to have painted of Diana, is not very nice at all. It is just another 'it is everyone elses fault' poorly researched book.

Taken from the article posted by sirhon11234

The birthday concert Prince William and Prince Harry are throwing for their mother this July 1 is a good example

Even that is a con, with charities having to pay for their tickets and the concert looking to be just a party for two rich kids, paid for by the public!

 

[TheTruth]

In fact she seems to dislike both women, Diana & Camilla.

 

[sirhon11234]

Or could it just be that those that love animals (horses, dogs etc) are well adjusted, I have known of many women who appeared to be raving nymphomaniacs, that couldn't stand horses!
The book appears to be (according to the dozens of reviews) a rehash, (with an overactive imagination thrown in), of all the other books. What we have to remember is that Brown had to put in a few anti/blame Camilla parts, otherwise the picture she appears to have painted of Diana, is not very nice at all. It is just another 'it is everyone elses fault' poorly researched book.

Taken from the article posted by sirhon11234 Even that is a con, with charities having to pay for their tickets and the concert looking to be just a party for two rich kids, paid for by the public!

Just because you don't like the idea of Will and Harry throwing a concert for their mother's memory and birthday doesen't mean its a con.

 

[BeatrixFan]

What we have to remember here is that Di is now a business, a corporation. This book isn't intended to tell us anything new, it's intended to make money just like those dolls, the postcards and this concert. The business is slowly winding down as people are becoming bored with it and so people like Tina Brown are simply getting their 20 pieces of silver before the Di market crashes.

 

[TheTruth]

I agree with you BeatrixFan and the threads on Diana's books comfort your opinion about people getting borred.

 

[Skydragon]

Just because you don't like the idea of Will and Harry throwing a concert for their mother's memory and birthday doesen't mean its a con.

Did they or did they not announce that this concert was for her charities and has it since been shown that they will be lucky to make anything from the concert? The article was originally posted in the Preparations thread by gfg02. If they are charging the named charities full price for their tickets, it is a con. Why they are calling it a birthday party is beyond most people, they stop when the person concerned dies!

 

[sirhon11234]

The money is going to the Princess' Memorial Fund and to the various charities she supported. Her Memorial Fund and Charities help the less fortunate how is that a con? And you shouldn't count on the dailymail as an accurate source of information.