The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Library (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/)
-   -   "The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown (2007) (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f61/the-diana-chronicles-by-tina-brown-2007-a-12031.html)

corazon 02-17-2007 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgiea
This NEW BOOK IS TRASH!!!!:wacko:

correction, is ANOTHER book, is another book write for people hat the only want do money with a very famous person saying lies etc etc etc

Skydragon 02-17-2007 02:18 PM

Quote:

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.

sirhon11234 02-17-2007 03:55 PM

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 02-17-2007 05:10 PM

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.:flowers:

sassie 02-17-2007 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon
There is always a tendency to 'trash' books that don't paint the picture we may have of someone. For all we know this book tells the absolute truth! :rolleyes:

Of course. But, there is good and bad in everyone. Exploring the bad side of a personality only reveals half the picture.

Dragging a public figure's name through the mud may be a tradition. But, I was speaking for myself. To me, reading a book that is nothing but negative would be depressing. I'll take the good and bad over just the bad any day. ;)

Skydragon 02-18-2007 06:22 AM

Quote:

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 02-18-2007 06:42 AM

Quote:

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.:flowers:

BeatrixFan 02-18-2007 06:45 AM

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?

Skydragon 02-18-2007 07:00 AM

Quote:

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.:flowers:

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'.

milla Ca 02-18-2007 07:22 AM

You can hate the book, itīs okay. But you have to accept that the times are over where everybody who says something negative about Diana was treated like a persona non grata in the public.

georgiea 02-18-2007 10:16 AM

Quote:milla Ca and Skydradon: You can hate the book, itīs okay. But you have to accept that the times are over where everybody who says something negative about Diana was treated like a persona non grata in the public.Quote

I have accepted that Diana had many flaws. I truly believe if Diana got on drugs for mental health and stress at the beginning of her marriage, had a true friend or family member (Charles?) though her royal life - that could help guide her, had more maturity, and tried to support her husband just maybe she and Charles would be married today and the monarchy would not have has such scandal.

I must mention that during the life of Diana-she was either liked by the press or not. I will give the example that she was consider just a clothes horse at the beginning of her royal role before she took on causes like HIV etc.

But, I read everything about the British royals -specially Diana and I am getting sick of authors saying she had a affair with JFK jr, or boarder line personality when they
don't have Diana's personal doctor saying it. Just stated actions on Diana's part. All I see are authors trying to make MONEY so I have gone cinical on a lot of the books.
I am sorry I said it was trash without reading it. I will read the book an then see. All have a nice day!:flowers:

sassie 02-18-2007 10:35 AM

My view is that, if the story about Johnnie Spencer not being Diana's father isn't true and Brown just made it up to sell books (and, really, how can it be otherwise? Only one person would know and she is dead) then, yeah, I consider that claim to be trash. It defames a slew of dead people who can't defend themselves, based on absolutely no evidence. She certainly can't, more than anyone else, prove the responsbility of the pregnancy that became Diana.

If soemone wants to publish negative opinions, at least stick with honest ones.

Skydragon 02-18-2007 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassie
Only one person would know and she is deadIf soemone wants to publish negative opinions, at least stick with honest ones.

There is such a thing as DNA. ;)

The only 'fact' we do know, is that it is impossible to know the full and complete story about anyone, no matter how many books are read or programmes, films etc that are watched. Even people that knew them all, will, on the whole have a different opinion of each and every one.

sirhon11234 02-18-2007 11:26 AM

But the thought of Diana not being a Spencer is just ludacris.

BeatrixFan 02-18-2007 11:34 AM

Why? Why are you so sure of her parentage? Can you say 100% that she was a Spencer because of who she married, the way she looked and behaved? DNA maketh the father.

sirhon11234 02-18-2007 11:50 AM

And can you say 100% that she wasn't a Spencer BeatrixFan.

Skydragon 02-18-2007 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirhon11234
But the thought of Diana not being a Spencer is just ludacris.

Why?
Diana was Diana, no matter who her parents were surely.

sirhon11234 02-18-2007 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon
Why?
Diana was Diana, no matter who her parents were surely.

Well yes Diana was Diana. But she took soo much pride in her Spencer ancestry it would be a shame if she wasn't a Spencer.

BeatrixFan 02-18-2007 12:03 PM

Quote:

And can you say 100% that she wasn't a Spencer BeatrixFan.
No. Thats the point I'm making. Unless you were in the room when Di was concieved, you can only take the words of the Spencers that she was legitimate. But if a book says there's a possibility that she wasn't a Spencer, surely that should be explored as a theory rather than bashed down and hidden away just in case the truth upsets the fan club?

sirhon11234 02-18-2007 12:07 PM

Well right now these accusations are upsetting "the fan club". I will not believe this garbage until there is prove that Diana wasn't biologically a spencer.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises