"The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown (2007)

If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Quote:milla Ca and Skydradon: You can hate the book, it´s 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:
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.
sassie said:
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.
But the thought of Diana not being a Spencer is just ludacris.
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.
And can you say 100% that she wasn't a Spencer BeatrixFan.
sirhon11234 said:
But the thought of Diana not being a Spencer is just ludacris.
Diana was Diana, no matter who her parents were surely.
Skydragon said:
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.
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?
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.
Who's asking you to believe it? You see, you're calling it garbage and yet you haven't seen an investigation, DNA results etc. Why not keep an open mind until it's proved one way or the other?
sirhon11234 said:
I will not believe this garbage until there is prove that Diana wasn't biologically a spencer.

Please let her rest in peace!
I think I have a right to believe it or not when there is no evidence to support this claim. And why should I keep an open mind of this allegation when this is only going too cause embarssment for the two princes and the spencer family.
Of course you have the right. But worse things than this have been said. Look at it this way - when I first read "Mommie Dearest", I was furious. Here was the wannabe daughter of a Hollywood legend alledging all kinds of hideous things. But then I read articles, reports and interviews where people who knew Joan Crawford suggested that there was some truth in parts of the book. Some, like Marlene Dietrich, said, "Joan should have left that bitch to starve in the gutter". Others like Greer Garson said that Joan was an alcoholic and was quite violent with it. So you sum up the two camps and make your opinion based on not just the allegation but the evidence surrounding it. Now, to me, what you're doing is saying, "I adore Diana therefore nothing negative they say can ever be right". I'm suggesting to you that that's not the way to view things and make opinions and I'd say that whether you want this to be false or not, keep an open mind to all possibilities.
sirhon11234 said:
I think I have a right to believe it or not when there is no evidence to support this claim. And why should I keep an open mind of this allegation when this is only going too cause embarssment for the two princes and the spencer family.

It is your right to say your opinion!
But the discussion in this way is for me the same gossip as i can read day by day in the tabloids...
But if you want to continue, please have fun!:flowers:
Last edited:
Well with "mommy dearest" I found it a more believable source because it came directly from Joan's daughter. This woman was raised by Joan Crawford, and saw Joan at her highest and lowest points. But has this author of this new book knew Diana and her family. Or even met them. You are right I should keep an open mind about this subject. But really whats the purpose of this new allegation, except for the author getting money?
But maybe it isn't about money. Maybe the author really does consider that they've found something new about Diana that hasn't been heard or explored before?
That could be. But it is possible that the author's intention's to state this accusation was to reveal something new about Diana and to gain a little bit of cash.
Or maybe Tina Brown actually discounts the rumour of the alleged Goldsmith parentage? The things is, no-one has read the book and we don't know what it states or claims. It seems that a lot of energy and emotion is being wasted arguing over a publisher's very short blurb. Which is possibly the intention. :D
Just wanted to add this to the discussion about Diana's parentage:

From Wikipedia:

"Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the fourth daughter and the ninth of ten children of Claude George Bowes-Lyon, Lord Glamis, (later 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne), and his wife, Nina Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck. She reportedly was born in her parents' London home, though the location of her birth remains uncertain. Her birth was registered at Hitchin, Hertfordshire, near the Strathmores' country house St Paul's Walden Bury. This unconventional registration has led to numerous rumours over the years regarding Elizabeth's actual parentage, with some critics surmising that she actually was the daughter of Lord Strathmore by a Welsh maid, hence the unusual six-week delay in the registration of her birth. Others have pointed out that Elizabeth, born seven years after the next-youngest Bowes-Lyon child, resembled neither her parents nor her siblings in any discernible fashion. An urban myth in the 1960s even claimed that she had been adopted by the Earl and Countess and was in fact one of twins born to a working class woman in Waterford in Ireland. The rumour even claimed that she was in fact a couple of years older than had been announced. The rumour was universally dismissed. A distant family link between the Bowes-Lyon family and the Waterford area is believed to be the cause of the rumours.
For those who have seen pictures of the alleged father Johnnie--does Harry resemble him in any way?

As for Wikipedia, while its a good place to start (and I am a senior editor there with 13,000 edits), I tell people thats its ONE reference place and to keep searching until their google breaks to try and get all the facts.
Guys, as Warren says, you're getting all worked up over a book that hasn't been published yet. Its not going to be published until June.

I don't find rumours about Diana's parentage surprising but that doesn't mean that they're are true. Diana's parents marriage was in trouble when she was very young; from such circumstances rumours are born.

Whatever Diana's parentage is, its no reflection on Diana as a person whether she was the daughter of Spencer or the daughter of Goldsmith.
WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Read highlights of the most controversial book on Princess Diana ever

When Tina Brown wrote her devastating critique of the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the American society magazine Vanity Fair in October 1985, it caused a furore on both sides of the Atlantic.

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Read highlights of the most controversial book on Princess Diana ever | the Daily Mail

Explosive new Diana biography to hit stores

Four months short of Diana, Princess of Wales' tenth death anniversary, and explosive book about her is about to hit the stands.
The book, titled 'The Diana Chronicles', has been penned by the late Princess' 'friend' Tina Brown, who not only portrays her as a spiteful and manipulative woman, but also as a "media savvy neurotic".

Explosive new Diana biography to hit stores
I won't waste my allowance to buy this book. Absolute rubbish that Diana and Camilla only married Charles because he's the heir. Who does this Tina Brown think she is?
I am looking forward to Tina Brown's book and I think she put lots of efforts in writing this book because she has integrite so much information about Diana in almost every area.

These allgeations are not new to me because I have read most of them before.I like the fact that Tina Brown has tried her best to find more information about Diana and tried to vertify the sources. She ceatainly has read a very wide range of books about Diana-Charles-Camilla and other royal topics. The timing of publishing the book is very disturbing but I think the content of the book worths reading.
milla Ca said:
Please let her rest in peace!
Unfortunately that is not going to happen any time soon. On this ten year anniversary of her death those who adored her want to laud her and those that despised her want the world to agree and those in the middle want to remind the world that she only attained "Sainthood" after her death.

Everyone has an angle, and to some degree, all are correct.

As for Penny Wise even knowing her, she appears to have been a friend of long standining .... even after her October 1985 Vanity Fair article.

Truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction. :flowers:
I'll probably read this book. I love anything about the royals, smutty or not. I'm reading Kitty Kelly's book, The Royals, right now, and it is like a HUGE gossip column, but it is so interesting. Besides, I like reading into the private lives of the royals. And I'm not a huge Diana fan either.
I've actually read Kitty Kelly's book on the royals too it was an interresting read.
Of course we have to read the whole book and then make the judgments about Tina's allegations. But in my views, these allgetions probably presented a more realistic view about Anne-Andrew-Camilla-Charles-Diana saga. There is certainly a kind of cruelty in this book which won't make this book as a pleasant reading and a very conversial book..

Tina Brown's book will probably echo Christopher Wilson's book "The Windsor Knot: Charles,Camilla and the legacy of Diana".However Tina and Wilson unfolds the whole picture from different directions. And Gyles Bradreth's book "The portrait of a love affair" is more balanced and more sympathesic towards everyone and he did not deny any of these speculations but listing them all which allows readers to make their judgments.

Tina Brown uses her access to very preveliged people; and she has high access to journalists who have hidden information because of her husband's and her own preveleges in journalism reporting. On the other hand, Christopher Wilson is more likely to use his access among fellow journalists and his ability to access those downstairs staff. If both upstairs and downstars people are saying exactly the same things, I am afraid that this will be the closest picture.

The core problems of the whole saga are that people who witnessed everything and they don't say including the journalists and very preveleged people. If Tina Brown and other authers make them to speak out, I will be very likely to trust them.
Last edited:
I share aspects of the opinion some of you are saying in that I was once a young girl who was "blindly" a Diana fan: I thought she was beautiful, her clothes were even more beautiful and the whole marriage was a wonderful fairy story. I read everything I could -- and I mean everything -- doing research to understand the history of the Spencer and Windsor families, reading up on Diana's dressmakers, Sloane Rangers, the whole nine yards. I was thrilled when one of my friends parents met members of the aristocracy who had actually entertained C & D as houseguests and could give me firsthand glimpses of what they were like. It was a nice little hobby/escape from my work and life. And so, I was absolutely stunned when I read "The Mouse that Roared" and a couple other articles published around that time which alluded to marital problems between my "ideal" couple. I very much resisted wanting to believe their marriage was not a fairy tale. But I was young in the ways of life, also. And so, as articles gradually appeared - and I read them all - and as I gradually matured and had more life experience, my former perception of that marriage as "ideal" gave way to "disbelief" and then acceptance that C & D were two human beings with character assets and deficits and therefore anything was possible in their actions. The illusions of a happily married couple fell away and the reality was painfully clear that not only did they have problems but that Diana had, had something - environmental or genetic - that led to character flaws a bit larger than some of us have to deal with. Despite my resistance, I had to face the facts. And as I grew I realized with clarity what my mother has always said, "Change is the only constant in life -- either go with it and grow, or resist it and stay stuck. Choose your course." And so I did. And in regard to my understanding of C & D that meant going from a big Diana fan to, after substantial reading on both C & D's problems, being a realist about her and that marriage, as far as one can do that through reading alone. Diana I now believe was, as we all are, a very complex human being who had a dark side, as we all do, and a bright side. I think Diana had a particularly troubled side that was exacerbated by the stresses of her position, and that she was only agitated by Charles to the extent that all people in committed relationships have warts that agitate their partners.

I don't know if I'll read the Tina Brown book or not. My guess is it will be well researched and have some opinions that are very insightful and interesting, based on things Tina has written in the past. And I wouldn't be the least surprised if Sir James Goldsmith was or was not Diana's real father -- reality can be much stranger than fiction and as someone already said, the Spencer marriage was reportedly in trouble at that point anyway. Whatever... I'm not going to slam the book as being trash because it probably isn't. I'm just not sure I care to spend more time rehashing Diana's sad/pathetic life.
Last edited:
Top Bottom