"The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown (2007)

[glassary]

Hiya Skydragon and all,

Book reviews are normally done and submitted weeks before the book comes out. The reviewer either receives a review copy or a galley which may not reflect the actual final edit of the book.

Likewise if the book is a "big" book the reviewers will receive a promotional packet which hits all the "hightlights" of the book for them.
Kinda like cheaters notes for the reviewer which hits all the hot items in the book.
I.E. those items that the publisher wants to highlight and believe will tweak the interest of the public.
These packets are also generally made up way in advance of the finished copy of the book based on the what is expected to be in the book.

This could explain why some reviews are making note of the Goldsmith items in the book. It might be in the press packet and in the review copy.

I found it surprising that with a very large index in the back which flags
virtually everything it leaves out both Goldsmith and Frances and their affair.

So this leads me to suspect that these sections were taken out in the final edit after the review copies and press packets were sent out.

Either way I'm going back for a re-read to fully digest what was in the book.

Overall I found it a good read which treated Diana fairly. Tina covered all the problems Diana had and balanced it with showing the good also.

 

[love_cc]

Actually I thought Penny Junor was quite balanced. She hasn't been 100% approving of Charles or the royal family either so it seems she can criticize all the parties and not just Charles or Diana.

As far as Junor's assertion that Diana was mentally unbalanced, I think there are enough facts out there from which an objective person could draw the conclusion that Diana was mentally unbalanced.
.

Penny Junor has ameneded her attitudes about the royal marriage: she has her sympathies about all sides. I think she is a very deep monarchist rather than a very pro-Charles author. Actually Jonathan Dimbleby, Penny Junor, Sally Bendall Smith and some royal biographies all have doubts about Diana's mental problems. Jonathan Dimbleby was the first one to seek the expert opnion but his chapter about Diana's mental problem was dropped from the 1994 Charles's authorised biography under Charles's objection of course.He mentioned in his perface which is a very interesting information: Charles asked him not to harm any alive person because of this book. But his view about Diana's mental problems was further reviewed and studied by later royal biographies. If they believe so,they all seek expert opninions and suggestions from different experts and then they may make the conclusion that Diana may suffer from BPD. So Penny Junor was the first one to publish such assertions after Diana's death.

It is a fact that Diana did display so many symptoms about very complex mental problems.I have a little bit doubts as well but I am not an expert I have no ability to make such a judgment.

 

[sirhon11234]

Do you honestly think Diana suffered from Bi Poloar Disorder. I think her bulimia caused her to have mood swings but I wouldn't go that far and say that she had BPD.

 

[ysbel]

Hiya Skydragon and all,

Book reviews are normally done and submitted weeks before the book comes out. The reviewer either receives a review copy or a galley which may not reflect the actual final edit of the book.

Likewise if the book is a "big" book the reviewers will receive a promotional packet which hits all the "hightlights" of the book for them.
Kinda like cheaters notes for the reviewer which hits all the hot items in the book.
I.E. those items that the publisher wants to highlight and believe will tweak the interest of the public.
These packets are also generally made up way in advance of the finished copy of the book based on the what is expected to be in the book.

This could explain why some reviews are making note of the Goldsmith items in the book. It might be in the press packet and in the review copy.

That makes sense; having the allegations about Frances and Goldsmith in the galleys would have peaked the press' (and the public's) interest without the allegations actually being in the final book.

I don't know if the allegations are actually in the final book but it seems that if they are they are a rather small part of the book.

 

[ysbel]

Do you honestly think Diana suffered from Bi Poloar Disorder. I think her bulimia caused her to have mood swings but I wouldn't go that far and say that she had BPD.

Well to say that someone is mentally unbalanced is not the most scientific of diagnoses.

I'm going by the number of disorders she had and by the probability that she had an underlying condition that manifested itself at different times as bulimia or post partum depression or the tendency to inflict self-harm. If her psychological problems were indeed minor, then I think she should have been cured of one without having to get another disorder.

That's why I would guess that the bulimia, post partum depression and the tendency to inflict self-harm were not themselves the main disorders causing a mood imbalance; rather an underlying imbalance was probably causing the bulimia, post partum depression and the tendency to inflict self-harm. The imbalance could have remained the same but it may have manifested itself in different forms at different times: at one time, bulimia, at another, post partum depression, at another the tendency to self-harm.




.

 

[sirhon11234]

But when did this supposed imbalance started to occur before or after the marriage, because of what I read this imbalance occured after the marriage.

 

[ysbel]

Eating disorders start in one's early teenage years. Diana's older sister had an eating disorder so this particular disorder occurred in her family before her marriage.

I'm afraid its an urban myth that the stresses of her marriage caused Diana's bulimia. Eating disorders don't work that way. The stresses of her marriage could have made things worse however but they couldn't create a disorder where none had existed before.

 

[ysbel]

Now that I remember Diana had said in the taped interviews for the Andrew Morton book that as a young teenager that she had wanted to be like her sister in everything and so she copied her sister's behavior (anorexia) but in Diana this behavior manifested itself in bulimia and not anorexia.

This was before she married Charles. The post-partum depression of course did not manifest itself until after she had given birth to William but that is what post partum depression is (after birth depression). I don't know whether she had any incidences of self-harm before her marriage.

 

[love_cc]

There are severual royal biographies conclusing that Diana has suffered BPD or other unknown mental disorders. Mental disorders have many different types and it can cause depression, panariond,self-harm, etc.Some sufferers may live and work like normal people but they don't known their own problems.It is really hard to cure these unless under extremely extensive care and long-term treatments.

I am not saying that Diana is mentally unbalanced or she suffered mental disorders. Charles is not saying something but Jonathan Dimbley, Penny Junor and Howard Hodgson seemed to ask many witnesses to discuss about Diana's behaviour towards Charles or others during her marriage then they visit the experts to seek their suggesions about these behaviours. BPD is suggested but it is not the only one they conclude. They are not sure but they certainly don't think eating disorder and depression are reasonable explanations about Diana's behaviours.

 

[ysbel]

Well to get the conversation back to Tina Brown's book, what did Tina Brown say about any disorders?

Or did she mention nothing at all about any?

 

[misselle]

I just received my copy of the book yesterday afternoon;I read the acknowledgements and am quite pleased to see who her sources are:Sarah Bradford(a very balanced biography Diana);Sally Bedell Smith(Diana:In Search of Herself);Phil Craig(With Tim Clayton in Diana:Story of a Princess,book and television);Robert Lacey,Anthony Holden,Hugo Vickers,and Andrew Morton(for Diana's point of view in Diana:Her True Story) and others.
So far,I think that Tina Brown has done a really good job explaining the backgrounds of Diana and of Charles.
Diana was considered difficult,but the entire Spencer family could be described as difficult;the Spencer men were bad-tempered,eccentric and philandering,while the women were uncontrolled.Diana's Fermoy connections(her mother's side) were also difficult,producing implacably strong-willed,fiercely determined women.
Charles considered his parents as emotionally absent;Queen Elizabeth,The Queen Mother was the nurturing parent in his life.Her Majesty,The Queen,was torn away from family life to ascend the throne and was perpetually busy with the boxes,tours,meetings.And Prince Philip was himself the product of an unfortunate childhood.His father abandoned the family to live with his mistress,and his mother had a nervous breakdown and later became a nun.Philip's first real home was with Elizabeth.Philip is described as bright,but without the discipline of education "to balance the arrogance that goes with the intelligence.He quickly reaches prejudiced positions without information to do so and can't be persuaded to change his mind."

So, Diana and Charles were both needy for affection and both didn't really know how to get what they wanted.

I've just come to the part of the book where Charles leaves for naval duty and Camilla runs off to marry Andrew Parker Bowles;I'm pretty happy with Brown's writing so far.

 

[love_cc]

I have finished the reading. A very heavy and intentive collection of information indeeed. Tina Brown has set a fast pace about Diana's years. She has great understandings about the use of the media during Diana years. No many new facts about Diana's life but Tina Brown does try to present a picture that Camilla and Andrew PB's marriage was more blissful than we thought and he is her consuming passion but she refusing to let Charles go and Charles has enduring feelings about her. I think basically Tina Brown wants us to see Diana as a modern girl who refused to share her husband with his mistress but she has no way to retain her husband's interest because of the ever presence of Camilla.Not much has been said about Diana's love lives but she does mention a historian to warn Diana beforehand how to preserve her image after her separation ; no sex and no talk to press but Diana did not listen of course.

The book will reinforce the image of Diana as a modern girl who purusuited her love despite her unrealistic thoughts and she has great possession toward her men which may be hard for men to cope. And she has reinforce the old image of old fashion stiff Windsors image . Diana is casted in a sympathic light,Camilla is casted in a cunning and manipulative light, and prince Charles is casted in a eccentric, bad temper and weak man light.

 

[hibou]

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.

 

[hibou]

I've wondered the same thing.

One of the first things I do before buying a bio is to check the sources listed in the back of the book to see how much new and original material is being included. Often what happens is that with clever editing they can spin a quote to a whole new meaning simply by deleting portions such as using the wonderful... then picking the quote up again. If you really want to get to the true meaning you have to go to the original source to see what was said.

For comparison I ended up buying the True Grace bio because after standing in the bookstore for 20 min. I couldn't decipher where her new info began and where she blended it with the old yet the PR proclaimed new sources for the reason for people to buy the book. Even after reading it I had trouble figuring out fact from fiction. I reduced that book to good storytelling but told Monaco fans to skip it. You have to really know your authors and where they are coming from before digesting every word. There are some excellent royal biographers and I would not want them placed on the same bookshelf as a Kitty Kelley. JMO

 

[sirhon11234]

I should try your method Hibou.

 

[hibou]

Actually I thought Penny Junor was quite balanced. She hasn't been 100% approving of Charles or the royal family either so it seems she can criticize all the parties and not just Charles or Diana.

As far as Junor's assertion that Diana was mentally unbalanced, I think there are enough facts out there from which an objective person could draw the conclusion that Diana was mentally unbalanced.

Diana admitted herself that she suffered from bulimia, post-partum depression, and a tendency to inflict self-harm on herself. Given that she suffered from 3 distinct but different psychological problems, its not a stretch of the imagination for an author to come to the conclusion that she was mentally unbalanced. If you read literature on women who have just the tendency to inflict self-harm and not the others, they are often described as mentally unbalanced.

I think we have to be careful in how we address Diana and her problems because only a professional who has examined her or who has had access to her discussions with her shrink could make a definitive statement as to her mental well-being. Having said that she herself documented the problems she was having, one of which alone would raise concern, but often as is the case when there is one huge issue there are often others. In addition one can certainly be unbalanced at difficult times but it doesn't mean they are always unbalanced and there in lies the problem with labeling a person one way or the other. She was most definitely a complex person with huge issues but truly understanding them would take shrink. JMO

 

[ysbel]

I think we have to be careful in how we address Diana and her problems because only a professional who has examined her or who has had access to her discussions with her shrink could make a definitive statement as to her mental well-being. Having said that she herself documented the problems she was having, one of which alone would raise concern, but often as is the case when there is one huge issue there are often others. In addition one can certainly be unbalanced at difficult times but it doesn't mean they are always unbalanced and there in lies the problem with labeling a person one way or the other. She was most definitely a complex person with huge issues but truly understanding them would take shrink. JMO

Point taken regarding the medical imbalance hibou.

Diana's psychiatrist cannot legally release his diagnosis to the public which is why people come up with the terms mentally imbalanced to describe behavior they are seeing. It can be a cruel and hateful label however. It is however harder to dispel the notion that she was unbalanced with the revelations Diana made which is why I cringed when she released these details about herself.

 

[hibou]

Point taken regarding the medical imbalance hibou.

Diana's psychiatrist cannot legally release his diagnosis to the public which is why people come up with the terms mentally imbalanced to describe behavior they are seeing. It can be a cruel and hateful label however. It is however harder to dispel the notion that she was unbalanced with the revelations Diana made which is why I cringed when she released these details about herself.

I agree but I guess she knew people would label her anyway so why not beat them to the punch. Personally I think we get too much information about their private lives. It's why I cringe when girlfriends of royalty give interviews. I don't think we really needed to know about Camilla's recent hospital stay either. JMO

 

[Jaya]

revoltingly normal

Strangely I find nothing wrong with Diana. Titles now attributed to her mental well being are inextricably linked with her environmental circumstances and not something love could not have assisted. I find it unusual that she could have done so much for charity;potentially done more had she not died so tragically[was so giving to everyone] and she is now called mentally imbalanced [as they convinced her to say about herself also in interviews]
I have to say I think Diana was a reactionary to her circumstances in the manner she knew how to react.But I have difficulty reconciling her ability to give of her entire being to good works and people's instantaneous receptivity to her without reservation with the idea that she had any major psychological disorder.It is now a facile route to do this to her memory especially since she is not here anymore when we still needed her so much in this coarse and unforgiving world.
I think the Tina Brown book will sell lots of copies as it has " psychological appeal"
In the final analysis who is revoltingly normal anyway?
As for Diana I hope her repose in justice is just that and that historically she wil be remembered for her charisma, caring,tremendous impact of her good works which will gain in meaning as time goes on.

 

[Skydragon]

I don't find it 'normal' to devise ways to torture your governesses (If we are to believe the book), or to arrange to send poison pen letters to your fathers wife and blame a school friend. What is also abnormal is self harming and bulimia, all of which happened before she married Prince Charles!.

 

[kimebear]

Perhaps if Diana had not married so young, she would have had a chance to develop into a more healthy adult. She went from being a sheltered aristocrats daughter to being thrust into the world's spotlight, married to a much older man who really didn't know what to do with a teenager. There was really so much blame on both sides and the whole matter was just generally unfortunate.

 

[misselle]

I've just finished reading the book;Tina Brown has crammed so much information in her work! Both Diana and Charles were/are quite petulant at times. Both Diana and Charles threw things about when angry. That doesn't make them both mentally unbalanced,just uncontrolled and not so smart--
pushing Raine down the stairs was not a good thing to do, neither was terrorizing governesses(which,unfortunately is quite common,the Spencers are not the only children to have done so,and Johnny Spencer should have done something about that).

Since I've been following Diana for years and years,I've known that she was a far from perfect person, but, still a likable person because of her empathy for those battling diseases,injuries,unfortunate circumstances. She could be very difficult with those who disagreed with her... but that is a human failing.

And, yes,Diana was quite young and ill-informed with the ways of the world she married into. She really was not intellectually well-prepared; she disliked reading any thing but romances! If she had only read the many biographies about the Royals she would have had an idea about Royal men feeling entitled to having affairs.

 

[Skydragon]

And, yes,Diana was quite young and ill-informed with the ways of the world she married into. She really was not intellectually well-prepared; she disliked reading any thing but romances! If she had only read the many biographies about the Royals she would have had an idea about Royal men feeling entitled to having affairs.

Oh dear, that same old chestnut about royal men having affairs. Diana had been brought up in aristocratic circles, she knew full well what was expected of a girl from her station, whether she achieved her goal of marrying the prince or not.

 

[love_cc]

Does anyone have opnions about Camilla's part in this book? Tina Brown made her conclusion that Andrew PB was the love of Camilla's life and Charles was just her lover to fulfill her ambition to be the mistress of the Prince of Wales. I don't agree with her of course. . Personally I think the age gap between Camilla and Andrew may also cause some unknown problems in their relationships and Andrew's attitudes toward ladies caused many heartaches to Camilla. Charles is almost born to have a strong woman as his wife and Camilla can suit the role perfectly.She was just born for him.

 

[misselle]

Oh dear, that same old chestnut about royal men having affairs. Diana had been brought up in aristocratic circles, she knew full well what was expected of a girl from her station, whether she achieved her goal of marrying the prince or not.

Diana did not want that kind of marriage;being a more modern-thinking person,she didn't want to accept that way of marriage.Not every person thinks in terms of the Queen Mother,that men have affairs,while the wives just accept it. The late Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was quite used to men being unfaithful;she saw how her father acted.She saw the womanizing ways of her father-in-law,and knew that he passed those ways onto his sons(maybe not all of them)so she cold-heartedly accepted that her marriage gave her power,security,family,but not marital-fidelity.She didn't like it,but she accepted it as a trade-off.
Diana wanted the whole package,I think,a romantic partnership,and a royal title(just my opinion).

Camilla was in love with Andrew Parker Bowles,first. Then she met Prince Charles and they got on very well.It;s been written that she didn't want all of the royal duties and expectations that came with marrying into the royal family.It could also have been that she wasn't so sure that Charles could gain approval for a marriage to her. But,she went on and married Parker Bowles. And they were quite happy with their arrangement.

 

[Skydragon]

Diana did not want that kind of marriage;Diana wanted the whole package,I think,a romantic partnership,and a royal title(just my opinion).

You misunderstood my reply. It is always something bandied about that aristocrats and royal men expect to have affairs, it simply isn't any more relevant to royals or aristocrats, than it is to Joe Bloggs in the street. If a couple are mismatched, they leave or have an affair - very few men or women enter into marriage with the express thought that they are also going to have a lover, IMO. Charles was no different. However they didn't get on and both looked elsewhere.

Camilla was in love with Andrew Parker Bowles,first. Then she met Prince Charles and they got on very well.It;s been written that she didn't want all of the royal duties and expectations that came with marrying into the royal family.It could also have been that she wasn't so sure that Charles could gain approval for a marriage to her. But,she went on and married Parker Bowles. And they were quite happy with their arrangement.

I have trawled the net, asked about and can find nobody and no article to back up your statement about Camilla.

 

[mary62_87]

well she sure doesn't look like her father , and she looks like her grandmother but not really that ùuch , maube the hair and the eyes l guess

 

[misselle]

You misunderstood my reply. It is always something bandied about that aristocrats and royal men expect to have affairs, it simply isn't any more relevant to royals or aristocrats, than it is to Joe Bloggs in the street. If a couple are mismatched, they leave or have an affair - very few men or women enter into marriage with the express thought that they are also going to have a lover, IMO. Charles was no different. However they didn't get on and both looked elsewhere.
I have trawled the net, asked about and can find nobody and no article to back up your statement about Camilla.

Over the past 25 years I've read a lot of books and articles on the royals,so some of the sources are older and probably not available for internet perusal,books by Ralph G. Martin,Unity Hall,Ingrid Seward... these were writen much before the time Diana talked to Andrew Morton and gave her side of the story and the cover was blown off of Wales's not so happy-ever-after marriage.

skydragon,you are entitled to your opinion and I am listening to your side of view and getting lots of information from your posts.Please don't belittle my posts.

 

[Skydragon]

Over the past 25 years I've read a lot of books and articles on the royals,so some of the sources are older and probably not available for internet perusal,books by Ralph G. Martin,Unity Hall,Ingrid Seward... these were writen much before the time Diana talked to Andrew Morton and gave her side of the story and the cover was blown off of Wales's not so happy-ever-after marriage.

With an average of 1 out of 3 marriages ending in divorce now and not so many less in say 1975, not all of them were aristocrats or royals, the average Mr or Mrs is more likely to get divorced than a member of the royal family. Just because someone wants to sell a book and adds a little bit of sex, affairs etc to sell it, people should not take it as fact, I know many aristocrats who have never taken a lover and become tired of the way it is believed that they all 'do it'. Just thinking of the Queens children, Anne didn't, Andrew didn't and Edward, so far hasn't. Out of all the royals over the past 150 years for instance, how many are alleged to have lovers and how many was it proven actually did?
I don't know how you think I belittled your post, it certainly wasn't intended. I was just stating the facts and hoping you would say how you came by such information. I did look on the net, ask people I know for any statement or indeed comment from Camilla to back up your assertions that she loved APB first, I couldn't come up with anything.

 

[Panicgrl]

Does anyone have opnions about Camilla's part in this book? Tina Brown made her conclusion that Andrew PB was the love of Camilla's life and Charles was just her lover to fulfill her ambition to be the mistress of the Prince of Wales. I don't agree with her of course. . Personally I think the age gap between Camilla and Andrew may also cause some unknown problems in their relationships and Andrew's attitudes toward ladies caused many heartaches to Camilla. Charles is almost born to have a strong woman as his wife and Camilla can suit the role perfectly.She was just born for him.

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.