"The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown (2007)

[selrahc4]

Tina Brown interview & a review of the book

From the review

The Diana Chronicles is not a book on Diana. It is the book. Not only does it put the story of Diana in its proper historical context of British politics, journalism and the changing mores of the past quarter century, but it is also a perfect example of the nosy-parker’s art. It conveys, better than anything I have ever read, the basic intelligence of its subject. Di knew she was dicing with disaster when she chose the tabloid press as the means by which she would rise beyond megastardom to sex goddess, saint and martyr.

 

[Skydragon]

I don't think it can be 'the' book on Diana, as it fails to mention the revelations that Diana was the author of poison pen letters to her step mother and in fact pushed the woman down the stairs. Many 'facts' that Brown has written about, neither she nor any sources could have knowledge of. Even the conversation with Philip turns out to be another case of Diana apparently telling a friend her version of what was supposedly said. The story of the QM signalling for lemons is laughable, if her cook had forgotten them, she would of course have just sent someone to the local shop!

It could, if all the hype about new sources with new revelations, have been a great book. Now it just falls into the 'more fiction than substantiated facts' bin.

 

[ysbel]

Brown's book, for all of my purposes, addresses my queries and concerns, including the political and social ramifications of the upheaval which Diana occasioned. There are aspects to this book, I believe, which go beyond the 'show and tell' aspects of so many others which report on the Diana phenomenon. For instance, Brown draws a correlation between the impact of Thatcherism and its attendant social dislocation and change and the rise of a perceived national attachment to and affection for Diana. Sociologist and historians may well, I think, give serious consideration to this book, sooner or later.

That I can well believe Polly. I think, as I mentioned eariler, that Tina Brown's metier is celebrity, the media, and its influence on society and she is perhaps immently suited to write about the media phenomenon that was Diana which I don't believe is dependent on having an ability to write well about the person Diana.

Its an intriguing possibility that Diana was intentionally cast in the fairytale princess role opposite Margaret Thatcher's Iron Lady.

May I ask what concerns you yourself had about the political and social upheavals that Diana occasioned?

 

[ysbel]

Tina Brown interview & a review of the book

From the review

Interesting Janet.

In reading the reviews of Tina Brown's book, I am struck with one similarity between Tina Brown's analysis and Sarah Bradford's analysis of Diana's impact on the media. They both seem to say that Diana could never have had the impact that she did without her massive insecurity and sense of low self-esteem. Perhaps Tina Brown borrowed a bit from Sarah Bradford's analysis but she had enough media saavy to come up with something on her own.

The idea that the Diana phenomenon could not occur with a woman of relatively healthy self-confidence and self-esteem is one of the most paradoxical and (to me) most disturbing hypotheses to come from the Diana phenomenon.

 

[Polly]

I don't think it can be 'the' book on Diana, as it fails to mention the revelations that Diana was the author of poison pen letters to her step mother and in fact pushed the woman down the stairs.

Many 'facts' that Brown has written about, neither she nor any sources could have knowledge of. Even the conversation with Philip turns out to be another case of Diana apparently telling a friend her version of what was supposedly said. The story of the QM signalling for lemons is laughable, if her cook had forgotten them, she would of course have just sent someone to the local shop!

Brown's does indeed mention those things, and quite explicity, Skydragon. Have you read the book?

As for the 'facts', Brown is no more cavalier with them than anyone else has ever been. She has the advantage over many of at least nominating a source. This is the third time that I've asked why those who are quoted or have words attributed to them have not yet objected if they are misrepresented.

The QM signalling for lemons was a charming and pleasant little aside, and meant as such. Actually, I can easily believe that.

 

[Skydragon]

I have to say that I have not been impressed with her impersonation of a fly on the wall, (HP is far more interesting at the moment), which is the only way she could possibly state some of the conversations she attributes to various people. Just because she is no more cavalier than anyone else, does not make her facts, the facts. Where is the evidence of the tapes she has heard, detailing private conversations between FSK & Diana, for instance?
Why have they not objected, perhaps they do not want to give her free publicity with a lawsuit, in a he said, she said confrontation, costing 1000's of pounds. Nothing proven either way, from what I have read, Ms Brown is a true reporter, well practised as they all seem to be, in the art of passing off fiction mixed with a few facts, IMO.
The Queen Mother asking someone to signal for lemons, why, as I said there are a couple of very good shops that HM's staff frequented, so why would she ask someone to signal HM? A charming aside or an attempt to show the QM was dotty?

Will I do more than give this book the cursory glance it has had, probably not, I have other more realistic books to read at the moment.

 

[Polly]

I have to say that I have not been impressed with her impersonation of a fly on the wall, (HP is far more interesting at the moment), which is the only way she could possibly state some of the conversations she attributes to various people. Just because she is no more cavalier than anyone else, does not make her facts, the facts. Where is the evidence of the tapes she has heard, detailing private conversations between FSK & Diana, for instance?
Why have they not objected, perhaps they do not want to give her free publicity with a lawsuit, in a he said, she said confrontation, costing 1000's of pounds. Nothing proven either way, from what I have read, Ms Brown is a true reporter, well practised as they all seem to be, in the art of passing off fiction mixed with a few facts, IMO.
The Queen Mother asking someone to signal for lemons, why, as I said there are a couple of very good shops that HM's staff frequented, so why would she ask someone to signal HM? A charming aside or an attempt to show the QM was dotty?

Will I do more than give this book the cursory glance it has had, probably not, I have other more realistic books to read at the moment.

Well, not reading the book is your prerogative, undoubtedly. However, I am having problems with your emphatic statements, decided opinions and comments about it without having read it. I think, too, that it might be noted that whereas there are quite a few 'personal communication' footnotes, there are also many from well-known, named sources.

As for your surmise that Brown's intention was to show the Queen Mother as dotty - no such thing! What the books says, is:

'A guest recalls seeing the draft of a ship's signal from the Queen Mother to Britannia: 'Dearest Lillibet. Bring lemons, have run out.'

The guest is named as Victoria Mather, who told this to Brown on May 22, 2006.

 

[Polly]

May I ask what concerns you yourself had about the political and social upheavals that Diana occasioned?

Ysbel,

It was, and always has been, my position that neither 'side' was inherently better or worse behaved than t'other. My sense of loyalty to Her Majesty and her Heir has never once wavered. However, I truly believed that Diana engendered a tsunami of difference, i.e. difference of opinion and attitude. To my observation, the Palace and its attendants and lackeys were utterly confounded by her popularity, and, yes, it must be said, adoration, in some quarters. To whit: they were completely at a loss as to how to countermand her prescience and appeal, even in those few instances where they could even begin to comprehend it. That they couldn't accept, much less inhabit, a radically altered world which worshipped celebrity in all of its manifestations, was its major shortcoming. In the final analysis, there are highly paid advisers to advise and inform on social aberrations and indulgences.

From my perspective, I could almost hear the tumbrils rumbling, and was most anxious that Her Majesty would survive, unscathed. In my long view, it was a near run thing, and although I'm not a fan of his, Tony Blair did a great deal to assist in maintaining the status quo in this instance. Both in England and Australia I was horrified to hear the slanders and anger directed at The Queen and her son over Diana's ghastly death, which I always felt was manifestly unfair. Neither of them, no matter what, would have wished her dead!

Still, I believe that Diana was an immense threat to the English so-called Establishment. A.N. Wilson, in The New York Times, commented that if she continues to rock the boat, "the Establishment will simply get rid of her, as they got rid of Edward and Mrs Simpson". The irony here, is, of course, that the Spencers were much more legitmate 'Establishment' than all of the nouveaux and faux-gentry which surrounded the Crown, especially those who inhabited Camilla's world. Its interests, invested in the Crown's patronage, was seriously challenged at a mundane, social level, and therefore Diana's actions were deemed insupportable. The advent of Diana relegated the almost religious reverence which many held for the Royal Family into a more secular milieu.

In an historical sense, the quasi-religious mystique of royalty came full circle with Diana. Monarchy used to be based on divine right. But just as monarchy, traditionally, used religious trappings to justify its rule, modern celebrity has a way of slipping into a form of popular religion, hitherto quite unacknowledged and unappreciated in its power.

In this sense, Diana evolved into a sacrificial symbol in several ways. First she became the patron saint of victims, the sick, the discriminated against, the homeless. Then, partly through her real suffering at the hands of a rigidly formal family trained to play rigidly formal public roles, and partly through her shrewd manipulation of the press, Diana herself projected a compelling image of victimhood. Women in unhappy marriages identified with her; so did outsiders of one kind or another, ethnic, sexual or social. Like many religious idols, she was openly abused and ridiculed, in her case by the same press that stoked the public worship of her. And finally, she became the ultimate victim of her own fame.

I remember some people, devoted monarchists all, bewailing Diana's death. "How could she leave?" For the last 16 years, on the world's stage, Diana had embodied Britain for much of the world. She showed that despite the loss of empire and influence and the heavy weight of history, the country was capable of youth and vigour and immense charm, still. By blood alone and her impeccable lineage, she was an endorsement of all which Britain had been and still could be. If one were to investigate such things, Diana Spencer was a much better bred Englishwoman than anyone else in the Royal Family.

But what mattered most was that Diana was truly the world's princess, a title which no other could ever hope to attain, and no monarch ever has. How many nations embraced expressions of shock and dismay and mourning in public, far beyond diplomacy's or mere politeness' requirements?

There have been many changes for the better in House of Windsor, and 'tis my considered opinion that they are for the better, and that they are due to the late Princess of Wales.

Tina Brown's book endorses this view. Tina Brown's book, though, does not do this at the expense of Diana's ex-royal-in-laws. On the whole, I admire it because it's approps, and casts no heavy stones.

 

[Skydragon]

Well, not reading the book is your prerogative, undoubtedly. However, I am having problems with your emphatic statements, decided opinions and comments about it without having read it. I think, too, that it might be noted that whereas there are quite a few 'personal communication' footnotes, there are also many from well-known, named sources.
As for your surmise that Brown's intention was to show the Queen Mother as dotty - no such thing! What the books says, is:
'A guest recalls seeing the draft of a ship's signal from the Queen Mother to Britannia: 'Dearest Lillibet. Bring lemons, have run out.'
The guest is named as Victoria Mather, who told this to Brown on May 22, 2006.

I'm afraid you are jumping to conclusions, I am still reading it, although not as avidly as some it would seem. I tend to lose interest when it is clear that the author has put her 'take' on 'facts' she has taken from other authors. Just because these 'facts' have been written of before, does not make them the truth.
Her interpretation that Diana & Charles would get back together is far too syrupy and as for Charles caring for Diana if she was badly injured, does not mean living with her, rekindling the marriage, it simply means that he would possibly have found her a decent home (which she didn't have) and paid for a carer.
As I am still reading the book, in between others, I may come back to this. So far I would say this book is ideal for it's American market, Diana devotees and those willing to believe everything they read, without questioning the logic or indeed truth of what they are being told.

The only Victoria Mather I can think of is a journalist and it also begs the question how 'a guest' would see a draft of any signals exchanged between Britannia and anyone else. Did Victoria go rifling through documents in the signals/comms room, search the bridge? Think about it for a moment, do you really see the QM sending a message to HM about something as trivial as a lack of lemons, do you not think perhaps that if her staff, for some unknown reason, could not buy them from the nearest Spar, her staff would be the ones contacting HM's staff?

 

[sirhon11234]

Skydragon what do you mean that the Princess didn't have decent home, Diana lived in a 3 floored Kensington Palace apartment thats more than decent.

 

[ysbel]

Thanks Polly for explaining. Now I understand what you mean and why you are so impressed with Tina's book.

There have been many changes for the better in House of Windsor, and 'tis my considered opinion that they are for the better, and that they are due to the late Princess of Wales.

Tina Brown's book endorses this view.

Based on your writings in the thread, Tina Brown seems like an apologist or defender of all the good that the celebritydom of Diana accomplished. She not only describes the effects of Diana's celebrity as Sarah Bradford did before; rather she celebrates it and extols it and assures the reading public that Diana's celebrity is really not incompatible with the traditional British values extolled by the monarchy.

 

[Skydragon]

Skydragon what do you mean that the Princess didn't have decent home, Diana lived in a 3 floored Kensington Palace apartment thats more than decent.

Why do you think she asked her brother to allow her to live on his estate?
If she had been seriously injured, crippled or disfigured, do you think KP would have been the ideal place for her?

 

[scooter]

I just finished this book and found it to be fairly presented to all parties concerned. My personal view is that there were no completely innocent bystanders by the end of the story, although I think some started out more innocent than others. The book was an enjoyable read and brought back to me many points that I had forgotten. Enjoy!

 

[Warren]

Before it gets lost in the to 'n fro, Polly deserves congratulations for her considered post at #248 above where she examines Diana's role as "patron saint" to various people and the connection between royal mystique and modern celebrity, and for placing the "Diana phenomenon" in a social context. Much appreciated.

 

[Skydragon]

although I think some started out more innocent than others. The book was an enjoyable read and brought back to me many points that I had forgotten. Enjoy!

If that view is based on TB's 'evidence', I wouldn't want you as a juror on my trial! (joke)

I am still trawling through this book and I have not changed my opinion on it's accuracy.

utterly confounded by her popularity

or were they dumbfounded by the way she manipulated the media and people around her.

 

[Skydragon]

Brown's does indeed mention those things, and quite explicity, Skydragon. Have you read the book?

We must have totally different books, as the only reference to the poison pen letter I can find, is on page 44 and is a one liner.
"Diana's campaign against the ascendancy of the new Countess of Althorp was a replay of her guerilla warfare against her first nannies. She got a school friend to write Raine a poisonous letter. She made harrassing phone calls..... etc, etc"
It barely covers any of the details, that this poor school friend was questioned by the police until she broke down and told them that Diana dictated the letter. What page is your 'explicit' mention on?

 

[sirhon11234]

And Diana did these things when she was a teenager who hated her step-mother. And before she died the Princess was more closer to Raine than her own mother.
But the Princess of Wales did push Raine down a flight of stairs which is very bothering.

 

[Skydragon]

And Diana did these things when she was a teenager who hated her step-mother. And before she died the Princess was more closer to Raine than her own mother..

Well that wasn't hard, taking into account that Diana had again fallen out with her mother. On what do you base your assumption that she was close to Raine?

 

[sirhon11234]

Ever After by Anne Edwards, A Royal Duty by the rat Paul Burrell. And there are pictures of Diana and Raine together before she died.

 

[Skydragon]

Ever After by Anne Edwards, A Royal Duty by the rat Paul Burrell. And there are pictures of Diana and Raine together before she died.

Impeccable 'sources' then! There are a few pictures of Diana and Raine, but nothing, IMO, that would back up any statement that she was closer to Raine than her own mother under normal circumstances.

 

[Skydragon]

I think, too, that it might be noted that whereas there are quite a few 'personal communication' footnotes, there are also many from well-known, named sources.

As you might guess, I disagree with this statement.

There are so many inaccuracies and wild guesses passed off as fact. We have HM apparently breaking the habit of a lifetime by cornering an unnamed guest and complaining that Diana was staring at them, have we ever heard of HM discussing anyone with friends, let alone a guest?
How about the assertion that Diana didn't go with 'them' to shoot the feathery baby grouse. Now much as I disagree with shooting game birds as a sport, they are not feathery baby grouse and most people would know that, including Diana!

It seems to me, that Brown has perpetuated all the inaccuracies that were in other peoples books, added more than a few unsubstantiated rumours, her own outsider looking in angst and a lot of imagination.

 

[ysbel]

Before it gets lost in the to 'n fro, Polly deserves congratulations for her considered post at #248 above where she examines Diana's role as "patron saint" to various people and the connection between royal mystique and modern celebrity, and for placing the "Diana phenomenon" in a social context. Much appreciated.

Well I certainly didn't lose Polly's excellent comment in the to and fro. I think she explained clearly what she had gotten out of the book from a social context.

And that's when I realized that as much as facts and figures are important at certain times, sometimes the facts and figures are not relevant.

It seems that the main value of the book is not how it describes a particular detail of Diana's life or even how sympathetically or not sympathetically it portrays any individual, Charles, Camilla, Diana, the Queen. Like others said, a lot of the facts Tina Brown puts forth have already been published in other books. The main subject of the book seems to be the media phenomenon of Diana rather than the person that was Diana.

If Tina Brown is talking about media phenomenon, then that is a subject that she is eminently qualified to speak on as an authority. It is her stock in trade.

I may wait till I get her book from the library and do a little comparative reading with Sarah Bradford's book.

 

[Skydragon]

And that's when I realized that as much as facts and figures are important at certain times, sometimes the facts and figures are not relevant.

Unfortunately, if the fact's are wrong then it follows that the conclusions are also wrong.

If Tina Brown is talking about media phenomenon, then that is a subject that she is eminently qualified to speak on as an authority

Perhaps for an American audience.

 

[love_cc]

Looking forward to your review about the book ysbel. I am not fasinated by this book but I do see what Tina

 

[ysbel]

Unfortunately, if the fact's are wrong then it follows that the conclusions are also wrong.

Not necessarily skydragon. If the conclusions don't necessarily have to be based on the facts to be true then it doesn't matter if the facts are wrong. For example, the striptease that was referred to in the article posted before may be true or may be false but it really doesn't have an effect on Diana's impact as a celebrity icon because until now the public didn't know about the striptease for the story to affect their perception of Diana as an icon one way or another.

Perhaps for an American audience.

I admit that an American audience would be more susceptible to Diana's appeal. However,Tina Brown made her name in Great Britain at the magazine Tatler, a famous British society magazine. Previously I only knew of Tina Brown through her later work at Vanity Fair (but I knew more about Anna Wintour who was her protege) and then with her (unsuccessful at least to me) tenure at the New Yorker. But recently I have been reading more about her and was surprised to find out that her parents were in with social set of the British film industry and her father had briefly been married to Maureen O'Hara before the marriage was annulled.

I think if Tina grew up with parents prominent in the film industry, she must have been very well acquainted with the British celebrity and social set that was in the British media at the time before she went to Tatler.

Not least of which the book on the British young set, Bridget Jones' Diary had a hilarious scene at a social party where Bridget Jones uncomfortable in the British society set decides to copy the social expert Tina Brown and dart off after an embarassing conversation with the phrase, "Bye, must fly now!"

 

[love_cc]

Looking forward to your review, Ysbel. I think Tina Brown's book is more suitable for US general readers as well. I don't think either her book or her are very warmly received in UK. I always find Tina Brown has a sharp mind a sharp mouth and she certainly know how the celerities and famous people's really feel like during these high society parties and other occasions. I think she is very qualified to write a Vanity Fair style article about Charles and Diana and she proved herself in 1985 article. I just doubt why she moved to US in 1985 year and she is certainly clever enough to make sure about her own standing in the society.

Her book does not change my perception about Diana and my critics towards her. But I do see Diana's more sufferings during her life because of her innocent and naive ambition about being Princess of Wales. I guess you probably will enjoy the reading because this book is not a boring and long style. I find Sarah Bradford's style too boring and long. Moreover I question her interviewee because of too many uses of anomoymous sources of her information. I hates that and Tina Brown seems to have done a better job in revealing their names when permitted.

 

[Grace-Patricia]

The book is really not boring, but was quite shocked about the negative picture of Diana in this book. Lets hope this is not true, cause then you can can not blame Charles for the marriage trouble in total.

 

[debzone]

Skydragon--It sounds you are having some of the same issues I had with the book?

I agree--this book does seemed more geared to the readers here in the US. Polly did a great job explaining about the social aspect of the Diana "era" and how it might be of value historically.

However, that might be lost on a good number of american readers. I am American (although British born), so I hope this doesn't come across as offensive to other American's on this board? I am not really referring to you in this generalization. This country is so driven by the Celebrity Media--be it TV or print media. I mean where else had "up to minute" coverage of the Beckham's arrival to America this week complete with 2 hour long prime time TV specials? They are getting better coverage for the most part than the Queen did during her visit. So I would suspect the average reader of The Diana Chronicles here will miss the serious side of the book and focus on the fluff.

I will say this about Tina's book--she did a much better job on her booknotes etc than Christopher Andersen has done with After Diana. Talking of quotes--I am still trying to figure out how Andersen has such direct knowledge of conversations between Charles and Camilla complete with quotes. Overall, where The Diana Chronicles is fair to all the participants the same can not be said for After Diana. It is very anti-Camilla, Charles and RF for the most part--IMO.

 

[TheTruth]

The book is really not boring, but was quite shocked about the negative picture of Diana in this book. Lets hope this is not true, cause then you can can not blame Charles for the marriage trouble in total.

I think you will survive the shock Grace-Patricia . There will always be some people who will write anti-Diana, anti-Camilla or anti-Charles sort of stuff. Anyway for the marriage the both are 'responsible' IMO. A divorce is never caused by only one person, but again that's my humble opinion .

 

[Skydragon]

Not necessarily skydragon. If the conclusions don't necessarily have to be based on the facts to be true then it doesn't matter if the facts are wrong.....
I admit that an American audience would be more susceptible to Diana's appeal. However,Tina Brown made her name in Great Britain at the magazine Tatler, a famous British society magazine.....I think if Tina grew up with parents prominent in the film industry, she must have been very well acquainted with the British celebrity and social set that was in the British media at the time before she went to Tatler.

Not least of which the book on the British young set, Bridget Jones' Diary had a hilarious scene at a social party where Bridget Jones uncomfortable in the British society set decides to copy the social expert Tina Brown and dart off after an embarassing conversation with the phrase, "Bye, must fly now!"

If the basis for someones conclusions are based on lies and inaccuracy, the conclusion cannot be anything but wrong, IMO. Don't forget, that for many the Thatcher years were wonderful, far from being dislocated the nation was united behind a woman said to have had more balls than the whole parliament put together over the invasion by Argentina of the Falklands. Few complained of the right to buy their rented homes, many applauded her for putting the oh so powerful unions in their place.
The Tatler was a super magazine subscribed to by aristocrats and the upper classes, Tina Brown turned it into a middle class version of any of the gory gossip magazines, concentrating on wannabe's and celebs. Most people I know cancelled their subscriptions, although there was a rise as the middle classes purchased it instead.

Don't forget, Bridget Jones was middle class and that of course was the set she mixed in, (great film).

Changes happen within society, with and without people like Diana. The Diana 'success' has been followed by a lack of interest in anything that is not celebrity driven, which in turn has led to a lack of basic decency towards others.

I always find it worrying when normal people start to believe the facts as written in books like this, that they are willing to believe everything and common sense goes out of the window. They fail to question how so and so could possibly know that, have heard that etc. I am slightly heartened by the response to this book by a lot of people, there are over 30 copies of it in the local charity shop.

Is it the history book on Diana or the times, no, I don't think so.