Tina Brown: Princess Diana was ‘canny, resourceful’ and not a victim of the media

There are several major royal books coming out over the next few months, all timed for the Platinum Jubbly and Prince William’s 40th birthday. And likely the long farewell of Queen Elizabeth, if we’re being honest. Last year, Tina Brown announced her new book The Palace Papers: Inside the House of Windsor—the Truth and the Turmoil. It comes out this month. I’ve mentioned many times that Brown’s The Diana Chronicles is one of my favorite royal books, Brown managed to be sympathetic towards Diana while still telling the truth about Diana’s problematic behavior.

This new book… well, there hasn’t been much advance buzz either way, which made me suspicious because (for my money) Brown is one of the most dangerous royal biographers out there. As it turns out, Brown didn’t go to the Times or the Mail or any British outlet to tease The Palace Papers. No, she gave the first excerpt to Vanity Fair. You can read the full excerpt here. The book excerpt goes into detail about how Prince William and Prince Harry remember Diana differently and how those memories affect their actions today.

Diana told William everything: William understood Diana more but idealized her less. He was privy to her volatile love life. He knew the tabloids made her life hell, but he also knew she colluded with them. By his early teens, he was his mother’s most trusted confidant. She used to describe him as “my little wise old man.” Like many women whose relationships with their husbands have become dysfunctional, Diana used her elder son as both a stand-in and a buffer, toting him along for meetings with journalists. Then Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan describes in his diary a startlingly revealing background lunch with Diana and the 13-year-old William at Kensington Palace in 1996 at which, he says, the princess allowed him to ask “literally anything.” William insisted on a glass of wine even when Diana said no, and he seemed thoroughly up-to-date on all the tabloid rumors about her lovers.

Dissolving boundaries: For Diana to include the future heir to the throne at a meeting with one of the royal family’s most reckless tabloid tormentors and freely refer to a casual affair was, on its face, amazing. (Try imagining the Duchess of Cambridge and a teenage Prince George doing the same today.) It suggests that her boundaries were dissolving and, with them, her judgment.

Diana did invade her own privacy: Time and again, Diana chose to invade her own privacy, often for the capricious reason of making the men in her life jealous. The most unforgettable “stolen” snap from Diana’s last fateful holiday was the famous “kiss” picture of her in a clinch with bare-chested Dodi Fayed, her playboy lover, off the coast of Corsica. It was she who tipped off Italian lensman Mario Brenna—to send a taunting message to the real love of her life, Hasnat Khan.

Why Diana spoke about James Hewitt in the Panorama interview: It’s hard to understand how a mother as devoted as Diana would choose, in 1995, to drag up her affair with Hewitt again in her explosive interview with the BBC’s Martin Bashir on Panorama. She knew how devastated her boys had been by their father’s on-camera confession of infidelity with Camilla Parker Bowles in Jonathan Dimbleby’s 1994 ITV documentary, and how truly mortified they felt when Princess in Love came out. I am told Diana chose to speak about Hewitt to Bashir because he was the only one of her ex-lovers who wasn’t married.

Diana had no regrets about the Panorama interview, even though Martin Bashir deceived her to get the interview: “I am told by Lalvani that Diana said she had no regrets about the interview and made clear that she had said exactly what she wanted to say on camera. (She even co-opted lines such as “There were three of us in this marriage” from her writer friend Clive James.) “She was pleased about it [the interview],” Lalvani confirmed to me. “She didn’t have a bad word to say about Martin Bashir. She realized it served her purpose.” She was right. Her “purpose” was to frame herself to the British public as a betrayed woman before the increasingly inevitable divorce from Charles. Opinion polls in the wake of the interview showed support for the princess at 92 percent. She had the public in the palm of her hand.

Tina Brown on Diana’s agency: I don’t subscribe to the now pervasive narrative that Diana was a vulnerable victim of media manipulation, a mere marionette tossed about by malign forces beyond her control. While strongly sympathetic to her sons’ pain, I find it offensive to present the canny, resourceful Diana as a woman of no agency, as either a foolish, duped child or the hapless casualty of malevolent muckrakers.

Meeting Diana: When Vogue’s Anna Wintour and I, as editor of The New Yorker, had lunch with Diana in Manhattan in July 1997—six weeks before her death—I was bowled over by the confident, skillful way she wooed us. Diana was always more beautiful in person than in photographs—the huge, limpid blue eyes, the soft peach skin, the super-model height. She told us her story of loneliness and hurt at Charles’s hands with an irresistible soulful intimacy that sucked us in, then switched to a startlingly sophisticated vision of how she planned to leverage her celebrity for the causes she cared about with a series of TV specials, 24 years before Harry and Meghan’s incoherent multimedia plans.

Harry & William’s contempt for the press: Her sons express their lasting contempt for the press in different ways: William with a grim, steely obsession with control; Harry with tortured, vocal, frequently ill-judged condemnation, a never-ending flurry of lawsuits, and, finally, a burn-it-all-down gesture that his mother—who, despite her yearning to be free, held tight to her diadem—might have well understood. But neither of them has yet been heard to reflect on how much Diana loved to dance with danger.

[From Vanity Fair]

Brown is basically saying that Diana was a basketcase who needed the near-constant reassurance of the press. While I do think Diana was a basketcase, I also think… that’s what the Windsors did to her. She felt imprisoned in a bad marriage with a chronic philanderer and she was trying to survive inside an institution which did everything to try to break her, to discredit her, to dull her light, to delegitimize her. While I hate to give Brown credit for this, I also believe that both William and Harry have major issues with acknowledging Diana’s media games, and how much she engaged with the paparazzi and called them herself. William’s version of Diana is of a woman who was a withdrawn, paranoid basketcase. Harry’s version of Diana is that of a wholly martyred victim. Neither version is how Diana really existed and tried to survive.

I side-eye Brown’s dig at the Sussexes too – “24 years before Harry and Meghan’s incoherent multimedia plans…” What’s incoherent? They signed Spotify and Netflix contracts and they’re doing pretty much what Diana wanted to do.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

169 Responses to “Tina Brown: Princess Diana was ‘canny, resourceful’ and not a victim of the media”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Dee says:

    At some point, these Diana rehashings become increasingly parasitic. This Tina woman needs to move on. Diana can’t continue to be the guiding focus of all you do, let her rest in peace. I know people need to earn a living, but when do you cross the line into becoming a vulture hovering over someone’s grave?

    • LadyMTL says:

      I was thinking the same thing. Diana died roughly 25 years ago, let her rest in peace already…enough with the constant rehashing and such. I know that she still sells; especially these days books about the BRF are going to be more popular than they would have been ten years ago, but yeesh.

    • Elizabeth says:


      • Dee says:

        You mean her child, you unhinged loon? That doesn’t quite apply there.

      • Joanne says:

        No son ever forgets his deceased mother. It’s odd that you shout about a son remembering and mourning his mother.

      • Em says:

        Tell William to stop displaying his dead mothers dresses in Kensington palace to make money. Harry wouldn’t stoop so low

      • Jaded says:

        Both William and Harry were traumatized by their mother’s death. They both mourn in different ways — Harry pulled the bandaid off his trauma and dealt with it through therapy, opening up about it and marrying a wonderful woman who encouraged his self-examination of it.

        William, on the other hand, called his mother paranoid publicly and has internalized his trauma to the point where he’s an ugly, angry, stunted person who I believe is beyond fixing.

        Harry did the right thing.

      • Pork Chops and Applesauce says:

        Wrong response. He isn’t a media vulture and as yet hasn’t published a word about his mother, emphasis on “HIS MOTHER”. This is when “all caps” typing is appropriate.

      • kirk says:

        Elizabeth – spoken like a test tube baby raised by wolves.

      • Amy says:

        Dee, I am I guess what you folks call here a “Diana Loony”, and I truly love your comment. Some folks on here are so cruel and don’t have any empathy to save their souls. So, darling…thank you so much for your comment. You truly made my day. All the best to you and others who understand how hard it was for the children to lose their mother so young and yet in such a very public way.

        PS. To Elizabeth, you are a fu#king nut job and seriously need to get some friends or a therapist.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Dee, I can kind of see what you’re saying, but this year will mark the 25th anniversary of Diana’s death, and since the reality is that there is still a lot of interest in her and a significant market for these types of books, they will continue to be written and published. That’s just the way it is. (And I’m one of the people who will buy this book and watch all of the coverage in August.)

      At least Tina Brown is an excellent and reputable author who, IMO, treats Diana fairly; she doesn’t pretend Diana was a perfect martyr nor does she portray her as some sort of villain.

      The BRF has been in the news more than ever over the past few years, so IMO it’s to be expected that there are updated books like this one coming out now. Publishers know that they will sell well, and that’s all that matters to them at the end of the day.

      I’m sure if I were William or Harry, I would find it all dreadful and awful, but as an average citizen, it doesn’t surprise me at all that books like this are still going to be very popular, like it or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      • Tessa says:

        Brown I think has an axe to grind about Diana. I don’t see her as fair and balanced about Diana, Harry, and Meghan.

      • kirk says:

        Buy book by Tina Brown, Lady Evans, CBE? – NOT!
        Read her Diana Chronicles (since I knew nothing about Diana) after discovering my girl Meghan married into BRF. Found most of it believable, then I started following her podcast since people seemed to think she was smart and had something to offer. Stopped following podcast after she talked smack about Meghan following “Megxit” (her term, not mine), and I wasted time on reading book she hyped written by Shakespeare scholar supposedly giving insight into Trump – whatta a total freakin waste.

        Brown seems inordinately proud of her CBE given that she’s been living in US since 1984. She’s written sympathetically about Camilla (no surprise since she’s a homewrecker herself). And before she announced her Palace Papers book she said she was going to write book about “Megxit” (her term, not mine) – my guess is she got iced out by M&H and had to expand scope to have anything to say.

        Brown seems proud enough of her Tatler, Vanity Fair and New Yorker editing stints to have the cojones to use the term “incoherent” to refer to “Harry and Meghan’s…multimedia plans” (her term, not mine). And yet, here she is, with only just a podcast, hoping to get back into the $$$ game by releasing excerpt of book to US publication, just like before w-Diana. Won’t waste any of my $$ on her unfeeling dreck.

        Brown seems defensive of her stint with Harvey Weinstein and Talk Media – incoherent strategy?

      • Debbie says:

        This Tina Brown person writes like such a bitter shrew. I hate when people write about Diana being press-savvy as if that was a bad thing. It’s as if the press, who’ve ghoulishly made so much money off of her image – even in death, get resentful that she ever attempted to control her own narrative. It’s like they’re the only ones who should get to portray her.

    • Princessk says:

      Well l will be buying this book. Just as Kaiser said the Diana Chronicles was brilliant. Tina Brown is balanced and honest and has excellent sources. So interesting that she has chosen not to get in bed with any major British newspapers which would have paid a lot to serialise the book. Very very interesting, and yes Tina Brown is not your average royal biographer, she is much bigger than that.

      • equality says:

        Someone being balanced would not say that Harry deals with the media with “a never-ending flurry of lawsuits”. Being impartial would mean recognizing that what is “never-ending” are the ridiculous articles written about H&M.

      • kirk says:

        equality – ITA regarding “never ending.”

    • Isabella says:

      Weird how certain people rush into comments sections so they can post something negative and unhinged. Like a son not being able to talk about his own mother. He honors her that way.

  2. Chloe says:

    Funny enough i read this article just this morning and it left me very annoyed.

    I don’t doubt that Diana wasn’t a saint but i have a hard time believing that she was dimwitted blonde, over-sexualized and scheming woman they tried to make her out in this article.

    Although i know diana sometimes used the press to her own advantage i doubt it was to the extent they try to paint it here. And I absolutely refuse to believe she ever had lunch with Piers Morgan, even less so with William by her side. He probably “met” her in the same way he “met” meghan: nothing but a polite hello.

    • Jais says:

      There just seems to be an inability to let go of the binary interpretations. Brown just seems to revel in proving how Diana had agency and was manipulative. Yeah, sure, but that does’t negate that she was exploited and mistreated by the palace/her family.

      • Becks1 says:

        This is a good way to put it. Diana was a complicated woman (aren’t we all lol) caught in a complicated and toxic marriage AND institution. Yes, she had agency. Yes, she manipulated some people/things. No, she wasn’t 100% the victim all the time. But that doesn’t mean she wasn’t a victim at all or that she was in control of everything that happened to her. Her manipulations seemed to be partly a survival tactic and who can blame her for that?

      • Catlady says:

        Brown has always been obsessed with Diana’s sex life. It’s creepy.

      • Jaded says:

        She had to become manipulative in order to survive in that toxic stew of a family and firm. Tina Brown seems to want to portray or reinterpret only the salacious bits in Diana’s life, none of the good stuff. I guess it’s because sex sells.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      This was my reaction yesterday, I actually felt it was sexist and misogynistic. I agree that she was pleased with the bashir interview and I’m sure she called the paps when it suited her. But to suggest she was a wily schemer because she wanted to leverage her fame for her causes?

      I mean, yes, Tina, she cared about her causes. How is that scheming, so gross.

      • Chloe says:

        @withtheamerican: she probably only colluded with the press occasionally because charles was hellbent on destroying her character. Of course she would fight back. Who wouldn’t? But i don’t ever believe the relationship was as deep as they are trying to make it out to be.
        What i will believe happened:
        – her calling the paps on occasion.
        – her being very aware of how certain optics look (wearing the revenge dress after charles’ interview was a master move)
        – her knowing a very negative and damaging story was about to be published and allowing a friend/confident or even a representative to give her side of the story or set the record straight. Something the tabloids obviously took for full cooperation.

      • equality says:

        @Chloe I agree. She probably didn’t have to call the paps though; she probably just had to not ditch them that day. The RF uses the media all the time but we don’t get this narrative about the rest of them.

      • Concern Fae says:

        I’m about the same age as Diana and followed all the news and gossip about her at the time.

        I got James Whittaker’s book about Charles’ “courtship” of her. She talked to the press behind the scenes, asking them what they thought about what was going on and followed (or not) their advice. So this non-public relationship with reporters was happening from the very start.

        I still have the book, I’ll have to pull it out and reread it.

      • Tessa says:

        Diana fell for Charles and told Morton she fell in love with him. I believe her. Diana wanted to marry Charles and she did not want to make mistakes. The reporters were after Diana after that episode where she was seen with Charles when they were out fishing, she scurried off. Whitaker and Diana got along well and he was always sympathetic to Diana and not Charles.

      • Isabella says:

        “There were three of us in that marriage.” That line is immortal and I don’t care who Diana got it from. Charles has never recovered from that reveal. Everybody gets it, male and female.

  3. Scorpion says:

    Brown is another vulture trying to cash in!

    • Chloe says:

      Exactly. Going by this excerpt this book belongs in the trash

    • Princessk says:

      I disagree. I will make full judgment when l get the book. Tina Brown has nothing to prove. However, after really in my opinion getting to the heart of the Diana story l feel that she just had to analyse what is going on now.

  4. Jan90067 says:

    I just pre-ordered this for my Kindle. Should prove an interesting read.

    • Nick G says:

      I was about to and then I read “ incoherent multi media plans”. I’ve always appreciated Tina Brown for giving us Malcolm Gladwell, but this is going to raise my blood pressure too high so I’ll come here for the excerpts I guess.

      • Jaded says:

        That phrase is a dead giveaway that Brown’s take on the Sussexes is going to be a pack of incoherent lies. I think I’ll take a pass on this book.

      • Lorelei says:

        I totally side-eyed the “incoherent” description, too. And it hope that isn’t indicative of the tone of all of the Sussex coverage in the book. But I can’t lie, I think Tina Brown is a great author (whether we agree with her perspectives or not) and I definitely want to read this.

    • Charm says:

      Too bad. I’m sure theres a charity thats more deserving of your coins.

    • Lionel says:

      I’m so curious as to whether this book will have any insight (or hot tea!) on other members of the BRF vs being just a rehash of Diana. I thought “The Diana Chronicles” was great – IMO it was a hearty, well-written, nuanced portrayal of a complicated woman. But Tina already wrote that book. I’m still hoping this one will be just as nuanced about Windsors not named Diana, but this excerpt makes me wonder.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Lionel, I’m pretty sure the book covers all of the Windsors; this first excerpt is just very Diana-focused (which is an odd choice by VF, imo, since Tina already wrote an entire book on Diana?). But I’m looking forward to more excerpts and hopefully we’ll get a better idea.

      • Lionel says:

        @Lorelai, Agreed! VF always seems to go all in on Diana. Even under the new editor. (And yes Tina Brown may have invented that wheel as editor herself. 🤷‍♀️) Anyway, just want to say that I see and appreciate your balanced comments!

      • Lorelei says:

        @Lionel, right back at you! (:

  5. Woke says:

    I think Harry understand very well his mother media game that’s why he’s unwilling to play into into the client journalism access for fair sympathetic coverage that his mother used to defend herself. It doesn’t surprise me that she call then the Sussexes media strategy incoherent since that’s the client journalism that she accustomed to. If the Sussexes sat down with her she wouldn’t call it incoherent.

    • Chloe says:

      She didn’t call their strategy incoherent. She called their work incoherent. Which is basically in media considering they are doing podcasts and have a production company

      • Sid says:

        What is incoherent about their work? I feel like Brown is being disingenuous here.

      • Snuffles says:

        If she finds their work incoherent, it’s because she and her cohorts only understand the royal way of “work”, and anything outside of that they can’t grasp.

      • equality says:

        Kind of ironic considering that the BM seem incoherent with their work, constantly contradicting themselves.

      • Charm says:

        She didnt call their work incoherent, she called their media strategy (about which she knows nothing) incoherent.

        Even the vulture tina couldnt call the Sussex’s work incoherent, given that she still wishes, at her big age, to be able to hobnob with some of the very folks who are in H&M’s circle.

      • Tan says:

        Tina’s what still toiling away at a quill or enjoys the sound of mechanical typewriters as she’s does her best impression of Lady Whistledown? Not the savvy media person I’d trust with the latest media corp trends and.

      • Bunny says:

        @Equality The BM don’t have to be coherent. They have to follow whatever line the RF wants them to follow. They have to sway the public in the way that the Crown finds most useful at the moment.

    • windyriver says:

      @Woke – in addition to the “incoherent” remark and the comments about Harry’s “frequently ill judged condemnation” of the press and “never ending flurry of lawsuits”, IMO any objectivity is already out the window. Just another scrounger like the rest of them looking for an angle to make a buck.

      Also, at this point, we have a lot more insight into what Diana was facing from the RF, and I don’t think I’d trust Brown’s interpretation, especially 25 years after the fact.

  6. Tessa says:

    I am turned off by this. Brown is Diana slamming.same spin used by junior to defend charles

  7. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Diana was a (somewhat uneducated) child married to a man. That she grew up in the institution made her savvy to it. She outplayed the players and paid dearly for it. Imagine who she could’ve become had she not been duped by a thirty year old narcissist and his malignant mother, who wanted her solely for her hymen.

    • Sid says:

      That is what I always come back to. In the modern era a high profile grown man in his 30s decided to date a teenager and then marry her. He deserved any and every trouble that came to him because of it.

  8. D says:

    She is obviously not a fan of The Sussexes. There are already 2 digs in this small excerpt, I’m sure there are more in the book itself. I think deep down Tina is a royalist and resents the fact that Harry left it all and is succeeding. There is no other explanation for her passive aggressive wording.

    As for Diana, I’m sure there are many truths in here, but it’s also just opinion. Yes it’s based on interviews but Diana, like all humans, had many sides to her and it can all be true in part. I don’t know that I would take this book as the ultimate word on her or the family in general.

    • Mooney says:

      Oh yes. This article is about Diana and yet, there’s enough shade on the Sussexes. There’s no guessing that this book will somehow give a glowing praise of Keen while dragging Meghan.

      • Chergui says:

        It’s interesting how everyone interprets this differently.

        Personally I’m hoping this book might turn out to be more objective than previous books. Slating everyone but also with some understanding of why certain things happened.

        People are saying it’s sexist to frame Diana in such a way but she was using her brains to try to play the system. I don’t think that’s sexist. She didn’t win and not everyone does. She had a lot of issues which were likely caused by the life she was exposed to but people often try to frame her as nothing but a saintly victim.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Chergui, ditto. This was my interpretation as well. Obviously this was just one cherry-picked Diana-centric excerpt, but I’m with you. Yes, Diana could definitely be manipulative, but she *had to* in order to survive dealing with that institution.

      • Princessk says:

        I very much doubt she will fawn over Kate, l think she will give her the Hilary Mantel treatment.

      • Tessa says:

        Diana was not a saint but that said, none of the royals are saints. I am wondering how much of a royalist Brown is.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Resentment is the right word. They are consumed with resentment/jealousy that Harry and Meghan have been such a success in America. By contrast, the royalists have to continually prop up Charles and William against their own PR disasters and that must be tiresome. The monarchy is ending and it hurts them to admit it.

      • Lorelei says:

        @MrsKrabapple, this is a total non-sequiter, but your comment reminded me of it for some reason— do we know if all members of the ROTA (and anyone associated with the Fail, the Sun, etc.) officially banned from covering the Invictus Games? Will they just have to buy tickets like regular people and then sort of pretend they’re there in a professional capacity?

        Either way, I can’t wait to see what whiny little bitches they will all be during Invictus (while the rest of the world’s media gives it the respectful coverage it deserves) 🥰

  9. Mooney says:

    So the Windsors can be every bad thing under the sun but the married in women are supposed to be deferential and pristine pure? Diana had to be like that to survive in that hellhole.

    Is anyone still surprised that keen is so ruthless, sadistic with ice flowing in her veins? That’s why she’s surviving there, media games and all. People like Meghan and Diana are chewed and spit out.

    • Chloe says:

      I actually wouldn’t be surprised if kate has her own side piece while william is trimming rose bushes.

      • Susan says:

        I would LOVE IT if Kate had a side piece. And he had a full head of hair!!

      • Princessk says:

        Kate underestimates the power she has, or does she? I am still hoping she will surprise us all.

      • Lorelei says:

        @PrincessK, I also hope that one day, Kate will surprise us all. My hopes are not at all high, but a girl can dream.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate has been an insecure mean girl for two decades so she’s not going to surprise us or change at this point.

  10. Jais says:

    And yet William is the one who has embraced the media games with the tabloids and the rota, more so than Harry. Will Brown discuss that part or just focus on the sussexes’ incoherent media plans?

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      The excuses she made for wills toxic controlling behavior and temper gave her away. He was at a lunch with a scumbag and his mother and someone wrote a book about her affairs and this made bill turn out like he did. Uh huh. Had nothing to do with his fathers marriage long affair or the fact that his mother was chased to her death by the media.

      • kirk says:

        “…at a lunch with a scumbag.” And we’re left with trying to figure out whether to believe that scumbag since that’s the only primary source for the story.

  11. Lauren Too says:

    By the end of her life, Diana had learned to play the media’s own game and how to use them to her advantage, better than the Windsor did. Tina seems to purposely ignore the fact that Diana was a teenager when she entered a marriage with a man that did not love her and joined a family that eats at the spouses of the heirs until there is nothing but a human shell filled with contempt and grift. Diana was not perfect, she was certainly not a martyr, her children have idolized her in different ways, William, even with his evident contempt for the media, is the one that really tries to court the tabloids and engage with them (badly), Harry has her charisma, but could care less about the tabloids.

  12. Snuffles says:

    Yeah, Harry and Meghan’s media plans are far from incoherent. They’re brilliant.

    And I disagree that Harry doesn’t realize that Diana played a dangerous game with the media. The whole family does. It’s their way of life. Harry literally said in South Africa that he would not be drawn into the same media games that killed his mother.

    Harry learned that lesson. William did not. William has doubled down thinking he can win the game by being more controlling. But he is doing the SAME shit.

    Harry is more strategic. He removed himself from the game and is starving the players. Then he started his own game where he sets the rules. And Harry doesn’t sue constantly. He sues when they say false things that affects his reputation with the people and causes he cares about and his business. He sues when he thinks the papers are trying to damage his livelihood and ability to remain independent outside of The Firm’s control.

    I’m confident that he spent most of his 20s analyzing where Diana went wrong and how he could handle it better. I recall an interview where he says he’s been taking notes on all of the media players. He basically said he’s been watching them. And seeing how he operates now, he’s learned a whole lot.

    • Eurydice says:

      I think his 20’s were spent in the military and also partying, but I agree that he’s done his homework, probably since then.

    • Gee says:

      Maybe his late 20s to 30s. But ITA with what you said.

    • Charm says:

      I wish you could slap tina brown in her face with these facts.

      Dumb brown-nosing biiatches like tina brown look at Bullyiam’s attempt to “control” the media and refuse to name it for what it is: he’s playing the media game, except that he thinks he is in control of how his image is portrayed, failing to recognize, as H said, that its the media thats in control of the BRF and that the latter are afraid of the media and what it can do to them if they dont play the game. And that those who dont play the game, like H&M, are crucified and treated like enemies of the state.

      If tina brown had an ounce of decency, she would point to how the britshidtpress operates, which is nothing like how the fourth estate of a functioning democracy should operate.

  13. Dee says:

    This X 1 billion.
    All these people make me so sick. They’re STILL using her to enrich themselves and gain attention their own sad existences wouldn’t have gotten on their own. Saying “Oh, she was so clever, she loved it”, doesn’t mean a single thing. Clever people can be exploited and abused if they suffer under a power imbalance. Diana suffered under one of the most extreme, and all these people knew that and didn’t care. They just wanted a flashy “princess” to sell their nonsense. So, did she use what charm and cunning she had to stay afloat in a sea of predators? Yes, yes she did. But let’s not pretend she wasn’t, in many large ways, a victim of a cruel and classist society. Journos, photographers, confidantes, even lovers, so many of those in her life were out to get something. And this woman was likely no angel in that either, if she’s still trying to cash that 20 year old meal ticket

    • Ace says:

      I had a visceral reaction to your comment. Because the “Oh, she was so clever, she loved it”, that’s 100% victim blaming, isn’t it. ‘Oh, she actually liked it, no matter how much she complained later. She wore a dress and wanted it.’ So fucking gross.

      Tina Brown is part of that same BM that car chased Diana until she died, the same media that stopped and took photos of her while she was dying.

      • Lionel says:

        No. Tina Brown is not a British tabloid reporter. She was the editor of Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Newsweek at various points in her career. She founded The Daily Beast, which was so much better back then under her watch. She founded Talk magazine in the 90s, which although short-lived was the amazing amalgam of highbrow/lowbrow culture that’s she’s always had a knack for. Talk Publishing put out some excellent history books in its day, and would have gone on to be a behemoth if Harvey Weinstein hadn’t tanked it. I admit that this particular excerpt is not great, I have the same concerns that the book will be disappointing, but I’m a bit shocked at this wholesale dismissal of Tina Brown by people who clearly don’t know who she is or what she’s accomplished.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Lionel, I’m with you on this. This is one short excerpt out of an entire book (!!), and it happens to focus solely on Diana, who Tina already wrote an entire book about which obviously she won’t completely rehash. We haven’t seen any of her coverage of Kate or Meghan yet (the one “incoherent” aside).

        I have no idea why so many people seem to be judging/denouncing the book based on only a few paragraphs, and ITA that Tina is in an entirely different league than most of the people who cover the royals. I’m looking forward to reading it and THEN forming an opinion.

      • Jais says:

        There’s just something about the writing that is yes entertaining but leaves me feeling not good. Saying Diana loved the media games and had agency is not inherently sexist bc everyone in this story is doing the same. It’s the way she goes on about Diana doing this without giving as much weight to the other players in this story who were doing the same if not worse. There’s just an ick factor in the way she writes and the words she chooses. I don’t care if she’s written for VF, the New Yorker, and started the DB. Based on what I’ve seen written by her and said by her in interviews over the last few years, I remain unimpressed and wary. But maybe I’ll be proven wrong which if so cool.

      • Tessa says:

        I read her book about Diana and did not like it. Bradford did more research and did not “sensationalize” her book about Diana like brown did. IMO anyway.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Jais, same. If the book turns out to be cruel about the Sussexes and tries to paint W&K as saviors of the monarchy or whatever, I will be the first to admit I was wrong/disappointed. I’m hoping that this will be better than the usual garbage we get whenever these types of books are released, but as you said I could be proven wrong. For now, 🤞

        On another note, does anyone know if a release date has been set for Harry’s book? I will pre-order a hard copy as well as the audio version the MINUTE they start taking pre-orders.

      • kirk says:

        Lionel – well aware of Tina Brown, CBE, background. Harvey Weinstein did not tank Talk Publishing. It was a joint veture with Harvey/Miramax. The magazine ceased publication after 9/11.

  14. Tessa says:

    Brown leaves out how diana using the media was a response to Charles friends like spaces going to the media to put out negative stories about diana.will and harry never slammed diana publicly but praised her. Diana did not sit home confiding in will.he was at school and she worked.i may not buy this book and I liked Bradford book abou

  15. UNCDancer says:

    I am sure the intent is different but basketcase seems a harsh and dismissive term. I suppose the following sentence is mitigation but still.

  16. Rapunzel says:

    Diana: dies in crash trying to get away from the intrusive media.

    Tina Brown: Diana was not a media victim.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      Thank you! the gaslighting brown is doing is making me sick

    • Jais says:

      That’s why the line about Diana liking to dance with danger feels insidious to me. Feels like a misdirect and trying to put the blame for Diana’s death with Diana as opposed to the media. Saying she’s so clever and she loved it and look what it ultimately did to her. Like ok, was she supposed to be silent while Charles and his friends manipulated the press?

      • Rapunzel says:

        Jais- yep. It reeks of “she brought it upon herself.” Which is gross, even if true.

      • Tessa says:

        I don’t think it true. It is the old adage that seems to apply only to women (rarely to men) that “she asked for it.” And this same thing is repeated by Meghan’s critics (she knew what she was getting into). Diana had no choice but to try to counter stories that Charles friends were leaking to the press (Soames, charles friend, called out Diana as “paranoid.”). She really had no choice.

  17. Eurydice says:

    Well, Diana was also “tortured” and “vocal,” so maybe Harry isn’t just randomly blurting out his pain, but also has an awareness of what he’s doing. As for incoherent multimedia plans (which I don’t see as true with H&M), the media landscape itself is much more incoherent than it used to be. Today, Diana would have many more choices for presenting her platform.

    Perhaps it’s because I’m older, but I’ve been officially tired of the Diana story for some time now.

    • C-Shell says:

      IMO, Harry and Meghan’s media strategy is locked down pretty tight! Their statement through Sussex Royal before Sussexit was through and totally coherent. Royal Rota Rats totally shut down, intention to work only with legit and focused media outlets implemented. “Trust no source but our statements,” check. They shut off SM completely and issue statements through Archewell or via the SM accounts of their charitable causes. Suing the vile tabloids over their vile invasions of their rights (copyright, privacy, defamation) will, at some point, start getting those assholes’ attention when it starts to cost them real money. They’ve gotten some luck with the Squad and Bot Sentinel carrying their banner to the hate accounts on SM. I think their media strategy is brilliant.

  18. Tessa says:

    Diana being gaslighted again. Charles left Diana after she had the heirs. Did Brown want diana to join a convent.

    • SnarcasmQueen says:

      She was supposed to stay home and be the perfect wife, no matter how lonely, isolated, marginalized she was.

      • Tessa says:

        Charles also would put down Diana in public. Jephson witnessed one such thing which caused great humiliation. Diana was asked about what she would be doing on a royal tour (places she would visit, causes she would espouse), Charles cut in and said shopping isn’t it darling. It was a quite dysfunctional situation. As early as 1983, Charles said at a banquet in front of Diana (this is on youtube) that he needed “two wives.”

      • Lorelei says:

        @Tessa that sounds exactly like the type of snide remark that William would make about Kate on a tour (or ever)

  19. sara says:

    this has been out of hand for such a long time. 20 years later and tina brown is just making money off the fact of one lunch with diana many decades ago. it’s wild that she presumes to think she understands william or harry’s relationship with diana better than they do. also, anyone who would trust anything from piers morgan (esp from a random diary entry 20 years ago) is insane. like anyone remembers anything clearly from 20 years ago

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      Piers as a source made me laugh. Yeah he’s so known for his calm measured objectivity.

  20. C-Shell says:

    I’m assuming that Brown is doing what they all do — launch with a focus on Diana (because she will forever be the biggest draw to anything about the Windsors) to attract buzz about her book. Surely the book will cover other characters and POVs, otherwise why do it? Her passive-aggressive potshots at the Sussexes fall into the same motivation — it’s click bait to bash the Sussexes. The Vanity Fair connection is obvious and will probably offer up more morsels before the book’s release, so I’ll stay tuned. Much as I side eye Tina Brown, she’s juicy.

  21. JMoney says:

    One of my favourite podcasts is “You’re Wrong About” who did a three part special on Princess Diana and covered Tina Brown’s book on Diana (not the one coming out) and one thing I think people forget is Diana did collude with the media esp paparazzi. Diana gave the Bashir interview but also the tapes for Andrew Morton’s now infamous book. All this doesn’t take away from Diana’s great charity work but she colluded with the media at first esp to set the narrative.

    One of the reasons Diana did the interview was she wanted to set the narrative that she wanted to make the marriage work but couldn’t b/c Charles was in love with someone else. Charles or rather Camilla was blamed for “destroying a family”. It’s why W will never officially divorce C. They will live separate lives much like The Queen and DoE esp once the DoE retired but they will never divorce b/c you can bet while C would never give an interview, when the rumours about Rose came out, C’s camp said “she believes in her marriage” and W sued to keep the papers quiet. W doesn’t want ppl to view him as his dad (even though he is his father’s son through and through).

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      How is it that Diana “colluded” with the media when she swept the record straight but Charles isn’t accused of that when he and his family were pulling media strings all along while he had his affair?

      • Becks1 says:

        Also, the Morton tapes were what, 10 years into her marriage? She didn’t collude at the start.

        I liked the You’re Wrong About podcast but it is basically just a regurgitation of Tina Brown’s book and Andrew Morton’s. Thats it. So if you want perspectives other than those you need to look elsewhere.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        @becks1 good point. Tina is conflating how Diana acted at the END of her marriage with how Charles acted from the beginning.

        Notice they don’t call Charles scheming.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      JMoney, the difference between TQ and the DoE and DDOC is that there was respect between the first couple. There is no respect between the Shamebridges. They cannot get past the visuals of this couple together, and people notice. The longer it goes on, the number of people who notice increases. I don’t see how that bodes well for a lifetime separation, but it doesn’t seem plausible to me.

      This is just another around of Diana–and H&M–bashing. If everyone wants to ignore the fact that she was so young when she married and was exposed to that toxic environment, they will never get to who Diana really was as a person. So much made her the person she was, starting with her childhood. In fact, I’m very impressed with what she learned and how she was able to turn the weapons used against her and use them against PC. She was far from perfect, but I’m not certain that anyone thinks she was. I was a few years older than she, so I remember a lot of the media during that time. She had become media savy, and she was starting to carve a life for herself. That’s impressive given all of the things she had stacked against her. Funny how that’s always overlooked in order to make the brf look better.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Saucy, did you read Tina’s first book about Diana, which focused solely on her?

    • Mich says:

      I’m old enough to remember that Diana was, from the day her engagement was announced, the most photographed and talked about woman in the world. She could go nowhere without packs of aggressive photographers hounding her. She covered magazines around the world every single week. Sometimes the same magazines for weeks on end. She was chased to her death by the vultures. And even then, they continued taking pictures instead of helping.

      And for all of that, she was emotionally tortured and isolated by her husband and his dysfunctional family.

      Her humanity was utterly dismissed. By everyone.

      So who cares if she stood up for herself from time to time? The entire world feasted on her life. She was more than allowed to own her own narrative from time to time.

  22. Lili says:

    “Her sons express their lasting contempt for the press in different ways: William with a grim, steely obsession with control; Harry with tortured, vocal, frequently ill-judged condemnation, a never-ending flurry of lawsuits, and, finally, a burn-it-all-down gesture that his mother—who, despite her yearning to be free, held tight to her diadem—might have well understood. But neither of them has yet been heard to reflect on how much Diana loved to dance with danger.”
    i found this quite troubling, the author is clearly on the side of the media, based on that burnit all down statement. is Harry not entitled to live his life in peace? when Clearly the media are not being nice to him and his family?

    • MsIam says:

      That part about the never ending flurry of lawsuits is crazy and inaccurate. Meghan filed one lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday, which she won (twice) and Harry is part of the phone hacking suit, which numerous other celebrities are part of. I know his lawyers have sent letters demanding apologies or retractions which for the most part he’s gotten but those are not lawsuits. So if she can’t get that part right how is she selling herself as some type of “credible expert”? She sounds lazy to me at least as far as the Sussexes are concerned.

    • Tessa says:

      William and Kate did sue the media.

  23. Amy Bee says:

    I’ve seen royalists praising this piece so I’m going take that as a sign that Tina got it wrong. She doesn’t explain that the situation with Charles led Diana to make certain decisions including giving the BBC interview. I think she’s misunderstood Harry’s interaction with media. I think he has learned that giving access to British press is a dangerous game that shouldn’t be played. I suspect that more excerpts will released and those bashing Meghan and Harry will be sold to the British press.

    • ABritGuest says:

      I remember posters thinking Tina’s book could be juicy & I think Amy Bee you said it would be usual establishment spin because of Tina’s background & that’s exactly what I’m seeing.

      My guess is the book will be: the Queen never complains & is ideal role model, is generally faultless except with her maternal instincts have got in the way when it comes to Andrew, Charles & Camilla are about to be the best king & queen ever having overcome earlier struggles, Diana was manipulative (but apparently the centuries old institution isn’t) & played the game, William & Kate have overcome bumps and have the most kingly attitude to the media & their duties, Harry is traumatised, has lashed out at the media unreasonably & let his family down. Meghan knew what she was getting into, has exploited Harry’s fears, should have looked to Kate & Camilla as to how to overcome issues with the media & had her eye on returning to Hollywood from the start.

      Yawn. Wake me up when someone is able to tell the real story of the recent years of the royal family.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Abritguest: Yes I did say that at the time and this excerpt confirms it for me. Harry, Meghan and Diana will be bashed in this book and the Royal Family is going to be praised for weathering the storm.

  24. Merricat says:

    The New Yorker was awful under Tina Brown.

    • Booboocita says:

      It certainly was. More gossipy, more pop culture, fewer in-depth, long form articles … I was so glad when she left.

  25. MsIam says:

    Tina Brown was parroting the “Harry is fragile and the family is worried about him” line that the Unroyal Mafia were trying to push after the Oprah interview. So I know what her book will be about. Not surprised she is bashing Diana. Next!

  26. Sofia says:

    This is why I wasn’t so quick to be excited about Tina Brown’s new book when it comes to H&M. I figured it wasn’t going to be fair to H&M like some said it could be and even though this is an excerpt, I will continue not to have high hopes for it.

    As for Diana, I think it’s possible for her to have worked with the media and for the media to have used her to their advantage. It is a slippery slope when you start working with the tabloid press the way Diana did however that does not mean the media were right in chasing after her to the level they did.

    But she’s been dead for 25 years. Let her rest in peace and close the Diana story.

    • kelleybelle says:

      Yes, let her rest indeed. Wasn’t a victim? They drove her to her death … not a victim? I’ll never understand these people.

    • Tessa says:

      The thing is Diana would contact those sympathetic to her in the media, like James Whitaker. The paparazzi who went after her and called her out if she did not pose are entirely different matters. She did not court them.

  27. twoz says:

    Well, that just saved me $30. *eyeroll*

  28. equality says:

    What I get from this is that Diana was attempting to “leverage her celebrity for good”. And the BM still has no clue about privacy because you can’t “invade your OWN privacy”.

    • L4Frimaire says:

      I always find that phrase so bizarre and ridiculous. You can’t invade your own privacy. Maybe you can over share or overexpose one’s self, but your privacy is yours to guard or share. Choosing what aspects of your life to share with others is not invading your own privacy.They really don’t understand consent and boundaries.

  29. Kalana says:

    Why doesn’t someone ever analyze Charles or the Queen the way they endlessly dig into Diana?

    Because these writers worship power and acceptance, and they’re scared. Look at how short her description is of William: “William with a grim, steely obsession with control” and that’s it. What does that mean? Where the details? Meanwhile look how long the description is of Harry and how Tina Brown still picks over Diana’s bones. It’s revolting and opportunistic and cowardly.

    • SourcesclosetoKate says:

      Exactly. And I think the few words she uses to describe William ‘steely and in control’ is really a humblebrag compliment disguised as not, to paint him a certain way. I think he’s stupid and wild the opposite of those words that’s why he’s so shy, he’s an imposter, he knows he’s a fake, but it’s a kept secret. They want to protray him as mature and a leader but we seen him in Jamaica, he’s anything but. His handlers just tell him to keep quiet and they’ll take care of the rest. I don’t think he’s in control, who says war is something for Africa and Asia, an out if control right wing nut.

  30. Becks1 says:

    I’m not sure how I feel about this excerpt. The dig at H&M feels wholly unnecessary. And I always felt that Tina Brown was more of a royalist than some people realized.

    We shall see, but I’m not rushing out for this book. I’ll get it from the library over the summer I think.

    • Nic919 says:

      I don’t think anyone who grew up in the UK has the ability to write an impartial book about that family. They don’t even realize how much they have been brainwashed to think that the Windsor family is normal or that monarchy is normal. Even the ones who say they aren’t royalists end up showing biases they don’t even realize they have. I suspect this book will be more of the same.

  31. Snuffles says:

    Everyone who is a part of this monarchy ecosystem (family members, courtiers, press, writer) will be salty to their dying day that Harry removed himself and his family from it. They know nothing else, aren’t capable of knowing anything else and refuse to even try.

  32. SnarcasmQueen says:

    Diana used the media because it was the only medium available to her.

    And look, most of what this trick is saying reeks of mom shaming. This woman is big mad twenty five years later that Diana refused to play innocent angel while everyone else around her got to seek affection and whatever wherever they like.

    Like it’s bad that Charles had affairs, that everyone in their circle was having affairs, gaslighting her about it, policing her weight, her appearance, her endeavors, etc but Diana was supposed to behave well regardless.

    • SourcesclosetoKate says:

      This! She was popular and beautiful, she brought them attention that none of them would have got otherwise. Yet they refuse to be grateful of her. They are users

      • Snuffles says:

        They did/still do the same to Harry and Meghan. I’m sure they believe they made Diana, Harry and Meghan popular and therefore have some ownership over them. And with Diana, even in death.

    • NCWoman says:

      Yes, she was a victim of the media, who then turned around and used that same media to take back control of her own narrative. She didn’t have a lot of options open to her in terms of creating her own power. And yes, she was canny and resourceful enough to find a way to use the same people who tried to help Charles destroy her. Harry and Meghan thankfully have much more healthy options that they are using to do that.

  33. Mary-Katherine Fleming says:

    THANK YOU I narrowed my eyes at the “incoherent media plan” and am now nervous to read any chapters about the Sussexes. (FWIW I LOVED Suits long before Meghan met Harry! That show is great!!)

  34. SourcesclosetoKate says:

    So now they’re trying to make Diana not perfect to bring her down to Kate’s level. The people were in love with Diana no matter what the rf and media told us, Kate is the opposite, the rf and media tell us good things but the people hate her, and it showed on the royal Caribbean tour.

    I think the move towards independence is going to be a good one for Barbados, Jamaica, Belize, Bahamas. I always found the countries untouched by the royal monarchy to be stunning and calm.

    • BeanieBean says:

      I wonder if they’ll do a frantic rewrite of the Kate section after the Disastrous Caribbean Tour.

  35. Jessica says:

    Among the usual bland hagiographies, I was looking forward to this. Having read the article I’m now annoyed. I’ll probably read the book when I get around to it, but I already don’t like the tone and I won’t be buying it. This wasn’t fun like The Diana Chronicles. A re-tread of old material updated with some typical digs at the Sussexes. No thanks. I’ll wait for Harry’s memoir. 🥱

  36. Crowned Huntress says:

    This is a thinnly veiled hit piece on a woman who’s been dead for 25 years and on her son who managed to get away to live the dream she was never able to achieve thanks to her untimely death.

    I love how Diana is always protrayed as clever and cunning/and or unstable as if those traits weren’t born out of sheer desperation. She was given the sink or swim treatment and she tried to sink herself several times thanks to the Windsors horrendous treatment of her. She was wise enough to get her side of the story out several times before her passing and thanks to that Meghan’s story is further legitimized. I feel like the media have been trying to go back in time to trash Diana in order to sabotage Meghan’s claims but it just further proves their points. The Royal Family is insanely corrupt, maladjusted and in league with some truly foul people in media & other branches of power.

    They can’t help but throw rocks at the people who keep exposing them because that’s their only move at this point.

    • Jais says:

      Instead of using clever, she could say intelligent.
      Instead of saying cunning, she could say artful.

      • L4Frimaire says:

        I find those terms sexist and disrespectful. I remember some in the British press describing Meghan as “too clever” while she lived there. Regarding Diana, they say clever because she had no formal education beyond high school and they don’t want to acknowledge her intelligence, as though operating from instinct or intuition, instead of analyzing a situation. To describe a woman as cunning is because they don’t want to say savvy. It’s also sexist because it implies manipulation and dishonesty in their intention. They can never just say she watched and learned, and applied those lessons to her advantage to improve her situation.

  37. Tessa says:

    Part of Diana’s appeal imo was that she was human and not a saint. She never said she was and neither did her fans I was not a fan of the diana chronicles.Junor has been negative about diana and supposedly objective Brown is writing more or less the same things now

  38. nutella toast says:

    The cover is interesting – Meghan & Camilla looking the same direction in the same way (off in the distance and separate and bookending the others) and TQ and Kate pursed-lipped and uncomfortable but somewhat towards the middle – no one making eye contact with each other (looking towards the picture of the other) or the camera. Covers set the tone and are always so specific so…

  39. tamsin says:

    Why does everyone feel they need to take gratuitous potshots at Harry and Meghan? i think the tone of this book is decidedly bitchy. What is the cause of Tina’s resentment of Harry? By her attitude, she reveals that she is part of the media Harry despises. She’s just a higher class and richer royal rodent.

    • Tessa says:

      she seems to be marketing the book to those who always criticize Harry and Meghan in the press and on social media. I wonder if she will quote Piers again, probably. I don’t see the book (so far) as “fair and balanced.”

  40. Ace says:

    I can’t take seriously anyone who uses ‘invaded her own privacy’ not tongue-in-cheek. If this is the kind of insight in that book, I don’t see how is that different from Daily Fail made up stories.

    And using Piers Morgan as a source is certainly a choice.

  41. Pork Chops and Applesauce says:

    Well Tina Brown, like everyone else, gets old, and many of us change our tunes and attitudes as we age. She just doesn’t “get” what Harry and Meghan are doing. As you said, they’re essentially doing what Diana had planned on, had wanted to do. Tina just can’t wrap her head around it in 2022 real time.

  42. Jaded says:

    It’s clear that Tina Brown has an axe to grind with Diana. She seems to be pathologically jealous of women who are considered more beautiful, charismatic, dynamic, successful and famous than herself. This is a pretty scathing article about Tina going back to her early Tatler days. Not a pretty picture. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/14/the-vanity-fair-diaries-1983-92-by-tina-brown-review

    • BeanieBean says:

      Very interesting, thank you for the link!

    • kitt1 says:

      Good spotting Jaded.

      Tina is fast to pull out the misogyny when it comes to her own career and when it’s popular to decry it, but I was a long time Vanity Fair subscriber and remember how many women writers disappeared and men were hired instead. Tina brought into magazine publishing her heady, high priced cocktail party vibes along with British Oxbridge snobbery. And as the Guardian piece recounted, she was in cahoots with Weinstein and often historically has lent helpful hands to men who have history of sexual harassment and assault.

      Tina Brown became a high flying VIP who got her start editing Tatler. Her jump to Vanity Fair is a natural leap up as it combined high end gossip a la Tatler, with occasional investigative and decorative pieces (often by well known journalists and societal writers). Tina knows how to woo people, but sucks at nurturing or keeping them. She burned through staff and seasoned writers at VF and the New Yorker. She wanted to be a mover and a shaker, and that she was, but often at someone else’s expense. It makes her more a literary grifter in that sense.

      This book gets headline attention because of Tina’s carefully crafted famous name , but let’s be clear as others have pointed out, it’s really about Tina and her need to stay relevant by writing another umpteenth ‘insightful’ book about Diana. Diana is a cash cow for an industry that feeds off her tragic life. What does that really say about Tina Brown?

      • Jaded says:

        Great synopsis @kitt1 — she clearly writes from a self-aggrandizing POV and what it says about Tina is she has made a career out of cashing in on being a “literary grifter” as you so succinctly put it.

      • kirk says:

        Yes. Great synopsis @kitt1!
        Wish I’d seen that Guardian article before wasting time on her podcast.

  43. L4Frimaire says:

    I totally forgot this book was coming out, and frankly, as much as I admire her and being Harry’s mother, and the history, I’m just not that interested in the ins and outs of Princess Diana’s relationship with the media back in the 90s. Of course William would have a different relationship with her than Harry, considering where they were in development when she died. I’m just not sure what is the point of this book, maybe some additional insights or some revisionist history based on what’s currently happening with Diana’s sons. The podcasts “You’re Wrong About” and “When Diana” Met gave some refreshing, interesting interpretations on Diana, were great to listen to, that didn’t seem to sugarcoat her. Not sure I’d slog through this book. I think as an old school British journalist, I guess to her the Sussexes media is incoherent and maddening. Yes they sue, but they also win,and win big, which proves they don’t do it lightly and with a specific intent,despite Brown thinking it’s excessive. They also don’t seem to have go to people in the UK press the way they’re used to, don’t generally engage with the press at all unless it’s work related, and basically completely ignore the UK press unless they get too obnoxious and blatantly lie, which they do a lot. Also, like a lot of celebrities and public figures, they are basically ignoring and bypassing mainstream media, using their own channels, social media, and spokespersons, instead of leaking to the press with “sources” the way the royals still do. So regarding this book,to quote Twitter, “I ain’t reading all that. I’m happy for u tho or sorry that happened”.

  44. Bonsai Mountain says:

    Well, it’s not looking good. If she doesn’t address the racism towards Meghan, it’s a writeoff. That’s the only way to demonstrate credibility in any of these modern Royal biographies.

    • Kitt1 says:

      True, these royal biographies don’t address racism. You only need to look at the writers to see why.

      Racism and misogyny are deeply embedded in British institutions. The monarchy in particular with a titular female head of state is famous for its repressive following of traditional social pecking order. With that in mind, women and PoC are always going to be the last hired and the first outed.

  45. Angela says:

    Diana did the best she could in a terrible situation. That included having to use the press or be buried by Charles. If she was a basket case it was because the royals chose a young woman and married her to an older man who didnt like her and was in love with someone else. They put her in the position of needing the press. And now they use the press against her for doing what she could to survive. And she didnt teally survive in the end.

    • Tessa says:

      I wonder if Brown will even mention CHarles interview which was a total disaster, since h e named Camilla as his mistress. Causing the PB divorce. He admitted to his biographer Dimbleby he never loved Diana (this in the authorized biography). Also, Charles and Camilla did use the press. I wonder if she will mention that, probably not.

  46. aquarius64 says:

    Tina Brown is a Bitter Betty like the rest of the rota coven. She’s mad she can’t get access to the Sussexes. Any fluff she does on the Cambridges falls flat after the Caribbean Colonizer crash car tour. And today social media will rip her apart. I’ll buy Harry’s book.

  47. Tessa says:

    Unfortunately I think Tina Brown will go in for the not putting feet wrong comment when talking about Kate and Camilla. Diana went to the media to counter the stories leaked about her by Charles friends including Nicholas Soames. Stuart Higgins then the Sun Editor reported that Mrs Parker Bowles would call him each week to give her side, (during the C and D marriage). Higgins was under the impression that C and C were staying in touch with each other. Tina herself wrote the Mouse that Roared, an article about Diana that was really not favorable to her (reporting that she “stopped” Charles from seeing his friends and so on). Tina also in her book about Diana wrote the dubious claim that Diana was on the Royal Train in November 1980. That makes no sense to me because Diana and Charles were not engaged and Diana would not want to be looked at as mistress rather than wife material. The reporters at the time said Camilla was the one on the train. Tina is no friend of Diana. And she is using Diana to slam Harry and Meghan. I will not buy this new book of hers. She is just gaslighting and her talk of Diana “overconfiding” with William is straight out of a Penny Junor book. Junor obviously was not friend to Diana. Sarah Bradford was much better as biographer.imo

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      It has seemed to me that people believed Brown and Diana were friends (and not just acquaintances) due to what they’ve read in carefully placed media stories. Both Brown & her husband had the sources to put out that impression. I’m not aware of Diana herself speaking of Brown being her friend. Could be wrong. The Mouse that Roared was quite a hit piece on Diana. Full of aggressive, passive-aggressive backhanded compliments, straight up insults and contradictions. Brown wrote about Anthony Holden saying how he watched Charles ‘falling in love with her (Diana)’ during the Australia tour. Uhmm..no. Things got worse after that.imo TB made fun of Diana’s hair. Describing it as ‘frosted bearskin hairdo’. Which is funny considering Brown went on to have the same hairstyle.

      Jobson pulled that same Diana/Will narrative in his 2006 book too. I’m sure that wasn’t an attempt to gaslight Diana again..a year after C & C got married. /s

      ‘incoherent multimedia plans’? If she’s going to cover incoherency, I hope she covers someone’s comment about giving tools to babies to raises their babies or the lol lines like “Can you test the smell by smelling it?”.

  48. Powermoonchrystal says:

    I will agree with a lot of commenters here regarding how at this point, books about Diana scream “vultures on a rotten carcass” to me. It is all so creepy. What else is there to say about the woman? I was not old enough to understand the nuances behind Diana’s behavior, but as a woman in her world and in her time, I tend to side eye even further flippant and misogynistic references to hear mental health and sex life

  49. Tessa says:

    She knew how devastated her boys had been by their father’s on-camera confession of infidelity with Camilla Parker Bowles in Jonathan Dimbleby’s 1994 ITV documentary, and how truly mortified they felt when Princess in Love came out. I am told Diana chose to speak about Hewitt to Bashir because he was the only one of her ex-lovers who wasn’t married.”

    I would like to point out that Hewitt had “letters” from Diana that he was trying to sell. I think Diana was trying to neutralize this by coming out and admitting it. I don’t think he ever had any ‘takers” of those letters. Just my take on it.

    • kirk says:

      Tessa – thanks for the reminder that Diana’s motive in bringing up Hewitt may have been due to him trying to sell the letters.

  50. Bunny says:

    Harry knows something that his mother (unfortunately) never figured out, which is that the only way to win with the media is to not play. Harry packed up, moved away and controls the media he’s involved with. No pap strolls, no leaks, nothing.

    This is a big part of why I would bet that Kate won’t make it over the finish line: all of the “never a step wrong”, “ready to be queen”, “ready to wear the crown” garbage she and her family spew is going to backfire spectacularly when Charles and Camilla ascend.

    Kate isn’t nearly as smart or practiced at media manipulation as the BRF are, and trying to eclipse them is the worst thing she could do. There can only be one, and it won’t be the one trying to one-up the BRF.

  51. blunt talker says:

    If this lady wrote this book to smear and malign Princess Diana-she evil and rotten inside-Diana was trying to survive an impossible situation with her marriage and the royal family -put any young woman in that same situation it would turn out the same or worse-being snarky about the Sussexes is a big move in the wrong direction-if she does not address the racism in the press and possibly within the royal institution itself -social media hawks will remind her-that shit show in the Carribbean shows a lot of racist thinking with the royals-it was blatant and very overt and downright disgusting-she better hope she won’t be sued for quoting others with no paper trail of proof-Harry said he would not play this media game that he feels contributed to his mother’s death-Harry and Meghan use the media when they have something to announce about upcoming projects or charities-they do not want to participate in a runway show on a daily basis with their kids on the tarmac as fodder-she’s not human or honest about what she writing to smear Diana, Harry, and Meghan and their children.

  52. blunt talker says:

    PS-The Sussexes are not on the slave block or auction block for the media perverted pleasure.

  53. Janice Hill says:

    An “incoherent media strategy”? I can’t imagine either Megan or Harry being incoherent. They admitted that they didn’t have a plan. But they certainly had ideas of what they wanted to do, and reputations for getting things done successfully. And they are smart enough to avoid making their plans public before they are fully thought through. Tina has nothing, so she blames them for landing deals based mostly on their reputations.

  54. A says:

    While I liked and enjoyed Tina Brown’s take on The Diana Chronicles, I do not trust her to deal with the subject of Meghan and Harry in an appropriate manner in her new book, period.

    I don’t trust her for the same reason I don’t trust any of the British authors on this who are privy to what goes on within the establishment, which Tina Brown does. What I’ve noticed with these people who run in circles that are adjacent to royal circles is that they do not understand what M&H are doing, and why they are doing it, and most importantly, they don’t even try to, because it’s easier for them to hole themselves up in their own narrow view point than anything else.

    The reason Tina Brown had empathy for Diana in her first book is because, while Diana bunked the rules and mystified the rest of the aristocracy, she was still a part of the aristocracy. She was afforded a respect that Tina Brown refuses to extend towards Meghan in particular. This has been the case across the board for a wide swath of the posh crowd, and those who cater to and move around the posh crowd, and that really shows in how they talk about these things.

    Why does Tina Brown call Meghan and Harry’s media strategy incomprehensible? It’s because she doesn’t want to extend to them the benefit of the doubt. It’s because she doesn’t want to think about WHY a biracial black woman would not want to sit down for tea with the owner of a racist tabloid that has made millions off of peddling racism against her, and her pain and suffering. Meghan refused to provide conflict for their entertainment, so they trashed her. She refused to talk to them because racism is a firm boundary for her, and she is not obligated to be courteous to racists who made money off of being racist to her.

    I am a nobody. I don’t have a book deal. I don’t edit Vanity Fair or the Tatler. But even *I* can comprehend Meghan and Harry’s seemingly “incomprehensible” media strategy. So if it makes sense to me, why doesn’t it make sense to Tina Brown, who works IN THE MEDIA? Either she’s very very unintelligent (which is unlikely), or, it’s easier for her and her peers in the British media to pretend that Meghan and Harry’s strategy is incomprehensible, rather than ask themselves difficult questions about their own mode of operating. Because then, they’d have to examine their own way of behaving, and their chauvinism will not let them do that.