Tina Brown: Duchess Camilla is ‘the horse-whisperer’ for Charles, she manages him

Tina Brown’s latest book, The Palace Papers, comes out in a few weeks. The book is already being excerpted by Vanity Fair and the Telegraph, and Brown is already giving interviews to promote it. The Telegraph had a lengthy interview with Brown plus some summaries and excerpts of the book. This piece is so long that I’m actually splitting it up into two posts. This the first post, and it’s all about the Queen, Prince Charles, the Duchess of Cornwall and a little bit about the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Part 2 of the coverage will be Brown’s Sussex drama. Let’s get started!

No one in the Windsor clan wanted “another Diana”: ‘The it being Diana’s explosive celebrity, the problem of the monarchy being upstaged, outshone by… anyone other than the Queen or the heir to the throne. The refrain most repeated at the Palace was, “We don’t want another Diana.” Never again!’

Prince Andrew is a ‘coroneted sleaze machine’. ‘It’s utterly grotesque, the whole Andrew business. I was told only yesterday by someone at the Palace just how deeply distressing it has been for the Queen. Frankly, if your children can kill you hers will. Here is this remarkable, elderly woman who is summoning all her strength to get through her Platinum Jubilee and then this bucket of sleaze empties over her family.’ Brown says the Prince of Wales and William and appalled but The Andrew Problem is hard to solve. ‘What are they going to do to disappear this healthy, 62-year-old man – lock him up at the top of Glamis Castle? At least in the time of Henry V they could just have banished him. All he can do now is go riding – Andrew used to absolutely hate riding by the way, but he’s doing a lot of it at the moment because the only person who’ll talk to him is the horse!’

When the Queen dies: ‘I do think the country is going to have the most enormous national nervous breakdown when the Queen dies. I mean, 70 years is longer than Queen Victoria. The deluge of grief after Victoria was extraordinary and that was in the pre-media age. Losing the Queen will be a shattering blow, but I am actually more of a Charles optimist than many… Look, I think Charles could become the grandfather of the nation. I actually think people might rally to him because he is an authentic person and he’s coming in at a moment when his own passions really do meld with the times we live in. His long-standing passion for the environment and concern about climate change, these are not Palace-manufactured things. And I think Camilla has a chance to be a sort of instant queen mother. She’s got a lot of charm and naturalness and they have this incredible bond as a couple.’

Camilla the Horse-Whisperer: ‘Camilla is the horse whisperer for [Charles]. She understands his temperament perfectly. She’s got that incredible mistress’s EQ [emotional intelligence] about when to be tart in terms of pulling him up if he’s being pompous… There’s a little bit of tough love, but it’s always couched with warmth and humour. It’s very like how the Queen Mother was with George VI. She was able to manage him without him knowing he was being managed. And that’s true of Camilla; I think she steadies Charles in a way that is very healthy for him. He’s a much more relaxed man when he’s around her and she does make him laugh. She’s a funny woman. And she shares all his interests and friends which Diana never shared.’

Whether William & Kate would be “better” for the country rather than Charles: ‘Obviously, William and Kate would generate more excitement, but they also have to then reinvent the monarchy which, funnily enough, is more difficult for them to do. It’s much easier if Charles has taken some of the heat for the changes. Following a mighty leader like Elizabeth II, it’s often better if you have a period of transition before another more charismatic leader comes in. He’d better not stick around too long though! Let’s put it delicately, if the transition does not go on till Charles is 101 I think it’ll be all right.’

Diana would have hated Queen Consort Camilla: ‘Diana would have loathed the idea of Queen Camilla, there’s no question about it, but we’re 25 years on. The Queen’s always been a pragmatist and she knows Charles wants Camilla to be queen. So what the Queen wants to do now is tidy up and do what she can to help Charles take on the role. It was a very shrewd bit of estate planning to make that declaration.’

Women are the saviors of the monarchy: ‘The royal business is going to be slow and maddening and self-suppressing, but it seems we have in Kate someone very unusual, a modern woman who’s willing to do those things. With William, Kate was brilliant at playing the long game. She went for the gold. Just as Camilla played the long game with Charles, in a different way. It was brutal, Camilla was so reviled. The Shands’ family motto is, “Thou shalt not whine,” and Camilla has lived by it. Imagine if she gave an interview to Oprah about what she’s been called in her life, although she never would. And, it turns out, the definition of succeeding in the monarchy is you have to be willing to play the long game. What is interesting about the Queen declaring Camilla will be queen, as well as her clear approbation for Kate, is the Queen is beginning to see that suitability to be royal is not necessarily about pedigree. It’s, have you got the qualities to play the long game? Kate and Camilla do.’

[From The Telegraph]

Camilla is Charles’s horse whisperer?? More like Charles wants his women to look like horses. Charles is the true horse-whisperer. As for what Brown says about William and Kate possibly being more “popular” rulers than Charles… I doubt it. I mean, I’m not trying to disrupt the throne games (neither is Tina Brown), but I actually agree with her that Charles’s “appeal” is that he actually knows how to do the job and he understands he will be a more transitional monarch. That being said, Brown willfully glosses over William’s unsuitability for the job. I suspect Brown’s task is a lot like Robert Lacey’s – they know William is an incandescent ball of illiterate rage, but also… Kensington Palace is leaking like a sieve and they love the gossip. As for the stuff about Andrew… why does no one give the Queen any agency when it comes to Andrew? Liz has been willfully covering up his messes for decades. She chooses to cover for him and it speaks to HER character.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid and Instar.

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

79 Responses to “Tina Brown: Duchess Camilla is ‘the horse-whisperer’ for Charles, she manages him”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Colby says:

    “ why does no one give the Queen any agency when it comes to Andrew?”

    Thank you!!! Somehow she is all powerful and of impeccable judgment…..until it comes to Andrew, where things just ~*~happen~*~ to and around her.

    • Tessa says:

      Camilla did give an interview in 2017 and played victim.Camilla called Sun editor Stuart Higgins with her side of the story for ten years during c and d marriage.charles hired A pr person for her. And Camilla has cooperated with junior on her books which include diana negativity.junor confirmed this
      Sorry Tina Camilla got het side out.the put down of the Oprah interview was included by Brown

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Tessa: The Daily Mail has been one of Camilla’s biggest boosters for several years.

  2. ElleE says:

    TBrown does not know these people. She is not “inner circle”. This seems like an American version of the British press: using 2 real people and creating somewhat believable story lines for them. Really, she should go write for the Crown.
    Her dream would be to have Harry endorse the book like, “This is the most real account of my father’s marriage that I have ever read. Tina Brown nails it!” Lol

    • Catlady says:

      Brown has the best sources of any RR. Her problem is she filters the facts through her opinions.

    • A says:

      In some fairness to Tina Brown, I don’t think she needs to know these people to know how they function as a group and as a culture. I think she understands both pretty well, having edited and written for society magazines pretty much her whole career.

      She’s not unintelligent, but she comes with her own biases, the same way so many other people from her crowd do. To date, I have not heard a single aristocratic, or aristo-adjacent figure in Britain speak honestly about how Meghan and Harry were treated by the press. Not one. ALL of them peddle the exact same three talking points. Oprah interview bad. Ditching W&K bad. Abandoning the monarchy bad. Complaining about legitimate discrimination and racism from the people around you, bad.

      Literally, everyone from Robert Lacey, to multiple aristocrats with podcasts whose names escape me, to that one American lady who was interviewed on some documentary bc she married a duke and is now a duchess, to Lady Anne Glenconner who was peddling her own memoir bc her husband left her without a penny–so many of them, without exception, parroting the same opinions.

      Tina Brown’s strength was in deftly explaining why these people behave the way they do. She did that quite well in the Diana Chronicles. But while she knows how they tick, that doesn’t mean she’s any good at picking apart her own biases when she shares them with the same crowd. This book will likely have some valuable insights in it, but the Meghan and Harry portions of it won’t amount to much.

  3. Tessa says:

    I knew Time would talk about camilla and put down diana.diana was popular from the get go and Charles jealousy issues caused the problem.i think had diana lived she would have remarried and worked on charities and enjoyed her children and grandchildren.brown does make camilla look manipulative in her praise for her.meghan and harry will probably get put down too.not buying this book

    • Tessa says:

      Tina not time.spell check again

    • equality says:

      I doubt Di would have taken the time and energy to care that Cam would be QC.

    • Jais says:

      I’m not buying this book either but I look forward to celebitchy and Kaiser’s coverage. TB seems like a racist POS who is essentially mischaracterizing and dehumanizing Meghan. Apparently, people really like her Diana book idk? @tessa-one thing I’ve noticed in your comments is that you are a staunch Diana fan and really dislike TB and I appreciate that you never waver.

  4. matthew says:

    The British cannot be trusted to have informed opinions about the Queen. She is their blind spot. Even Harry.

    • Selene says:

      I agree! The Queen could kill a kid in her Jubbly and the Brits would find it endearing. I think its a testament to the position, to how monarchies inspire blind devotion to those who believe in them. There’s a show called Avatar: The Last Airbender, where King Ozai says something like, if you had to choose between two things, the choice you make will always be the correct one because your judgement as king is infallible. It sheds a bright light into how subjects are supposed to think, I believe.

  5. Snuffles says:

    ‘I do think the country is going to have the most enormous national nervous breakdown when the Queen dies. I mean, 70 years is longer than Queen Victoria. The deluge of grief after Victoria was extraordinary and that was in the pre-media age.


    Translation: The Firm is going to have an enormous nervous breakdown when the Queen dies and the British media will milk the ever loving shit out of it for YEARS to come. We look forward to the juicy Game of Thrones like power struggle between the Cornwall’s and the Cambridges.

    • Harper says:

      Nervous breakdown? Maybe if the Queen collapses and dies in public the nation might feel some shock at the circumstances in addition to respect for her passing. But nervous breakdown? Like no one expected it and how could this happen and oh no what are we going to do we never thought this would happen to us type of breakdown? Like when Diana died? Nope. Tina is nuts.

    • SarahCS says:

      Will it feel like something has shifted in our lives? Yes, she’s been queen for most of our lifetimes, we see her face on our money, stamps, etc. Nervous breakdown? Of course not. Having said that I will be enjoying my popcorn as the next phase of GoT goes into full swing, it’s going to be WILD seeing the two houses working against each other.

  6. C-Shell says:

    Okay, I haven’t had enough coffee.

    “Following a mighty leader like Elizabeth II, it’s often better if you have a period of transition before another more charismatic leader comes in. He’d better not stick around too long though! Let’s put it delicately, if the transition does not go on till Charles is 101 I think it’ll be all right.”

    If I get what she’s saying, Bulliam is the “charismatic leader” (LOL), Charles had better just get busy making certain “changes” to give W air cover and because he can’t/doesn’t know how to, but had better not linger too long so the UK can just get on to the shiny W&K monarchy. This is nuts. 🙄

  7. Em says:

    I don’t know why they keep writing these articles like being a member of the royal family other than the monarch and heir is a good thing. The rest are shackled to that family, cannot make their own money legally, live in constant threat of tabloid attacks and are controlled financially. Harry was never going to be king, there’s no “long game” for him or Meghan because there’s nothing to win. They’d have been held hostage by the tabloids and William controlling purse strings. I firmly believe that even Meghan was treated kindly after the queen’s death they’d have left anyway. It’s not a gotcha because Harry and Meghan have their own money, their own house free of royal leases, can afford their own protection and are setting up their businesses if he had stayed he’d have become another Andrew.

    • equality says:

      To me playing the “long game” and submitting to abuse wouldn’t even be worth it for the top prize but it definitely wouldn’t be worth it as the “spare”.

      • Em says:

        Hey they’d get to be called king and queen and have ppl bow down to them, do you know how long Kate|Carole waited for that!!!

    • The Hench says:

      There’s another excerpt in the Telegraph by Tina that addresses this in relation to monumentally stupid Andrew. Her point is that the rest of the family, without any source of income like Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall cash, are reliant to sporadic and illogical handouts from Betty, meaning they (but especially Andrew) are vulnerable to getting caught in shady money making deals to maintain the standard of life they think they should have.

      • Em says:

        So which long game did she want the Sussexes to play? They should have kissed William’s ass for money?

      • MsIam says:

        Harry and Meghan are “crass” making their own income above board but the rest who engage in money laundering and bribery and kickbacks (allegedly) are fine and “royal”? Oh boy. Tina may have inadvertently damaged the monarchy more than she realizes. Good!

    • Nic919 says:

      This is the fundamental flaw in all these books written by British people even if they claim not to be royalists. They all seem to come from the premise that monarchy is normal and the system is fine. So from there they are critical of anyone that challenges the system in any way. Hence the criticism of Diana, but even more so Harry and Meghan.

      It makes no sense for anyone outside of the direct heirs to live such a ridiculous life.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Thank you for saying this. As an American, I do not understand why British people think the monarchy is sacred. I mean, people criticize Andrew for the damage he’s done to the monarchy — but he SHOULD really be criticized for the damage he’s done to teenaged girls. If the monarchy happens to fail because of Andrew, THAT (just the impact on the monarchy) is a good thing. Because monarchies shouldn’t exist in the 21st century. Same with people saying Harry doesn’t support the monarchy (queen, Charles, William) enough. But why should he? Isn’t helping to perpetuate a racist and misogynistic institution a bad thing? Even if you believe the monarchy is not racist or misogynistic, surely people don’t think that a single bloodline was chosen by God to rule? So supporting a monarchy *should* be seen as a bad thing, and *not* supporting a monarchy a good thing.

      • Jais says:

        Agree agree agree @nic919.

  8. equality says:

    Interesting how she wants to act like the stuff with the Queen’s children hasn’t been going on for YEARS. It wasn’t something she was suddenly hit with in her old age. I wonder how the QM would like being compared with Cam and her “mistress EQ”.

  9. ThatsNotOkay says:

    The shade! “ Camilla is the horse whisperer for [Charles]. She understands his temperament perfectly. She’s got that incredible mistress’s EQ [emotional intelligence] about when to be tart in terms of pulling him up if he’s being pompous…”

    • Totorochan says:

      Mistress and tart in the same sentence, that’s … unsubtle.

    • Tessa says:

      And she benefitted big time. I think she is a manipulative person and there was a letter in public domain where she told Charles to ignore “that ridiculous creature.” (she called Diana that).

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      The whole “horse whisperer” thing has me corpsing with laughter.

      Honestly, if Her Maj had managed the breeding and rearing of her human brood as well as her horses at Sandringham Stud, they wouldn’t be the nightmare (adult) children they are.

      Breeding tells, but inbreeding tells even more…

  10. Eurydice says:

    I’m confused about the “long game” – basically, Tina Brown is saying Camilla and Kate waited forever to snag their respective men and make it to the throne. And that’s a good thing for the monarchy?

    • Also says:

      Also Camilla and Kate are playing the “long game” because of something they hope to achieve that is becoming queen consort. Playing the long game and enduring abuse would have achieved what In Meghan’s case? Invites to palace parties? Loaned jewelry from dictators that would later be used to smear her? What would she have won?

      • SarahCS says:

        That’s the big lie/fundamental disconnect. In the world being described NOTHING is better than being queen, it’s the ultimate prize. It’s utter nonsense but there is a big industry here is the uk built to perpetuate the lie. Ordained by god, better than the peasants, give us your cash, etc. Meghan wouldn’t have achieved the top spot but she’s have been adjacent and lucky to be in that position because monarchy is everything. It’s sheer lunacy but people still buy it.

      • Tessa says:

        I am puzzled about what “abuse” brown is talking about. Camilla had Charles and his friends clearly on her side, Diana was gaslighted by Charles supporters even after her death. And Diana was thrown under the proverbial bus. Kate of her own choice chose to wait for the ring from William. Probably she would have had a backup plan and with her mother’s help found a rich man like Pippa did.

  11. Becks1 says:

    I think its clear that Camilla and Charles have a good relationship and that she steadies him. Didn’t we all know that already? You don’t have to like either of them to see that they clearly get along and have an actual relationship etc.

    The parts about Kate and Camilla playing the long game…..yes, they both do; I think the big difference is that Charles also plays the long game “with” camilla and William doesn’t. I don’t know if that makes sense.

    Andrew has been a problem for decades and the Queen hasn’t seem too bothered by it. why should she start now?

    • Tessa says:

      Charles even if he wanted to could not divorce Camilla because his creation of the Great Love Spin and he could not afford a second divorce. Camilla gets to retreat to her own home and is set for life. It is said Camilla spends much time at her own home. Charles had no choice but to play the “long game.” And there still is public disapproval of them that Charles can’t fend off with all the spin. Kate based her whole life on getting that ring, with her parents supporting her so she would not have to earn her own money. Kate is an anachronism. I think if William had not been a royal, she’d have ditched him and not put up with the cheating.

  12. Nic919 says:

    If William had charisma the Caribbean tour wouldn’t have blown up in their faces like it did. I don’t know why Tina brown seems to be carrying water for the Cambridges but an honest assessment would show that the next two after the queen aren’t charismatic. And at 40 it’s not going to happen.

  13. Over it says:

    Oh yes Tina, because a woman being unfairly smeared and racially abused over four years plus is so in the same realm as a married woman who Willingly slept with a married man and destroyed a young woman.
    I don’t know about you all but I won’t loose an inch of sleep over Betty passing. As she supports Andy wholeheartedly because she wants to. As for kate and Willy, they are not ready and will absolutely suck at the job

    • Debbie says:

      “I don’t know about you all but I won’t loose an inch of sleep over Betty passing. As she supports Andy wholeheartedly because she wants to.”

      @Over it: I don’t know about you, but I may dance a little jig when it happens. Just a tasteful jig to the tune of “Ding Dong the queen Is Gone” like in the Wizzard of Oz. Wearing a Big-ass hat and a polka-dotted dress.

  14. Amy Bee says:

    Yeah, as I expected, Tina has written a book boosting the royals. I think her praising Camilla and Kate for being willing to be abused to get the Crown is terrible. It’s true that they were willing to be abused but they should not be put a pedestal for maintaining the status quo.

    • Em says:

      I’d like to see how this book holds up because I’m willing to bet that by the end of this decade the monarchy will only exist in England.

  15. MsIam says:

    Well she got the horse part right. I’m sure the royalists will love this book but I’m not sure they will buy it. I guess Tina got her money upfront so I guess she won’t care.

  16. it's all your fault says:

    “Here is this remarkable, elderly woman who is summoning all her strength to get through her Platinum Jubilee and then this bucket of sleaze empties over her family.’” – REEAALLLLYYYY!!!! WOW just WOW

    “‘Camilla is the horse whisperer for [Charles]. She understands his temperament perfectly. She’s got that incredible mistress’s EQ [emotional intelligence] about when to be tart in terms of pulling him up if he’s being pompous… ” – Does she also hand feed him sugar and stroke his mane.

  17. Scorpion says:

    I want whatever Tina is smoking. When Betty goes, I’ll break out the bunting! I suspect I won’t be the only one.


  18. Ceej says:

    Another more charismatic leader…

    Wait, so W is MORE charismatic than the queen? (Hold please while I die laughing)

    Maybe charismatic is the new code word for raging? Angry? Spiteful? Vindictive? Obstinate?

    Actually obstinate works. Her majesty is quite obstinate about her favourite son.

  19. Merricat says:

    Well, well,Tina Brown has certainly gone down in the world. The New Yorker must have been fooled by her British accent; rookie mistake.

  20. Mslove says:

    I always giggle when the BM portrays Chuck & Bill as helpless man babies who can’t set forth without their nurse maids/wives. I’m glad Cam is taking such good care of her man baby.

    • Charm says:

      And yet, look how that tinabiitch describes those relationships compared to how she describes H&M’s.

  21. Tessa says:

    How did Camilla suffer?she always had the upper hand imo.charles outed her as .mistress and forced the on divorce which caused Charles to be obligated diana was treated the worst and she was gaslighted and treated like h and m are today.

  22. Sofia says:

    Charles is absolutely devoted to Camilla. Or at least, their image together. Hence why a 25+ years campaign to rehabilitate her which included chucking his ex-wife and kids under the bus and being so frustrated with Netflix. So I get the whole “horse-whisperer” thing. Seems like the heirs in the family *need* someone by their side because they’re apparently incapable of functioning on their own.

    • MsIam says:

      So does that make them “needy and insecure”too? I think the difference is Charles and William found someone to indulge their inadequacies where Harry found someone to help overcome his.

  23. MaryContrary says:

    I’m still scratching my head over “Kate as a modern woman.” She is not remotely modern, charismatic or interesting.

    • Nic919 says:

      I cannot take Tina Brown seriously when she pretends that Kate is modern. She is less modern than her mother law was and cultivates a cult of nostalgia for the older era deliberately.

  24. Tessa says:

    Camilla was not abused imo she always had the upper hand she made diana miserable imo
    Kate was not abused.she wanted this lifestyle she treated Meghan badly

  25. Deering24 says:

    “…the only person who’ll talk to him is the horse!”

    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣My deepest sympathies to his horse.

    • kelleybelle says:

      How fitting that she looks like one and in no way is fit to be queen consort. She’s nothing but a former side-piece that Charles refused to give up. Her behaviour is appalling, embarrassing, and she looks like Dobbin’s b*g.

  26. Cathy says:

    William is charismatic?

    Really? By any chance are you wanting to get into William’s good books Tina? Hoping for a phone call from KP are we with the latest royal news?

    And my sympathies go to the horse as well, I’m talking about Andrew’s horse here of course.

  27. Maida says:

    That comment about the BRF “not wanting another Diana” sure makes it clear why they couldn’t stand Meghan. Playing the “long game,” in Brown’s terms, evidently involves shutting up and kissing up.

    When the Queen dies I think there’s going to be a cataclysm. Hard to say what the result will be, but I don’t see Charles as the savior of the BRF that Brown seems to think he is.

  28. equality says:

    “Is the Queen is beginning to see that suitability to be royal is not necessarily about pedigree”? What? Doesn’t that go against the whole premise of royalty?

  29. Tessa says:

    Brown talks of Camilla as instant queen mother.camilla did not give birth to will and harry diana did.brown has no clue.then she states that Camilla shares Charles friends and diana did not.well Tina Charles pals provided safe houses for c and c.think about it Tina

    • equality says:

      Considering some of PC’s friends have been pedophiles that might not be such a great compliment to Cam.

  30. L4Frimaire says:

    All I noticed is she managed to say Camilla and horse in the same sentence, lol.

  31. Paisley25 says:

    After the Queen dies, Charles will be the grandfather to the nation? Are these people nuts? What does he know about being a grandfather? He doesn’t spend any time with his grandchildren through William or Harry.

  32. Princessk says:

    Kate and William generate excitement? Really?

    • Tessa says:

      It looks like Tina is superflattering perhaps to get a future honor from either Charles or William Of course she’d join the Diana, Meghan and Harry criticism.

  33. Feebee says:

    Following a mighty leader like Elizabeth II, it’s often better if you have a period of transition before another more charismatic leader comes in.


    Charles is the transition to William’s charisma? Too funny.

  34. Isabella says:

    I can’t help thinking she used the word “horse” on purpose to insult Camilla.

  35. Patricia says:

    “ Diana didn’t know or understand Charles ‘ friends like Camilla did “ ?! Of course she didn’t,Charles and Camilla shacked up at the friends houses.C and C shared the friends.He used Diana terribly and nothing will ever change that.

  36. A says:

    “have you got the qualities to play the long game? Kate and Camilla do.’”

    Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? What people like Tina Brown will never understand is that the monarchy is hardly a prize that’s worth winning, let alone playing the long game for. Imagine wasting your life for a prize like that. People like Kate and maybe Camilla care deeply about “winning” their place in the monarchy, as if being a part of this stolid, antiquated, and deeply unequal institution is a positive addition to one’s life in any way.

    But someone like Meghan, who did not grow up with this ridiculous and stupid deference for monarchy, who understands that there is more to life than titles and drafty country piles and entrenched racism and misogyny and maudlin politeness and thank you notes, is perfectly able and willing, and eager, to walk away from it all. Because there is simply nothing to win here. Camilla got trashed for decades as Charles’ fall girl, and she doesn’t even have the common luxury of complaining about it like the rest of us peasants could.

    And Kate? Kate sold her life, her soul, and her future for this role she’s got as a mannequin. I’ll never, EVER, get over the fact that she got into University of Edinburgh, but bunked her admission in favour of chasing Baldy at St. Andrews. She gave up an exceptional education, at a #1 top ranked school in the UK, in one of the most gorgeous cities in the UK, for…Baldy. And this institution. And for the chance to be Queen.

    I understand that for someone like Tina Brown, the idea of a member of the RF throwing away a life that’s been gifted to them from birth is incomprehensible. But there are by far better things to live for. Some of us know this. It’s a pity that people like Tina Brown don’t.