Sunday, 3 September 2023

Diana's marriage was 'post-modern fairytale as there was no happy ending' / The True Story Behind Diana’s Bombshell Andrew Morton Biography




The True Story Behind Diana’s Bombshell Andrew Morton Biography

BY ELISE TAYLOR

9 November 2022

https://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/princess-diana-andrew-morton-book

 

In The Crown season five, the second episode finds Elizabeth Debicki’s Princess Diana in a dilemma. (A note for the reader: spoilers are to follow.) She’s miserable in her marriage to Prince Charles, who is in love with Camilla Parker Bowles. The press follows her every move – so much so that Diana even fears that her home at Kensington Palace might be bugged. And most of all, she feels trapped. Leaving Charles means potentially sacrificing not only her role as an altruistic public servant but her sons: As heirs to the throne, they’d have to remain behind in England if Diana were to move anywhere else. “I’d love to have a book out there so everyone understands how difficult it’s been,” Debicki’s Diana says to her friend James Colthurst when he tells the princess that a journalist named Andrew Morton is writing a book. “But I don’t want to be responsible for starting a war.”

 

Secretly, Colthurst agrees to be an intermediary between the two. Morton provides him with questions, which he, in turn, passes on to the princess. She records her answers on tape, and Colthurst returns them to Morton. Since Colthurst is a frequent visitor to Kensington Palace, no one suspects a thing.

 

The Crown is known for putting an exaggerated spin on real-life events. In the case of Diana’s tell-all book – what is fact versus fiction?

 

It turns out Peter Morgan and the writers didn’t need to speculate much when it came to the creation of Diana: Her True Story. Andrew Morton himself wrote a very detailed account of how, exactly, the book came to be – which he shared after Princess Diana’s death in 1997.

 

As the show suggests, Morton, a veteran royal reporter, was already researching a book about Princess Diana. Gradually, he befriended Colthurst (indeed, over games of squash and Italian food, as The Crown shows), thinking he could be a useful source. Diana, pleased with Morton’s previous work, began giving Colthurst small pieces of information to relay to Morton – such as the firing of Prince Charles’s private secretary. Morton then turned that into a piece for The Sunday Times.

 

She then began thinking bigger. “Like a prisoner condemned for a crime she did not commit, Diana had a crying need to tell the world the truth about her life, the distress she felt, and the ambitions she nurtured. Her sense of injustice was profound,” Morton wrote years later. “Quite simply, she wanted the liberty to speak her mind, the opportunity to tell people the whole story of her life and to let them judge accordingly.” A book by a well-respected writer was a way she could do just that.

 

A major problem? How to conduct the interviews. Morton was a known and – at six feet four with glasses – a conspicuous reporter. Kensington Palace and Prince Charles would no doubt discover, and attempt to squash, the project quickly. So Colthurst agreed to interview Diana with questions written by Morton, record her answers via tape, and then deliver them back to the author.

 

Diana left no question unanswered. She admitted to multiple suicide attempts. (“She was suffering dreadfully from morning sickness, she was haunted by Camilla Parker Bowles, and she was desperately trying to accommodate herself to her new position and new family,” Morton wrote. “Standing on top of the wooden staircase, she hurled herself to the ground, landing in a heap at the bottom.”) She opened up about her eating disorder. (“Diana would make herself sick four, sometimes five times a day.”) So too did she speak openly about Charles’s relationship with Parker Bowles. (“Diana had accidentally overheard her husband talking on a mobile telephone while having a bath. She was deeply upset when she heard him say, ‘Whatever happens, I will always love you.’”)

 

As the show suggests, paranoia gripped them both: Someone broke into Morton’s apartment, although nothing was stolen besides a camera. Diana thought her apartment might be bugged and ordered sweeps. (Nothing was ever found.) But even when, by January 1992, Buckingham Palace figured out that she was, in some way, cooperating with Morton, she continued. “She knew that there was a cataclysm in the offing but had no doubts that she would survive it,” Morton recalls.

 

In June 1992, The Sunday Times ran the first excerpt from the book with the headline: “Diana driven to five suicide bids by ‘uncaring Charles’.”

 

The reaction was explosive. Not only because of the damning claims contained in the book – at that time, much of the public still believed in the Charles-Di fairy tale – but because it was clear that Diana herself had sanctioned it. “Sensational revelations about the royal family are nothing new, but what distinguishes the latest story, apart from the unusual hype surrounding it that Princess Diana’s marriage made her so unhappy that she tried to kill herself, is that it seems to bear her tacit imprimatur,” wrote The Observer at the time. (One of the tell-tale signs of her involvement? The book’s cover of a black-and-white portrait by Patrick Demarchelier. Only the princess owned the copyright of that series – which she had previously only shared with British Vogue.)

 

Politicians from both parties decried the book’s supposed ethical violations. Labour MP Clare Short called out the “outrageous and gross misbehaviour” of the Sunday Times’s decision to publish the excerpts, while Conservative MP Patrick Cormack spoke in barely-coded terms against the paper’s owner, Rupert Murdoch: “What we are seeing is the attempted destruction by the lackeys of a sovereign republican press tycoon of an institution that is the envy of most republics and the character assassination of two people who have given selfless service which those who are motivated by greed will never understand.”

 

Diana publicly denied any involvement: “The princess did not cooperate with the book ‘in any way whatsoever’, a palace official said,” according to The Guardian, after the Sunday Times serialisation.

 

Even if no one could pinpoint Diana as the primary informant, many understood why she let the book happen. “It was her only way of countering the routine cruelty with which Charles had come to treat her,” Anthony Holden wrote in a 1993 issue of Vanity Fair. “Not merely did he continue to throw Camilla in her face. Irritated by Diana’s ever-growing popularity, at the expense of his own, Charles had long demeaned his wife in other ways – by insisting, for instance, that she submit all her speeches to him before delivery. He would refuse her permission to venture into areas he regarded as his own, such as education and the environment. He told their staff that its first loyalty was to him, not her.”

 

Six months after the book’s June 1992 publication, Charles and Diana announced their separation – although Diana: Her True Story was, metaphorically, just one chapter in the messy split between the Waleses. In 1994 Charles admitted to adultery on television, and in 1995, Diana gave an explosive interview to Martin Bashir for the BBC current affairs program Panorama. (Later, it emerged Bashir manipulated the princess into doing so with a series of forged bank statements.)

 

Yet without Morton’s book to prime public opinion in her favour, Diana’s decision to do the Panorama interview could have played out altogether more negatively – the world now knew of Charles’s transgressions, and judged him for it. (When The Washington Post reported on the couple’s separation, they noted the likability gap between the two: “Diana, with her flash and style, is by far the most popular member of the family. Her public appearances always draw large, enthusiastic crowds. The dour Charles attracts few.”) Although Diana’s marriage couldn’t be saved, it turns out her reputation could.


No comments: