Customer Reviews

Princess Diana, the Lamb to the Slaughter

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Joy Jones Daymon's book, "Princess Diana - The Lamb to the Slaughter" is more than another fan book. I found this book to be an important look at Diana's role in history and much more. Daymon raises some very important questions regarding Diana's life, and death. The book asks if we will ever know how the Royal family of Britain used her, and whether or not her death was truly an accident. The 142-page book is packed with information about British royal history, protocol, and information about the current British royal family. Daymon's book helps the reader to understand what it is like to be a member of the royal family. The book even contains a section on the British dietary concerns of the War Years. This book is a wonderful source of information for anyone interested in British royal history, and customs. "Princess Diana - The Lamb to the Slaughter" is so entertaining I had a lot of trouble putting it down. Daymon seamlessly weaves history, psychology, and Diana trivia into an intelligent, concise, and very readable book.

Since we lost our Queen of Hearts, the books about her by those who claimed to "know" her have proliferated like a bad rash. Rather than going away, they have just gotten worse. Over time, I have become disgusted with these people who are obviously working out some agenda/grudge against someone they either hardly knew, were jealous of, or decided they didn't like--and who is not, to our great loss, here to defend herself. This makes these books not only unfair, but heinous.
All too common as well, are the "conspiracy books," which claim to expose the "truth" about her death. Since I am as disheartened by these as by the others, I do not buy or read them. It is hard to find credibility there when, every time someone famous dies, the "conspiracy" fanatics come crawling out of the woodwork to tell us all the truth. (If you know so much, then why is she still dead?)
As a result, I have become so careful that I hardly buy books about the Princess I cherish, unless the title makes it obvious that the book is a loving and respectful tribute, not a bashing, a dissection, or, worst of all, a Charles-and-Camilla suck-up tome.
(For example, any book by the notorious Charles-sucker, Penny Junor, is off my list.)
The reason I bought this one is because the title is composed of Diana's own words about herself the night before her wedding, so I thought the chances of it being a bashing were slim.
(In the Introduction, the author admits she is a fan who followed Diana's life and then became obsessed with her death and her own unaanswered questions--so my instincts were correct there.)
From the opening paragraph, Joy Jones Damon held my attention, as she drew a scenario of conspiracy and murder, then traced precedents from England's history to say, "This has happened before."
(She is careful to say that in no way does she accuse Her Majesty the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, or Charles of being part of any plan to murder the Princess of Wales.)
As unwilling as I was, and am, to believe that Diana was murdered, I finished the book wondering if indeed it were not so.
(People kept saying Diana was paranoid; well, maybe she was, but maybe with reason. She was many things, but she was never stupid--as Prince Charles and that woman he gave a title, but who will never be Queen of England, or even a lady, found to their cost.)
There are no sensation-grabbing headlines here, just nagging questions that won't go away quietly.
Why would smart, safety-concious Diana go without her seat belt? Why was Henri Paul allowed to drive the most famous couple in the world to their destination if he was obviously impaired?
And, whatever you think of Paul Burrell, why did Diana predict the exact manner of her death--and say in a note in her own handwriting, that Charles was going to have her killed to marry "the other woman?"
The only "truth" is, it doesn't matter if she was murdered, or who did it, except to see justice done for Princes William and Harry's sake. What matters is that she is gone. And whatever truths she took with her, whatever happened in that car was terrifying beyond description. For that, we may cry many more tears--but we will never know.

The title caught my attention! Was this blood shed as a sacrifice? Was the Princess like a helpless lamb that required the constant protection of the shepherd? Did she trust too much and get eaten by the wolves, or did the shepherd actually lead her to the slaughter. What a unique approach the author has chosen.

Ms.Daymon gives us the background information we need with insight and a deep understanding of the Royal Family, but it's not a history lesson. She uses solid logic in putting together a conspiricy theory, but it's not alarmist (Chicken Little -"the sky is falling") or far fetched.

As the reader gets engrossed in the life of the Princess, it's as though the author has been granted an omnicient visit into the soul of "the lamb". Where did this insight come from? It becomes very obvious that Ms. Daymon has developed a strong empathic spirit that is able to capture deep feeling and a powerful sense of loyalty and trust. She really understands the strength of love and the devastation of rejection.

In the end, it all makes sense. It comes together. It's historically a logical conclusion. One closes this book and simply goes hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

I purchased this book based on its reviews. However, after reading it, I was disappointed in the accuracy, historically and psychologically.Ms Damon's attempt to write a cohesive and intelligient book on Princess Diana's life, before and after her marriage, did not support a solidly researched book. Her speculations of Diana's psychological issues were amateurish and not well researched. Historically, Ms. Damon tells us nothing that we did not know previous to this publication. In chapter 7, Ms Damon makes a reference to King Richard III smothering his nephews to death in order to claim the crown of England and stabilize the House of York. She tries to tie in this proposterous Shakespearian diatribe into the unstable House of Windsor, with the implication that the Windsors had Diana murdered to save their crown. Historically, both are speculative and unproven. The only thing in common between King Richard III and Diana Princess of Wales is their own personal trauma and heartache with betrayal, dishonesty, and treason thrown their way in an unfair manner. Surely they would have been comrads had they lived in the same lifetime. This book does not contain fair and balanced information on Diana and her relationships with Prince Charles and the rest of the royal family. She merely throws alot of suspicious mumblings to the wall and hopes it sticks.I would not recommend this book to anyone looking for a solid and concise source on Princess Diana.

"How was it done, the assassination" asks the author. "I don't know"! After pages of "unanswered questions" which are the same questions every journalist asked immediately after Diana's death, she has no theory of who, how or why, only guesses. Don't waste your money on guesses. Her "Shakespearean diatribes," as another reviewer called them, were silly and all unrelated to Diana's situation (Elizabeth I's execution of the Earl of Essex? Or her being held prisoner in the Tower while Mary was queen?). All end with basically the same intonation: "It is for the good of England. It must be done." It is ridiculous.

"I have made every effort to be as accurate as possible." Not historically, apparently. She compares Diana to Anne Bolyn (who were close to the same ages when they died, though that is not mentioned in the book; and Anne died because she couldn't give Henry a son, while Diana gave her husband two), and tells how Anne wanted to marry Henry Percy, "heir to The Earl of Northampton." Wrong, Percy was heir to the Earl of Northumberland! I knew this was wrong the instant I read it, without having to research it (although I did to make sure I wasn't mistaken; if I were writing a book I would certainly be sure of my historical facts before using them. "...Nor when his [Henry VIII's] daughter Mary killed off her opponents..." Mary was not called "Bloody Mary" because of killing off "opponents" (although she did execute Jane Gray, two of the Dudley clan, and Thomas Wyatt, among others, for a rebellion). She killed nearly 300 people by burning at the stake because they would not say they were Catholic (that is, would not recognize transubstantiation or that the Pope was the head of the church). The only political person burned was Thomas Cranmer, who engineered Anne Bolyn's marriage [resulting in the birth of Elizabeth I]. He was burned even after recanting his Protestantism, although in all other cases it gave one freedom. She just wanted him dead.

She has an entire chapter titled "Unanswered Questions," yet does not appear to have tried on her own to find answers to them, just repeated things that were in news stories. "Why would an emergency physician have a medical bag containing only one item (oxygen)?" Did she call the Paris hospital and try to answer this question, or even find out the name of the physician? If so, she doesn't say, but then she appears not to have tried to find answers to any of her twenty-one questions on her own at all. And her rhetorical questions are a bit schizophrenic: one time it implies the Queen is the culprit, another time Charles, another time the courtiers, another time MI5/MI6, even once implying Dodi's former brother-in-law (in the "arms" business) might have had a reason to kill her. Who was it? Can't she even stick to one theory and try to back it up with facts?

Other unanswered questions: "The speedometer was 'stuck'--what causes a speedometer to stick?" Did she call the Mercedes company and ask how this can happen and how often it does? "...The video cameras used inside the tunnel to monitor traffic were off when the accident happened. I wonder how frequently this happens." [note there is no question mark at the end of the sentence, only a period] Why didn't she check with whoever is responsible for those cameras and find out what there reason was for the cameras being turned off, IF the cameras were turned off, and how often they are turned off and for what reasons? Why keep asking questions and not look for answers? If I had been writing a book about the same subject, I would certainly have checked things out instead of regurgitating what has already been said and theorized.

"I don't know what happened that night....Information...changed almost hourly. But some facts _are_ known....A white Fiat was involved in the accident, probably _caused_ the accident..." So did the Fiat cause the accident or not? "Probably" does not constitute a fact!

"...Trevor Rees Jones could not communicate with authorities at first because his lips and tongue had been cut off by the 'accident.' (How ironic can you get?)" How sick can you get? Rees Jones was in critical condition for quite a while after the accident. His injuries were so severe that amnesia regarding the accident is completely believable. Even a mild concussion can cause loss of short-term memory, so that someone sustaining a concussion in a car accident may never remember the accident itself. Considering the extent of his injuries, it is no surprise at all (from a medical standpoint) that he doesn't remember. And he probably will never remember it, as there was no time for his brain to store the events into his long-term memory.

One comment the author made is how Diana "brought the Monarchy kicking and screaming into the 21st century." Diana died in 1997. She didn't make it into the 21st century.

Footnote 7 for chapter eight is not labeled in the chapter itself, only appearing in the "Notes" section. It states: "I saw a re-enactment of this on television, based on skid marks and other evidence. It was very convincing." Not knowing what part of the chapter it is connected with, it is not known exactly what she is referring to. But a re-enactment on television is not fact. And what is the "other evidence"? Even if one knows what "it" is that was convincing to her. What is the name of the show that had the re-enactment? When did she see it?

She claims to have been a royal watcher for "seventy years," since "the 1930s." How old is she? One hundred? What are her qualifications to make her a royal watcher? Reading People Magazine? My mother is 75 and has been reading about the royals (and watching newsreels about them many years ago) for most of her life but she doesn't pretend to be an expert on them. But my mother could write a more accurate book than this author. So could I; I can copy from other books and write rumors as well as anyone. (I say copy from other books because I had major deja vu several times during the reading of this book; I had read the same passages [worded exactly the same way] in other books prior to reading this one).

The sum of this review is to say that if you are looking for answers regarding a conspiracy to kill Diana, don't bother looking here. The author can't even say for certain that there was a conspiracy. Certainly she has no evidence to back up a conspiracy; only "unanswered questions" and old theories.

Basically, save your money.

In my humble opinion, this is a poorly written, poorly researched mess. I am sorry I wasted my money.