'Diana had once struggled to make sense of her life': Andrew Morton

As 2017 marks 20 years of Princess Diana's death, Andrew Morton, who penned Diana: Her True Story in 1992, reflects on the charismatic princess, her legacy and the taped conversations that formed an integral part of his bestselling book

What happens to a marriage after the fairytale is over? The answer may be found in British journalist Andrew Morton's book Diana: Her True Story. Based on taped conversations with proxy intermediary Dr James Colthurst, Diana's admission of a rocky marriage and her struggles to 'fit in' form the crux of the 448-page book that first released in 1992. However, it wasn't until 1997, when Diana succumbed to grievous injuries following an accident in Paris, that Morton made it known that the source of his "breakthrough, if not definitive" work on Diana was the Princess herself. Ever since, Morton has written biographies of several international personalities (chief among them being that of Monica Lewinsky, and unauthorised biographies of Tom Cruise and Angelina Jolie, among others) and is on his way to writing one on Wallis Simpson, the woman who is believed to be the reason why Edward VIII abdicated the British throne. With 2017 marking 20 years of Diana's tragic death, the conversation around the book and Diana's confessions have once again gathered steam. Morton, 63, who will be in Dubai in March next year as part of the Emirates Airline Festival of Literature, tells us why the book remains an important, if not absolutely comprehensive, work when it comes to understanding Diana, and the British royalty at large.
You did not start out as a royal correspondent. What led you to eventually become one?
I started as an industrial reporter and wanted to cover Parliament. But one day, my editor said he wanted me to cover the royal family. I told him I knew nothing about the royal family. And I felt physically old. It's a competitive world, and I had no contacts. But I persevered. I built my contacts over several months and years. I realised it was a great opportunity as a journalist, because it allowed me to not just write newspaper articles, but also books. The first book I wrote was on Prince Andrew. It was called Andrew: The Playboy Prince (1983). It was described by one newspaper as the worst book ever written (laughs). So from that point onwards, it clearly had to get better.

Andrew Morton (Photo: Ken Lennox)
When you first heard the Diana tapes, what was your initial reaction? Were you anticipating the wave of criticism that would come your way after the publication of your book?
When I first heard Diana's tapes, I was in a café in north London. I heard the tapes and felt very wary walking back home. It felt like I was nursing a secret. It was a true story of what was going on inside the royal family. I knew I would have to go through a tsunami of criticism. The first thing I needed was a newspaper to support it. Thankfully, The Sunday Times serialised the book, and Andrew Neil, who was the editor, defended it. Secondly, I had to make sure that the book was 100 per cent accurate. If I got even one fact wrong, I knew people would use it to discredit everything else and say, "Oh! Andrew Morton has made it up." I thought that I had been clever in laying the groundwork in the British media because I had been writing about the royal family, which demonstrated to people that I knew what I was talking about. But people have still complained about the book, about the fact that it exists at all.
Did you ever receive any form of acknowledgement from Diana after the publication of the book?
She had read the manuscript before it was published, and had made some comments on it. There was one chapter where she talked about her steady recovery during various incidents in her life, which brought back many memories and she wept. So, she was very moved by her own life. Obviously, she was very jittery when it came out, as we all were. But that's not to say she ever regretted it. She'd struggled to make sense of her life. The tragedy, for me, was that she was making sense of her life towards the end. She looked happy and content.

As a biographer, how would you describe your relationships with your subjects? How did they evolve over a period of time?
I first met Monica (Lewinsky) in New York and that happened by chance. Right in the middle of the scandal, her lawyer read my Diana book and thought I'd be a good fit. She herself did not know anything about the book. We got along well and bonded over our mutual love of T.S. Eliot, the British poet. In fact, when we first met, we were reciting verses of Eliot to each other. I still keep in touch with her. I think I am one of the few people who can say I've had breakfast with Donald Trump and Monica Lewinsky in the first line of conversation.
I did not get cooperation from Tom Cruise because, obviously, I was intrigued by Scientology and why he joined it. Madonna, on the other hand, is a very controlling person. So, the book had to be independent of that. It's often said that you should keep a distance with your subject as a biographer, and that is true. Once you get too close to your subject, then it no longer becomes a biography, it becomes an ideography.
I met Diana on numerous occasions and receptions and we had a few conversations. We got along very well, but on a superficial level. During the whole process of interviewing her by proxy, she would contact my friend, the intermediary Dr James Colthurst. She just wanted a deniability so that she could look at the Queen or Prince Philip in the eye and say, "I did not speak to Andrew Morton for this book." But the relationship was quite intimate in a curious sort of way.
The unique aspect of the Diana book was that it was done with her complete cooperation. As the title suggests, it was her true story. Now, we have a big argument about that, because it's not a true story, it does not have Prince Charles' version of events. Someone may ask why I didn't write about James Hewitt's relationship with Diana. Well, I actually wrote to Hewitt, and he was quite emphatic in not wanting to speak to me. Quite frankly, I had enough on my plate, touching upon Charles' relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, Diana's own struggle with bulimia... Diana just passed her relationship with Hewitt as being 'friends'. She was being quiet about it, and so was Hewitt. There are strict libel laws in Britain and there's nowhere you can go without them. Biographies are essentially a range-finding exercise with a gun. You find a target and, over a period of time, you perfect your aim as you begin to get more and more information about them. That's the case with the Diana book. It's a breakthrough book that exploded the myth of a fairytale marriage. But then other books have come after it, and have added to the information. My book is not a definitive book, but it is a breakthrough book. To secretly tape conversations with a princess - that has a mythic quality about it.
As someone who has chronicled the lives of the British royal family, how do you think the media's understanding of them has changed over the years, if at all?
Everything has changed and yet nothing has. The fascination for the royal family has gone down. The intensity is not the same as it was with Diana in the 1980s. If you see the royal family as a share, they were riding high in the '80s, then plunged in the '90s and are slowly coming back with the work of William and Harry. We saw with the anniversary of Diana that there's still intense interest in her 20 years after she died. The royal family lost perhaps the most luminous and charismatic figure they ever had. William and Catherine are pleasant people, and they seem to be very happily married. There's no drama there. The media (narrative) exists on complexities and drama. Harry is the wild card; he is fascinating. A lot of people have respect for him. But he's not going to be the king. And then you have Charles and Camilla. However, they will always be remembered for having an affair that wrecked the marriage of Charles and Diana. The royal family are still of interest to major newspapers and television channels. But if you look at the '80s, all kinds of documentaries were made about them. The whole thing has been dialled down. I think the royal family are now treated as people, not as icons. And people see themselves as citizens rather than as subjects in a monarchy. Basically, people have grown up.
Be it the The Queen or The Crown, a number of films and TV serials are now revisiting Queen Elizabeth's life. Is it part of a larger project to reconstruct, perhaps even redefine, the image of British royalty?
I have to say The Crown (the Netflix drama) has been a game changer in the way the world looks at them. This show, alongwith The Young Victoria (a 2009 film on the reign of Queen Victoria) and many others, dramatise royal lives. I have seen all kinds of royal dramas and documentaries before, but those did not have the kind of impact that Peter Morgan has had with The Queen (2006) and then The Audience (a 2013 play on all six Prime Ministers and the Queen). The Queen's life has been fascinating, but has been treated in a mundane way. Peter Morgan (who is also the creator of The Crown) has added an imaginative quality, relevance and authenticity to it, which has drawn people in. It has also coincided with the need to look back at the past. You've seen the popularity of Downton Abbey. These dramas give us a sense of comfort; there's also a sense of intrigue because you are looking at others' lives - the lives of the rich and the famous - albeit in a way that's intelligent and perceptive.
How is the public perception of William and Catherine different from that of Charles and Diana?
I think they're (William and Catherine) popular, but the world of 2017 is no longer the world of 1980s. William himself does not see his position as a calling with a religious element; he sees it as a job. Catherine is quite glamorous in her own way. There is an excitement about them. They're steady, they're dependable. In the '80s, the royal family was just elevated out of proportion to their relevance. The fascination with Diana was intense. We don't have that now. Also, William has been active legally in preventing any kind of paparazzi intrusion into their lives.
Many critics of your books feel you've been a little too sympathetic to your subjects. What is your position on that?
Well, quite frankly, I don't bother reading reviews. If I wasn't sympathetic, they'd say you're not sympathetic enough. So, what I do is collect facts, information and opinions about people and I allow that information to form a point of view. It's an exploration. For example, I was struck by the Monica Lewinsky book, by how much criticism she was prepared to take. The Monica era has relevance today because you're dealing with predatory bosses.
You've also written the biography of former Kenyan president Daniel Arap Moi. How was that project different from other works where you have documented the lives of 'glamorous' people?
What did I know about Kenya? Nothing. As I started work on the book, I came to understand how complicated and fragmented politics are in Africa generally and in Kenya specifically. Everything's got a past. What I did find, and what amuses me, is that in Britain, a journalist comes knocking on the door and people get suspicious. But in Kenya, people are quite open. Personally, I feel there should be more biographies about African leaders and politicians. Most North African communities have oral traditions, and these are dying out. And that's why I feel there is a need for written literature about these societies.
As an observer, what fascinates you more - the individuals or the institutions in which they operate?
It's the individual within an institution. Tom Cruise within Scientology, Diana within the royal family, Wallis Simpson within the monarchy, Angelina Jolie inside the Hollywood system. They tend to go together. The best books tend to be about people and how they cope with being put into an institution. How did Diana cope? The answer is she couldn't.
Has there been a moment when you may have been personally unnerved by the information you received on your subjects?
For the Angelina Jolie book, I discovered how her mother had abandoned her when she was a baby, because she was just so emotionally affected by her husband's (Jon Voight) affair with another woman. Little Angelina was left to her own devices in the care of a parade of nannies. That information was given to me by one of her nannies, who was in tears when she described the life that baby Angelina lived. That was a very intimate moment. With Monica Lewinsky, she was scarred; the FBI had already interviewed her on numerous occasions by what was published in the Starr Report. It (recalling those moments) was very intimate and raw for her.
What is your next book about?
I have a book on Wallis Simpson coming out in February. I will be talking about that at the Emirates Airline Festival of Literature next year. The book will be about her life, which has been painted in one colour. While researching 17 Carnations (Norton's 2015 book on the Windsors' friendship with the Nazis), I realised the moment Wallis comes into the picture, she adds a certain vigour to the story. I had a hunch there could be more intriguing information about her and it turned out to be correct. 2018 will be an editorial challenge as I might also write a script for a film on the Duke of Windsor and his links to Hitler.
What are you looking forward to the most at the Emirates Airline Festival of Literature next year?
The last time I came to Dubai was in 1988 with Charles and Diana. The place has transformed, I hear. So I am looking forward to seeing the transformation, as well as enjoying interesting, intelligent conversation about biographies and literature.
anamika@khaleejtimes.com