Rating: 
Summary: Straining to be scholarly
Review: There are dozens of vapid biographies of both Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis and Princess Diana out there, but this book manages to do the work of two: It has vapid info on both of them! What a thrill! Jay Mulvaney strains to produce some sort of substantial comparison and contrast, but the result is less than satisfying. (Considering that his only other books are about Kennedys and clothing, I wasn't expecting anything too earth-shattering)Using the trio of "naiden, mother, myth" (instead of "maiden, mother, crone"), he examines the lives of both Di and Jackie -- their childhoods, their marriages, the two children each of them had, their husbands, and their lives after their husbands (in Di's case, post-divorce; in both of Jackie's cases, in widowhood). One of the biggest problems with this book is the superficiality. The book makes a great deal out of similarities that just don't mean much -- divorced parents, philandering husbands, overbearing in-laws, out-of-control weddings, and so on. But the fact is that though there are some similarities (both of them became irrational focuses for the masses), there isn't a lot of similarity under the surface. Yes, both of them had divorced parents, but WHY they divorced is drastically different. Yes, both of their husbands cheated on them, but they had drastically different personas. Those husbands were a shy, spoiled aristocrat and an outgoing, charismatic elected leader; one actually NEEDED a wife to uphold his image in order to get his position, while the other just wanted one. Despite what Mulvaney says, Diana was not close to Jackie's level intellectually (by her own admission, no less). And their own personalities were at different ends of the scale -- outgoing and sensitive, versus private and almost snobby. The superficiality of things like divorced parents, pretty clothes, crazy weddings and obnoxious in-laws are clearly shown. Moreover, Mulvaney seems to be one of those biographers who dreads speaking ill of anyone. He claims it would be "harsh" to refer to Rose Kennedy or Queen Elizabeth II as a bad mom. Well, Charles and Jack were quite harsh, then. Bad personality traits are watered down, obnoxious tendencies are diminished. The worst thing he says about Rose is that her memoirs are full of "half truths and evasions." (Mulvaney has an evasion of his own: Rose disliked Jackie) In short, this book can be summarized as: "Jackie and Di had some similarities." It doesn't even provide interesting pictures or any new information whatsoever; everything in this book is gleaned from previous material. All the "intertwining" that Mulvaney can manage is to start many of the paragraphs with, "Like Diana..." or "Like Jackie..." Basically, this book feels like an attempt to draw in Di and Jackie enthusiasts all at once. It could just as easily have been about Diana and Grace Kelly, or Jackie and Hillary Clinton. A quick'n'dirty, very generic read about the Windsors and Kennedys, and there ain't nothing new here.
Rating: 
Summary: Two very amazing women
Review: These two women proved to the world that you don't need a royal title to be able to get people to listen and help get things done. They also showed a kind, soft side to themselves. Trying to protect their children from the press and all the terrible tabloid printing. Diana wanted nothing more than to be queen of peoples hearts and she has done that. Charles didn't know what he lost when he lost her. Their children were first in their lives and they made that clear.
Rating:
Summary: Two very amazing women
Review: These two women proved to the world that you don't need a royal title to be able to get people to listen and help get things done. They also showed a kind, soft side to themselves. Trying to protect their children from the press and all the terrible tabloid printing. Diana wanted nothing more than to be queen of peoples hearts and she has done that. Charles didn't know what he lost when he lost her. Their children were first in their lives and they made that clear.
Rating:
Summary: Americans: Beware your fondness for the English monarchy.
Review: This book is proof of the how far Americans have fallen from the noble principles of the Revolution. Somehow we seem to have forgotten that desprite all of the the superficial similarities, there is one striking difference between Jackie O. and Princess Di: The one was wife of a public servant freely elected by the people of a fully democratic nation; the other a descendent of the thieves and crooks who sucked on the blood of the European peasantry. The saddest thing, however, is that the servile submissiveness of the American people, and their unquenchable desire to worship bland celebrities as though they were Gods, perhaps teaches us that the hopes of our forefathers were premature --- that, like the Jews in the bible, the American people, having won themselves freedom, are clamoring for a king.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating look at two great ladies
Review: This book really turned me around on how much both Princess Di and Jackie Onassis accomplished in a substantive way with their lives. I always thought, "oh they were like Barbie dollls, attractive but not worth much more than a pretty photograph." Boy was I wrong. They each really worked hard at the things they loved, and it was really interesting to see the parallels in their two lives...how much they were alike and, more telling, how much they differed. Jackie was stronger, more self assured, but Diana was more compelling and vibrant. They both made great contributions to the world and this book does an excellent job of making the case that each woman deserves to be taken seriously as a female role model and icon.
Rating: 
Summary: Extraordinary Everywomen
Review: What an interesting book! Mulvaney takes the lives of the two most chronicled, photographed women of the 20th century and puts them in a fascinating new context. While there is little new here in terms of facts or photos, it's the writer's interpretation of this oft-told tales that make the book worth reading. (For example, I never realized how similar Jackie's and Diana's realtionships with their mothers-in-law were.) By contrasting the way these two world famous women played the roles most women are expected to play -- maiden, wife and mother -- he makes their extraordinary lives more relatable. Most fascinating of all to me was the cross-cultural note: It was Jackie, enigmatic to the end, who kept her private life private and maintained an almost-English "stiff upper lip;" it was Diana who openly, impusively shared her life with world in a more typically American fashion. And it remains Jackie's sense of mystery and Diana's vulnerabiity that continue to fascinate us, years after they're gone.
| 
