The move wasn't much of a surprise. Phyllis Grann, president of rival publishing house Penguin Putnam, predicts sales of The Royals will now double original expectations. "The appetite right now is insatiable," she says. As for the question of propriety, Kirshbaum now seems unfazed. "I happen to think it's a legitimate piece of journalism and history," he says, "and that we should not back away from it." In fact, notes Kirshbaum, "I think PEOPLE is gutless. I find it shocking that so many journalists have gotten squeamish about telling the truth." (Warner Books and People are both part of Time Warner, as is ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY. Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief of Time Inc., says, "Larry's and PEOPLE's positions, while different, are both defensible, given the different mediums.")
Kirshbaum also insists Kelley was indeed "totally blown away" by Diana's death and "indicated" that she would have liked to postpone publication. "But she's a realist," he says. "She accepted the decision."
Kelley's critics, however, see her loud protestations about the early release as too convenient an excuse. "She's never let this sort of thing bother her before," snipes London Daily Mail writer Robin Simon. "Suddenly she's developed a conscience, the sensitive little thing." And despite her apparent grief, Kelley, who got a $5 million advance for the book, willingly sat for 13 interviews to publicize the book on Sept. 15 alone. In fact, a two-part Dateline NBC interview, which aired Sept. 15 and Sept. 16, was taped only two days after Diana's funeral.
One group to which Kelley will not grant interviews is the international press. Because of Britain's more stringent libel laws, The Royals will not be sold in the Windsors' own backyard. Of course, the book's revelations are already making their way to the British public; there's been a brisk exchange of information on the Internet. And a number of U.K. newspapers have already eagerly reported on the book's details, albeit with names removed. ("One living member of the royal family is accused of vitriolic...anti-Semitism," reads a typical line in an article in The Guardian.)
But in the post-Diana era of new press sensitivity, some English papers are trying to act with restraint. Sources say The Daily Telegraph, a conservative broadsheet, will not run anything on the book. And The Independent has also resisted conveying too many of The Royals' details. Says David Usborne, New York correspondent for the paper, "We will certainly report on it. What's at issue is how much."
For her part, Kelley seems blithely unconcerned about such issues. "She stood up to the biggest establishment on earth," Kelley says, implying a common ground for herself and the princess. Kelley hopes her book will help propel the monarchy into modernity — just as Diana did. "The royals have mastered the art of diplomacy and euphemism," she says. "This book is the exact opposite of that. It's blunt and direct. It needed to be done." And now that it's done, she can cry all the way to the bank. (Additional reporting by Matthew Flamm, Katherine Hazelwood, and Jessica Shaw)
You Might Also Like
- Book Review The Royals | Lisa Schwarzbaum
