A family at war
Sir: Your reviewer of my book Unity Milford alleges that my research methods were curious.' It need be said only that at the outset I informed all the Mitford sisters of ntY intention to write about Unity. For eighteen months I then gathered information in various forms—diaries, letters, interviews, Photographs—from over 200 people. Among all those I approached, just two People in this country decided not to help me for fear of upsetting anyone.
While interviewing, I copied down what was being said, and transcribed it afterwards. This material is comprised in my records in sixteen completed reporter's notebooks, with parts of several more besides; the transcriptions amounting to Just over 250 quarto pages written on both Sides in quite a small hand.
Once a proof of my book had been posted 10 Lady Mosley by my publishers, she and the Duchess of Devonshire between them Wrote to a great many of those mentioned in it, down to an aunt of mine whose help had been acknowledged in an Introduction. Seven people wrote replies to them which were then forwarded to my publishers by lawyers representing the Mosleys. All these seven had been extremely kind and conPerative throughout my researches. Not nne of them had disputed the truth of the Passages concerning them, but Lady Gainer did not recall having used the phrase 'Unity was a dumb blonde' and Lady Phipps did not think 'dreadful SS types' and 'sloppy English girls' were her expressions.
My notes in each case contain these very words, as they also contain the words, 'Bobo R-inity's nickname] had a cruel streak in her nature. She was cruel in her Jew-baiting,' Which Mrs Rodzianko 'felt pretty certain' as She Put it in her letter to Lady Mosley, she had not said. She telephoned me, and the sentence was removed from the book, a Fnurtesy which has been rendered pointless 1°Y your reviewer's publicising of the words. As for Lord Harlech, he is right to deny that he said Unity was half mad, for his actual Words were as quoted on page 52, 'She seemed marginally mad, at least so exagterated that rational conversation was Possible.' Both Lady Pansy Lamb and Sir John Heygate checked over what concerned them at proof stage, both made changes which were incorporated. And that is all there is to it. Your readers Will decide for themselves whether it is I or Your reviewer who misquotes and misrepresents.
‘.1-le was attempting to show that the drittsh upper classes, and Miss Mitford in Particular, influenced Hitler in his massacre
of the Jews.' Of all the assertions made by your reviewer, this must be exposed for the grotesque fantasy it is—as if Hitler needed to be influenced, or could be influenced, to do his best when it came to massacring Jews.
Finally your reviewer goes on a great deal about the Jewish establishment. l am puzzled to know who exactly these people are, and what precisely is their connection to my book.
David Pryce-Jones
London W8
Previous page
