Was Diana spooked by Bashir?
There’s an intriguing passage in an article by Richard Kay and Geoffrey Levy in today’s Daily Mail. #
In careful language that has probably been crawled over by the paper’s lawyers, the writers seem to suggest that Diana’s belief that Prince Charles was planning to kill her may have been planted in her mind by journalist Martin Bashir in an attempt to spook her into doing an interview with him on the BBC’s Panorama.
He later succeeded, of course, and it finished Diana with the Royal Family and led directly to her divorce. Bashir is also known for befriending Michael Jackson to establish trust and then attacking him in the subsequent film.
Here’s the passage in the Mail’s article :
Other toxic whisperers were at work deliberately stoking up her suspicions against Prince Charles, especially in relation to Tiggy, who, the voices said, had transplanted Camilla in the Prince’s affections. They also fed her the possibility that, since she no longer had police protection and often drove alone, Charles might solve his problems by having her killed — hence her letter claiming that the Prince would arrange for her to meet her death in her car.
These whisperers have never been identified. But one person who coincidentally benefited is the television journalist Martin Bashir. For, at around this time, he was trying to persuade Diana to give him an interview on BBC television’s Panorama. When, after several months, the deeply emotional and distressed Princess finally agreed, it gave Bashir one of the biggest television scoops of all time.
Powerful stuff. If true, it exonerates Prince Charles from all the nastiness he’s been accused of since then.
Royal Anecdotes has never believed either he, or Prince Philip, went beyond private disapproval of Diana, especially when everything was spiralling out of control in the run up to her death.
John those whisperers were members of the RF household to isolate her and see if she would go to the press. Martin Bashir was granted the interview by showing her phony documents and bank statements that plots were about and she should give the interview. Even if Charles and Phillip had nothing to do with any of the events, There certainly were those surrounding them with their own agendas.
By Trudie on October 4th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Trudie, Richard Kay was close to Diana at that time, and he’s definitely drawing a link with Bashir in planting the false idea that Charles wanted her killed. It seems he may also have been involved in the suggestion that the Queen had Alzheimer’s and would abdicate, and that Tiggy would marry Charles. All total baloney. If Diana had had her wits about her, she would have known it was all untrue.
By John on October 4th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Also, Kay writes that “the whisperers” have never been identified, so may not have existed at all. He does name Bashir, though, and that’s very significant.
By John on October 4th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I’m sorry , but how does this theory exonerate Charles?
It seems likely the charles’ supporters spread these rumors so that Diana would become increasingly more paranoid. I don’t believe this would have happended without Charles’ knowledge or approval. This does not make Charles look very good.
Bashir probably did use these rumors to convince Diana for that interview.
No wonder Diana was paranoid- everyone really was out to get her!
By tammy on October 4th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Hang on, John – before we decide that Diana was without her “wits” to believe the whisperings, let’s remember the situation and the person involved. Diana was in a terrible marriage with a husband who was in love with someone else, and she had no idea what would happen to her if they should divorce. I mean, she had no idea of what would happen to her children, her life, etc., NOT that she worried about her murder. She knew that a divorce would be a mess to figure out and that her boys would have divorced parents, as she did. If she listened to people telling her stories about Charles, it was while she was weighing all of this other stuff. She was most likely very depressed at this time (as most people in the same situation are).
I know it all sounds farfetched, but she was already broken down and wasn’t the most stable to begin with. If anyone started the ‘whisperings’ while she was in that state, they knew exactly what they were doing. A person in a depressed state is VERY susceptible to persuasive people.
I am not saying I believe this story, or that I think anyone told her anything. I just don’t like to see people dismiss someone by saying “They should have known better,” when many people in bad situations often do not know better at that time.
By SadieBoo on October 4th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Sadie, I agree with your basic view. Richard Kay, who knew her then, writes that she was in a paranoid state of mind. The point being that the letter she wrote about Prince Charles arranging to kill her shouldn’t be taken seriously. However, if Martin Bashir is the “whisperer”, as Kay seems to believe, it puts a lot of these rumours (Tiggy, abdication, etcetera) in perspective.
By John on October 4th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Richard Kay has been a bag boy for certain members of the Royal Family for some time now. I doubt he was ever a true friend of Princess Diana. As for what he writes currently–Princess Diana is dead and if he wants access to the Royal Family and patronage (they all do) he needs to support Charles, who will be king. I place little credence in his reporting.
By Gigi on October 4th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
John, it sounds to me as if this article written by Richard Kay is saying that Diana was lied to and deliberately misled by different factions, including certain friends of Prince Charles and by the journalist Martin Bashir, and other as yet unnamed members of the press.
It also sounds like the article is saying that Diana believed the lies only because she was in a vulnerable and emotionally upset state of mind, due to the extreme stress the disappointments of her marriage had placed on her. If that’s what is being said, then I can see how it’s possible that might have been the case.
By mapleleaf on October 4th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Tammy, some people put all the blame on Charles. Nobody considers that Diana may have been a touch over-demanding at home. Now, we’re beginning to hear that Charles is not the total monster some people think. That’s good, it moves us closer to the truth.
By John on October 4th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
John, I think we already know the truth. Prince Charles is a spoiled, pampered man, who was never willing to give up Camilla for the sake of his marriage to Diana. Charles and Camilla were very happy playing “Edward VII and Alice Keppel” and anyone who interfered be damned! Unfortunately, Diana interfered and she was damned. Charles never, emotionally, put his wife before his mistress and that drove Diana into a state of hopelessness. When Diana began to spiral out of control, Charles, Camilla and their “friends” happily pushed Diana with both hands. It’s hard for a young mother of two, in her twenties, to battle such evil forces.
By Arthur on October 4th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Well said, Arthur! Thank you for posting that!
By Gigi on October 4th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
John,
I agree with Arthur and Gigi. “Diana may have been a touch over-demanding at home????” My husband’s having a mistress since the day I walked down the aisle with him would make me little touchy too!! The deck was stacked against her when she started. He picked her b/c he thought she would have no choice but to put up with his nonsense not only b/c he is the P of Wales but because she was only 19 and at least back then, pretty compliant. You are right that there are always two sides to every story and somewhere therein lies the truth. But she deserved better than she got, both as a child (yes I know she was very privileged) and as an adult. Your husband should be your best friend. And to think she gave him those two wonderful boys. I am very surprised he can look them straight in the eye.
By Mary on October 5th, 2007 at 12:41 am
“I am very surprised he can look them straight in the eye.”
I think the fact that he can look them BOTH in the eye means that things are far more complicated than Diana having simply been a pure victim of her circumstances and Charles an evil, sick and plotting rogue.
While I don’t really like the insinuation that it was Diana’s “fault” that she died–a point of view that conveniently overlooks why Diana might have wanted freedom from the royal machinery and smacks of a discomfiting of paternalism and chauvinism–I think it’s much too extreme to assume that her death was the result of a hit. ‘Cmon people. The minute Diana died, initial reports said: “Well, Charles won’t be able to marry Camilla now.” That was the gut reaction everyone had–that these two would NEVER marry, not that suddenly Charles was *sigh of relief* in the clear.
This is the royal family and the western world we are talking about. Not residents of Fantasy Island or the Bermuda Triangle.
It disturbs me when reasonably articulate people start spouting off and believing conspiracy theories. For one, it makes the stereotypes that the British have of Americans look embarrassingly accurate. For two, it starts to make me wonder if we aren’t headed for some kind of Middle Ages redux.
By Panda on October 5th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Oh John, you have won, I just saw photos of William and Kate together. I had to congratulate you, I am not a sore loser. You were right. Oh well. I was wrong. They are back on evidently.
(Sorry to put it here on this story, but nothing about W&K was in the story areas, that I could see.)
By mandy on October 5th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Mandy, they have been back together for a while but keeping a low profile on Royal Anecdotes’ advice.
I don’t think it’s a matter of who “won”, we can only report what’s out there and make inferences from it.
I’ll look out for some pictures.
By John on October 5th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Mary, Panda’s right, it’s never totally one-sided in marriage breakdowns. Diana was an emotionally needy woman who wanted to be adored. Charles is a reflective man who likes to read Jung and mess about in the country with horses and fields of organic vegetables.
From both sides of the marriage, the other must have seemed like a pain. Charles must have found Camilla’s simple country lifestyle a huge relief. And that’s really the story of the marriage — no-one to blame, except perhaps those who thought it would work in the first place.
By John on October 5th, 2007 at 8:51 am
I don’t think it was her simple country lifestyle .. . .
By Mary on October 5th, 2007 at 10:48 am
So John I wonder how Charles feels now that Cams simple country lifestyle is now grander thanks to him.
By Trudie on October 5th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Well, Trudie, they can’t go hunting now because of Tony blair’s ban. I’m sure they’ll find something to do, though.
By John on October 5th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Aw, Mandy.
First of all, I agree with John–no one has “won” here. It just turned out that all the rumors and speculation have some basis in fact. You were right that there were no real photos of these two together for quite some time.
I think it’s cool, though, that you posted. I hope you stick around.
By Panda on October 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
So John where is the nearest vegetable patch? hehehehehe
By Trudie on October 6th, 2007 at 12:26 am
I heard the rumor that Bashir manipulated Di’s fears before; I think he may be quite devious.
By kit on October 10th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
There are many cases which can be made against both Prince Charles and Diana, if one were to able to trust the myriad of stories found in their biographies. One could say Diana was so intent upon marrying the future King of England that she failed to get to know the ‘real man,’ the man Camilla knew and loved. One could say Prince Charles was cold and heartless in the manner which he chose Diana, in a seemingly off-handed way, as if he were picking out which pair of shoes to wear (and with as little thought). One could say Diana tricked Charles by behaving in a coquettish fashion and claiming to enjoy the same past times…and that she loved the great outdoors. One could also admit Charles tricked Diana even more by failing to disclose his deep feelings for Camilla. Once Diana became addicted to the spotlight, a case could be made that she suffered from narcissistic personality disorder. She tended to use people and ‘throw them away’ when it suited her. A slight, real or imagined, by one of her friends and associates would result in the ‘offender’ being ‘cast into the outer darkness,’ shunned by Diana with nary an explanation. Her manipulation of the media, especially her game to appear the better parent, was unfair. Charles was a cold-hearted bastard to leave Diana to languish alone on their honeymoon cruise, hanging out in the kitchen with the help. Diana was wrong to stir up lies about her supposed suicide attempt. She was hypocritical in claiming there were three in the marriage, when the list of her lovers was long. Charles was ultimately the worst of the two for betraying the romantic and loving desire Diana felt for him. It was his job to nurture her heart and protect her spirit…after all, he was such a ‘mature’ 32, and she a 19-year-old girl full of love dreams fed by an endless diet of Cartland novels. Regarding Diana’s lovers–who could blame her for taking them, when she was doomed as a beautiful young woman to live without her husband’s love? Camilla. Camilla should have butted out entirely, just dropped out of Charles’ life so he could work things out with Diana. Given time and emotional security, Diana might have stopped being so demanding and emotionally needy. Charles, given time, might have forged strong enough emotional bonds with Diana that they might have had a real marriage. According to Charles’ friends, at some point, Diana became dangerous to Charles when she realized how powerful she was with the media and world opinion/affection. She wielded that power against him. On the other hand, Diana was backed into the worst corner–surrounded by treacherous people within the RF and without, left to survive on her wits and instincts. In the end, it is not outside the realm of possibility to suggest that someone decided Diana needed to be done away with. Sorry for such a long post.
By AnnRG on October 11th, 2007 at 10:37 am
AnnRG, I agree with all your points up to the last sentence.
They were utterly unsuited to each other, and someone should have spotted that. They probably did but argued that Diana would observe the aristocratic code about mistresses and “bits on the side”. She didn’t.
Now, whether that was good or bad depends on your point of view. I’ve long argued that her children would have been happier had she done so. Being a dutiful wife, while having the freedom to play away discreetly, may not have suited her perfectly, but it would have given her, and her family, a better fate than she eventually provided for herself.
By John on October 11th, 2007 at 10:52 am