BBC Martin Bashir - Diana shocked.

[justasking111]

The more that comes out about the panorama interview and the way things were invented/forged. Bank statements, telephone records, stories about the family to encourage Diana to talk to Bashir. I just cannot believe what is emerging from this, things that would have influenced me if I had been Diana and no-one verified it independently.

I remember that suggestion ( that Charles was worried that the public would shout abuse at him). It wasn’t that far fetched a possibility at the time, Diana was worshipped by some.

It was a real mess at the time. It was felt (by the public/media) that the queen was cold and unemotional for not saying enough about diana’s death and keeping the boys in Scotland. And then Tony Blair became involved and that evolved into a “fitting” funeral for Diana. Not quite sure how the idea for the procession came about but it seemed to be mostly to appease public opinion that the RF wasn't doing enough to grieve over Diana

PresentingPercy makes a lot of good points.

When William said about his parent's relationship-I took it as meaning that things could maybe have become civil between them.

Obviously not that there would have been a reconciliation.

I doubt a wife and daughter would leave (Bashir) when he is so unwell?

Bearing in mind that UK mdeical records are rightly private, does anyone actually know that he's unwell?

I realise this is what he's said - and for all I know some might actually believe it's why he left the BBC immediately before the report's publication - but he's been shown to be a liar of the very worst kind, so I'm afraid I wouldn't want to take his word for it

And after all, he wouldn't be the first to have claimed illness to escape a sticky situation, then had an almost miraculous recovery later

@diddl

When William said about his parent's relationship-I took it as meaning that things could maybe have become civil between them.

Obviously not that there would have been a reconciliation.

That's how I took it too - that the way it went made their divorce much more unpleasant, and that all the lies exacerbated the distrust that she already felt and made her more paranoid. It didn't seem to me that he was excusing his father at all, but given it's fairly well known that she used William as a confidante it's not unrealistic for him to have seen a difference in her. The allegations about the nanny in particular were awful.

Bashir's illness has been reported as three different things, Long Covid, Heart Problems and something else that I can't remember right now. I am not convinced there's anything wrong with him at all tbh

@amusedtodeath1

Bashir's illness has been reported as three different things, Long Covid, Heart Problems and something else that I can't remember right now. I am not convinced there's anything wrong with him at all tbh

Pituitary/brain tumour, I think.

Yet he’s been consistently papped out collecting takeaways, buying scotch & charging his electric car. Which suggests he’s well enough to cooperate with an enquiry. He was well enough to have some dealings with the enquiry and to put out another unconvincing statement once the report was as published.

I have no doubt Diana would have done an interview with out the deception, but I'm not sure the content would have been the same. Regardless she was manipulated by Bashir/BBC and as such I do think they shouldn't be able to make money from it. In fact I believe the BBC and Bashir should donate any profit made from it to one of Diana's favourite Charities. I don't however think the words she spoke should be "stricken from the record"as such, but should always be regarded with the deception in mind.

He was well enough to have some dealings with the enquiry and to put out another unconvincing statement once the report was as published

Yes, that's true; it's not the same as undergoing a thorough grilling of course, but it's true all the same

To be clear I'm not stating anything either way about a man who could be seriously ill - I'm merely wondering if anyone actually knows, and remembering that if someone's lied about one important matter it's not necessarily wise to assume they're being truthful about another

Brain Tumor, that's it. Thanks Ricki, for that. Yeah, he has been out and about and giving statements.

I'm pretty sure it's bollox tbh.

She wouldn’t have been allowed to be driven by her boyfriend’s drunk driver, if she had kept her royal protection officers. They would have driven her. She got rid of her protection officers because Bashir told her they were giving information about her to the royal family

Do we think they weren’t? The police at the time were spying on Doreen Lawrence and numerous other “normal” people, do we genuinely believe they weren’t reporting anything back about somebody as important as Princess fucking Diana?

Bashir’s evidence was obviously faked, but I doubt that was the first time the idea had crossed Diana’s mind, or that she would have had full confidence in the impartiality of the police if it hadn’t been for him.

That is an interesting article linked above.

This paragraph in particular

And so it is that Prince Harry is now locked in his own grimly symbiotic relationship with sections of the British media. He won’t shut up, which is what they claim to want, but don’t, because his every SHAMELESS! AND! DISGRACEFUL! UTTERANCE! drives traffic. Attacks on Harry do huge business, so they continue. He, in turn, can point to those attacks as continued evidence of persecution. (Indeed, his livelihood might end up depending on wounded, marquee interviews. I’m not sure that long-term ratings lie in the Sussexes’ dull-sounding ideas for documentaries in which they themselves do not feature.

To be clear I'm not stating anything either way about a man who could be seriously ill - I'm merely wondering if anyone actually knows, and remembering that if someone's lied about one important matter it's not necessarily wise to assume they're being truthful about another

This. It reminds me of Ernest Saunders, who was sent to prison for his part in the Guinness scandal. Then he got out claiming to have altzheimers from which he somehow made a miraculous recovery.
Yes, Bashir is a compulsive liar so who knows what to believe.

And indeed this:

I think we can live without today’s preposterous moralising from much of Fleet Street, who know very well the terrible things they and others did on countless occasions to get stories relating to Diana or her wider family. “Defund the BBC,” was last night’s pontification from former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie, who once put Diana’s covertly recorded private phone calls on a premium-rate line so readers could ring in and have a listen. And those were the good years. Half the stuff these guys did in pursuit of Diana stories is, mercifully for them, completely unprintable.

Or this:

I once saw some old news footage in which the Queen and Prince Philip returned home from a royal tour after leaving their children for six months. A mere part of the welcome party, the unsmiling five-year-old Prince Charles waits dutifully – simply required to shake his mother’s hand. Anyone claiming this was entirely normal “in those days” has royal brain worms. Yet Prince Harry’s recent suggestion that neither he nor his father had an especially healthy childhood is regarded as some kind of grotesque blasphemy, mostly by people who would be quite happy to refer to the above vignette as child abuse were anyone other than the Queen involved. These days, what is expected of the royals has become so warped that it is perfectly standard to find MailOnline commenters fuming of Prince Harry “how DARE he bring his mother into this?”

My previous post was quotes from the Marina Hyde article linked upthread.

@amusedtodeath1

I have no doubt Diana would have done an interview with out the deception, but I'm not sure the content would have been the same. Regardless she was manipulated by Bashir/BBC and as such I do think they shouldn't be able to make money from it. In fact I believe the BBC and Bashir should donate any profit made from it to one of Diana's favourite Charities. I don't however think the words she spoke should be "stricken from the record"as such, but should always be regarded with the deception in mind.

Apparently an interview was being set up for Nicholas Witchell, but he was told to move aside for Panarama.

Although she suspected her protection officers might be reporting back, I would think it was the more personal aspects that would have 'tipped her over the edge' to give such an indepth interview - William given a watch by Charles that recorded their conversations, Tiggy and Charles having an affair (she was shown the receipt for a termination), Patrick Jephson receiving money from the Press when he was working directly for her., as was supposedly Charles' private secretary - she was shown the bank statements!

A PP mentioned Jephson writing books and commentating on royal matters (along with others), but to be fair, he needed to earn a living, and to my knowledge has never lied about Diana or other royal matters. I don't think all royal reporters are the scum of the earth, many are just doing their job.

Re: Charles having to shake hands after his parents six month tour - although it's not quite comparable (six weeks instead of six months for starters) don't think other wealthy parents do t do the same. I once had an agency job for a couple who lived in the heart of Chelsea. They had gone to Rio for six weeks and left the baby with the nanny who slipped a disc so I cared for the nanny and the baby.
When they got back I was feeding the baby (about six months old) in his large room. Father stuck his head round the door and said "Hello tiger" before disappearing upstairs. Mother came in, hugged the baby and said "mm you're delicious" before handing h back to me and saying "do you mind awfully if I go upstairs to rest - I've got jet lag and G has frightful diarrhoea" and that was the last I saw of them.

Also Sarah Ferguson left Beatrice at home when she was about six weeks to chase off after Andrew when he went back to sea. Can't remember for how long.

So for what it's worth, and obviously six months is a bit extreme but shorter periods is definitely not uncommon among the nanny employing classes.

Oh and apparently The Queen was left for six months when she was a baby too. Though I thought Margaret was around by then so either the Queen was older or it happened more than once.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1988-10-26-8802100550-story.html

Royals, this generation excepted, barely see their children from 0 to 16 years. Feeder prep near me for a top,public school. Advertises 'boarding from age 4'.

Great Marina Hyde article, as always. This stuck out for me

once saw some old news footage in which the Queen and Prince Philip returned home from a royal tour after leaving their children for six months. A mere part of the welcome party, the unsmiling five-year-old Prince Charles waits dutifully – simply required to shake his mother’s hand. Anyone claiming this was entirely normal “in those days” has royal brain worms. Yet Prince Harry’s recent suggestion that neither he nor his father had an especially healthy childhood is regarded as some kind of grotesque blasphemy, mostly by people who would be quite happy to refer to the above vignette as child abuse were anyone other than the Queen involved.

The fact is Charles didnt love Diana and had an affair with Camilla for most of their marriage. They can portray Diana as unstable/manipulative/whatever but he is the guilty party. I wonder what William really thinks about that given he seems to be well into RF protocol.

I believe it was Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell who cooked up the idea, can't imagine why

I wouldn’t be surprised if Alastair Campbell didn’t thoroughly enjoy the Royals discomfort and maybe he couldn’t care less if walking behind the coffin upset the young Princes. .

@longwayoff

Royals, this generation excepted, barely see their children from 0 to 16 years. Feeder prep near me for a top,public school. Advertises 'boarding from age 4'.

Which royals have boarded since the age of 4?

Harry may be very angry with the UK, especially the media, but it wasn't the UK media that was following her in the tunnel. I always understood it was French and Italian Paparazzi. (ie freelance photographers, who may well, then sell the pics to other newspapers).
I also noticed that Harry and Meghan prefer the foreign media, and it was to the foreign media, they first showed Archie, after the initial picture at WIndsor.
Not that I was bothered, but someone pointed this out to me, who found it irritating, whereas I believe they did it deliberately.

None.