Thoughts on Prince William's speech?

[Aspiringmatriarch]

I've been musing on this, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the Bashir interview created a 'false narrative'. Obviously Diana was lied to, which is appalling, and I'm sure that fueled some of her paranoia but isn't it true that she was spied on at times e.g. with the squidgygate tapes? And she'd already collaborated with Andrew Morton saying many of the same things, and apparently wanted to do an interview after Charles gave his.

I don't know... it just feels odd to me that William is essentially asking for it to be struck from the record. He was apparently angry with her after the Bashir interview and was teased about it at school, which must have been horrible. Is he trying to protect her memory or is there an element of trying to tidy it all away?

All those positive words about Scotland are far more likely to have been said with an eye to shoring up the Union than to be any reflection of the truth.

Which, to be fair, is the kind of thing the Royal family are for (if we accept there is any need for them). It's just hard to unsee the puppet strings.

Will somebody please join me in noting that the RF should not nab the right to rewrite their history as they see fit

I'll gladly join you in that, though if the interview does get archived I'd expect it to be as much to spare the BBC's blushes as anything else
Given they're effectively a state broadcaster, the behind the scenes horse trading's likely to be extensive, and none of it made public

The media and public reaction in the days and weeks following Diana's death became completely OTT

Odd how this is so widely accepted now isn't it? Plenty of us said so at the time, but the response we got dwarfed anything that's said now to anyone who dares to suggest Harry might do better to keep quiet - and this was in the days before social media

Frankly, it doesn't really matter whether the BBC no longer show the interview. There are enough versions on Youtube around, and possibly many others recorded by individuals. So a bit pointless.
However, if all the subterfuge and forged documents had not been used to coerce Diana into the interview, I still think she would have given an interview anyway, but maybe a bit more of a measured interview.
Remember, it was after the interview that the Queeen suggested that the already separated couple, finalise and get a divorce, and because of her paranoia, believing that all the RF were spying on her, ripping up floorboards looking for bugs, etc, Diana later dispensed with all the RF aides, drivers and protection officers.
So, without the forged documents, she may have kept some of her original staff, protection officers (even if only when on official duties), may not even have divorced.
It probably DID make her relationship with Charles worse, although Diana admitted to some affaires herself at this time, but their eventual split may have not been so acrimonious.

@ShamedBySiri there is a "Diana in her own words" doc from a few years ago already on Netflix

@Samcro

I imagine the RF would rather the interview was never shown again. but you can't re write history. People saw it, they remember it. what next ban the crown or any other fictional drama? will they ban the Morton book to?

Well, the BBC royals at home programme ( a 60s PR campaign from the palace) didn’t have the outcome that was expected and the queen made it known that it was never to be seen again. Has it been ? I think it was leaked to YouTube but I don’t know if it’s still there . Can someone more knowledgeable than me explain the exact power source that allows this ban to happen? Or is it ‘influence’ - much more insidious... Has anyone followed the story of the writer who has spent his life savings trying to access Mountbatten’s diaries after a university bought them for the nation but the nation seems to be having difficulty accessing them? I thought William’s ‘suggestion’ that the interview be struck from public record was high handed and arrogant , despite sympathy for the circumstances he was referring to. It also was not in way logical as the interview did not lead to her death. But why draw that line between the two? Answer: To rehabilitate individuals, to attempt to rewrite history, to prepare the way for the new order. People in power have done this throughout history. My question is, what have these individuals done to earn or deserve such power other than be born in a palace?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/15/cabinet-office-blocks-publication-of-lord-mountbattens-diaries

Frankly, it doesn't really matter whether the BBC no longer show the interview. There are enough versions on Youtube around, and possibly many others recorded by individuals. So a bit pointless

That's very true, though even after the repulsive Bashir's input I'm not so sure all of Diana's reactions would have been purely down to paranoia

Given the RF's taste for self-protection, I'd honestly be surprised if she wasn't being bugged, staff weren't required to report back and so on. As we've seen so often the family's reach is long, and it would after all be a tempting thing to do

I remember watching both Diana’s and Charles’ interviews. The divorce was the best thing to come out of it. Diana did seem to flourish once the divorce was granted and she did a lot of good for charities. I don’t think either should be erased, it’s relevant to how the RF reshapes over time.

Can someone more knowledgeable than me explain the exact power source that allows this ban to happen? Or is it ‘influence’ - much more insidious...

To explain this we'd have to know the exact details of all the RF's influence, and that's not likely - the details which do manage to leak out are bad enough

Considering the behaviour we do know about from the Mountbattens, plus the fact it was comparatively recent, the difficulty of access is no surprise - but then I knew Bill Evans his valet personally and the details aren't pretty

Yes @Puzzledandpissedoff it is this curtain that is drawn over the influence of the royals that really needs to be torn down if the UK is to consider itself a true democracy .
I used to get annoyed at the PR stunts ( Kate and William with a sad face at a food bank then back to one of their palaces ) but that really is the bread and circuses to distract the masses from the real questions.
The guardian seems to be running a slow but persistent campaign to raise some of these questions especially regarding the royals’ successful attempt to influence the government to keep their true riches secret.

Can someone more knowledgeable than me explain the exact power source that allows this ban to happen?

I really don't think it can be, can it? Surely William has no power to do that. Or has he? Of course he can shame the BBC into not ever showing it again but that's just the BBC

Given the RF's taste for self-protection, I'd honestly be surprised if she wasn't being bugged, staff weren't required to report back and so on. As we've seen so often the family's reach is long, and it would after all be a tempting thing to do

Exactly. I am no conspiracy theorist but I always remember her falling for her security officer big time and him meeting an untimely motorbike accident.
(Disclaimer... I am not saying this was contrived but we only know a tiny bit of what is fed to us)

The Mountbatten diaries . The FOI Act seems to mean nothing does it? A Cabinet office veto stops them becoming available.

it is this curtain that is drawn over the influence of the royals that really needs to be torn down if the UK is to consider itself a true democracy

Indeed, but good luck expecting it to happen as things stand for now

I admire the Guardian for its efforts just as I admire others, but unfortunately the RF's influence is greater

it is this curtain that is drawn over the influence of the royals that really needs to be torn down if the UK is to consider itself a true democracy .

This exactly! There is such a lack of transparency. It's the same with these 'palace sources' leaking like a sieve. In a way it all seems quite trivial but actually the RF have a constitutional role, so it's in the public interest to know what kind of murky connections and deals are happening. Especially when we get Charles as king (who I think is probably fundamentally quite decent but very naive in some respects), and then William who I think essentially the press can't say anything substantial about due to various injunctions. I'm not gunning for him but I really don't think we know what we're getting there, and that's the point. It's all PR and hushing up one story in exchange for another. Surely it's unacceptable for this to be the case, given they're not 'celebrities' but royals and their actions can have far-reaching impact.

The FOI Act seems to mean nothing does it?

Not to the RF it doesn't - after all they're exempt from it

Yet another "deal"

I remember seeing the Royal Family programme in the 1960s. Perfectly innocuous. I can't understand the refusal to show it again.

If the princes decide they don’t want it shown again them so be it

It’s not their decision. Their mother gave the interview and many more for a book. She wanted the public to know certain things. As William is now a senior member of that institution, he is obviously keen to safeguard, it suits him to wipe the bad publicity from record.

I think that the fraud with the bank statements and other falsehoods sounds akin to criminal deception. I am stunned that it actually happened. Very stunned. Don't journalists have line managers who ask to check their modus operandi and all the tools and documents they intend to use?

If evidence were to be obtained by improper means during a criminal investigation, then any testimony given by the suspect would be ruled as inadmissable. There would be reasonable doubt that what the suspect said was their true thoughts. Improper means investigators lying and misrepresenting themselves, and includes ' honeypot' traps to make the witness/ suspect develop feelings for their interrogator. ( As in Rachel Nickell, Wimbledon Common murder enquiry).. Isn't such a police case and its example of impropriety equivalent to what happened in the Bashir interview: e.g., statements were obtained as a result of some false information being given? The false information had the effect of negatively influencing the mental balance of the person being interviewed. What Diana was shown would have made her feel dependent on her interviewer as somebody who is helping her and on her side.

Bashir acted like Iago, didn't he?

. Why shouldn't we rule that the Bashir interview should never be broadcast again? Yes, the context is different to that of a criminal investigation, but the principle is the same.

So agree Aspiring. I think the RF are on a sticky wicket at the moment. And they should be more accountable.

However, I remember Sir Humphrey's words in 'Yes Minister'...

'you should never give the people what they want, it only encourages them!'

(or words to that effect)

I think it's much more likely that certain press 'recycled' old images of the Queen and PA together and broadcast them again the day after the interview aired

HMQ went riding with him at Windsor in full view of a known pap haunt two days after he stepped back from public life in the wake of the Newsnight interview.

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1207914/the-queen-news-prince-Andrew-interview-Epstein-queen-Elizabeth-ii-royal-news

The church visit where he was seen riding shotgun was a couple of months later.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

The FOI Act seems to mean nothing does it?

Not to the RF it doesn't - after all they're exempt from it

Yet another "deal"

So as far as I know , the university has not complied with the FOI request. I’m not suggesting the university itself has planned this but rather that they seem to be under pressure not to comply. FOI is legally enforceable, except of course in this case as the royals are above the law. As far as I know GDPR does not apply to the dead. Public money was used to buy these diaries. Around 2 million. So either comply with law or give us our money back.

So another issue involving public money and royals being above the law

Can someone more knowledgeable than me explain the exact power source that allows this ban to happen? Or is it ‘influence’ - much more insidious...

It's due to standard copyright law. The Queen retained copyright of the 1969 documentary, meaning it can only be shown with her (copyright owner) consent.

The law relaxes slightly after 30 years. Since the late 1990s, the film could be viewed privately at the BBC by researchers with permission from Buckingham Palace, for a fee of £35 (paid to the BBC).

Any copyright owner can avail themselves of the same legal protection. In fact, Meghan has done so in her recent case against Associated Newspapers Ltd; she has requested that all electronic and hard copies of the letter she wrote to her father are destroyed (see from paragraph 18 of the <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Duchess-of-Sussex-v-Associated-judgment.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjsruWL0d_wAhUro3EKHUI1ALcQFjALegQIDhAC&usg=AOvVaw1jlkl9NdHOi3jtzlT95hLG" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> official court documents).

It would be interesting to know who holds the copyright for the Diana/Bashir interview. Copyright can be transferred by inheritance. If Prince William now owns it, he can insist (as in it is legally his right) that it's never broadcast again. As with the 1969 documentary which was leaked onto YouTube, it's the responsibility of the original broadcaster (the BBC) to get it taken down from whichever internet site is hosting it.

If the princes decide they don’t want it shown again them so be it

Should we all tug our forelocks as it's binned?

Thankyoun@goldierocks. Is it usual for the subjects of a documentary to hold the copyright?

I remember seeing the Royal Family programme in the 1960s. Perfectly innocuous. I can't understand the refusal to show it again

I've always supposed it wasn't so much what was in in which irked the Queen, but the fact it was shown at all
The word at the time was that it was Philip and Mountbatten's idea and HM was less enthusiastic, but if she regretted Royal Family, god knows what she must think of the stuff being spilled now

FOI is legally enforceable, except of course in this case as the royals are above the law

And yet on a recent thread someone was quite outraged that anyone should even suggest the RF consider themselves above the law
I did think of providing examples, but there's really no point in the face of naivety like that

I see you're another who enjoys Yes Prime Minister, Roussette, so I'll offer another Sir Humphrey-ism which seems apposite ATM: ^"We should always tell the press freely and frankly anything that they could easily find out some other way"

And it did affect William. He's said as much himself

Of course it did, I acknowledged that it was traumatic and devastating for both of them but he’s managed not to throw his family under the bus - want to discuss the point I actually made?