Was Princess Diana offered security after her divorce?

[antelopevalley]

There is an interesting article in The Sun that says amongst other things, that Harry is asking lots of questions about Diana's death e.g. " Official judicial sources in Paris say the Duke of Sussex’s researchers have been seeking information about the car crash that killed his mother 25 years ago." One of the questions is allegedly whether Diana had been offered security after her divorce.

After her fatal crash Scotland Yard asked why Diana had no security. Tina Brown said that Diana had turned down security. But the suspicion is that Diana is in the same situation as Harry i.e. only offered security if attending an official royal event such as the Jubilee, but refused security for the rest of the time.

I know it is The Sun, but given Harry's fight around official security in the UK, which he has offered to pay for but still been refused - it rings true that he would be asking questions about his mother's security. It is clear if she was using official security at the time, she would still be alive.

www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/19503595/prince-harry-diana-final-moments-book/

@tiggergoesbounce This is all I want, confirmation of the truth.
I wonder if Harry has had issues getting confirmation of the truth and this is why he has approached the French officials?

My understanding at the time was that Diana was no longer entitled to Royal Security protection unless at an official Royal Family event - very unlikely. And this was because of her divorce.
But Tina Brown says she declined security, and this statement has been quoted lots of places.

Both are believable, but only one is true.

www.reuters.com/article/diana-1701-idUKNOA15202920080121

The fact that 4 of the most current 5 Royal Family threads have been started by you is w good indication.

Sorry Reuters link of Paul Condon’s evidence OP;

www.reuters.com/article/diana-1701-idUKNOA15202920080121

When you lose your mother at such a young age, it’s natural for her to be frozen in your memory as a paragon of virtue. Adolescence is about perceiving your parents as fallibly human and, to an extent, rejecting them, to allow yourself to form a separate identity. In young adulthood, you typically begin to accept their flaws and become closer again. Poor W and H never got the chance to complete that process and it’s obvious how ‘stuck’ they are.

Diana was a complex, flawed human, as we all are. Unfortunately W and H have clearly not got to a place where they can accept that. It is really sad.

It was widely reported at the time. The palace and police (people in general) were quite alarmed by her decision to reject protection. Formal approaches were made to persuade her otherwise.

The news agencies and broadsheets covered it. I think it’s also in the inquest report.

Harry could confirm all this easily enough. He must have competent staff to do the (very easy) research if he doesn’t trust the palace.

He is unfortunately taking after his mother in rejecting facts.

You can find it yourself. The transcript of Lord Condon’s evidence to the inquest is freely available from the National Archives website.

……There were numerous meetings, at many of which we sought to persuade the Princess to reinstate her security…..

Definitely very widely reported at the time, but before content was invariably online, so not readily found via google.

Condon confirming it under oath at the Diana inquest should really put it beyond doubt (16/17 January 2008, transcripts <a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20090607230303/www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/index.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20090607230303/www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/index.htm )

Because there’s no way he could perjure himself on a subject such as this without it being spotted - not least as so many people knew about it contemporaneously in the 90s.

Sorry - fail in adding the link to the transcripts (Cordon is 16/17 Jan 08) - tried again but for some reason it’s not working (possibly as I’m trying to link an archive?)

Cut from my browser, it’s

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20090607230303/www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/index.htm

Diana dispensed with two of her Met Police protection officers in December 1993, then the remaining two in October 1994 after the IRA ceasefire.

Since October 1994, she had had no police protection at all - unless she was with William, who did have 24/7 police protection too (Harry probably did as well at this stage, but I’m not 100% sure of that).

The Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Condon had specifically asked her to resume her protection following the resumption of IRA violence in February 1996 of which she would be a “trophy” target, but she refused.

Sir Paul Condon gave evidence to the inquest that covered all the above points (summarised in this linked article below), and also the official memo below was produced in evidence, showing it was definitely her own decision.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/17/monarchy

Also, an interesting small nugget at the bottom of the memo for people who were curious about how and why RAVEC determines how royal families members meet the criteria for being provided with security - at that point in 1993 the Met knew of some 3000 people “fixated” on the royal family.

Ha. That saves me from having to read half of the Paget Report again. Thanks.

That was before they had Mumsnet to check. 😉

Thanks.
So clear cut then.

Indeed, which makes it very bizarre that as far as the Sussex team is concerned…..
One of the questions is allegedly whether Diana had been offered security after her divorce
How odd.

Which makes you wonder what Prince Harry is thinking.

I do wish he would accept that she died by a combination of two things:

1. A drunk driver given the green light by her BF


2. Wearing no seatbelt

Ah, I hadn't seen that - thank you for your links upthread.

Clear cut ?

Sorry, but I'm missing the part where he produces evidence that she refused the security - surely there must be a form or something for them to fill in. Looking back, I missed it, surely someone has produced that.

I would imagine a huge organisation naturally has this.

When the French prove that they got that form of her rejecting security, I will say fair enough.

You must have missed the official written contemporaneous memo recording her refusing the security nota.

@Serenster

Did she not complete the form 🤣🤣🤣

Isn't that what you all have been asking for ? Proof. Like MM must have had a video with her all the time recording the racist harassment.

In this case, it's even easier, her all round rejecting her security.

Your targeted attacks on me are unnerving btw.

I’m pretty sure the police top brass and cabinet ministers diner make royalty fill in forms. 😏

DON’T make them fill in forms^

What the heck has MM got to do with the events of the 90s?

Theres always someone causing a de-rail.