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/

Meghan said her passport was taken away, how did she manage to make trips to Rome, Canada, lake Como, New York, Amsterdam, Nice amongst others. The evidence contradicts her prisoner narrative. I’m treating the rest of her prisoner narrative about car keys etc with suitable scepticism as a result.

To be honest, I don't think that is beyond the realms of belief, likely they were being carried in a briefcase with the aide or security team who were accompanying her wherever she went ! As she normally flies private, she would not be required to to queue up with passport in hand to board the aircraft, more likely all that is done in advance by her assistant, and they just rock up to the steps of the plane and are on their way.

So I don't believe she outright lied, however she decided to present it as something more sinister than it actually was, mainly because she became disenchanted with the RF.

I do wonder what the guests at her NY baby shower think of how she presented that situation, as I would expect they all have assistants / security who carry their important identify documents for them.

I didn't say you did nota

I know that the RF have lots of levers they can all pull to improve their image, get their perspective out. Similarly, I know that institutions like the police (Met or South Yorkshire for example) have history of being corrupt but I also think it unlikely in this instance that the evidence given to the inquest about her desire to not have protection is untrue.

What the French equivalent of RAVEC or similar did or didn't do, I don't know - is that perhaps what Harry is investigating?

I agree with you in that there may have been other perfectly plausible reasons for the removal of these items but they were never mentioned. Only one interpretation of this event, involving a loss of freedom, was up for discussion. We know this because O correctly responds with the 'trapped' comment. Had M presented this information differently, O would not have responded in this way.

Even when flying commercial if you are carrying a diplomatic passport (as Royals do) and are sufficiently senior (as Royals are counted) you will be met as you exit the air bridge off the plane and the entrance of their group to be processed there and then, in a private room, normally with Embassy staff in attendance (the normal rules don’t apply to them, they can go airside at an airport to greet and take leave of guests).

So there’s be no need for the actual Royal to be holding their passport even if not flying private - unless they wanted to.

There is further evidence in the transcript of Lord Fellowes questioning at the inquest

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20090607230539/www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/120208am.htm

(scroll down around a third of the page)

According to this evidence Patrick Jephson, Diana’s private secretary, confirmed Diana’s wish to give up security in 1994.

As far as I know Mr Jephson is still alive. Harry could give him a call if he has questions about his mother’s security.

I think it is true she no longer saw her passport or driving licence. Although this is normal in the Royal Family, I can see how for someone used to being totally independent it could have added to the feeling of being trapped.
For the Royals it is normal, they have never experienced anything different, so probably do not understand the fuss.

Yes, and the car key one is also a bit of a stretch ! valet parking anyone ?.

if they do want to drive themselves, I bet they drive their car up to the door, hop out, hand over the keys so it is security checked, cleaned, filled up with gas and checked for any maintenance issues. When leaving, they just call for the car to be brought to the front door, get handed the keys, hop in and are off !

@antelopevalley

She probably hated someone organising her trips and being whisked through security without a queue and someone holding her documents for her and managing it through the airport like the A list status she always wanted. 👍

Sure we’d all hate that 🤣.

I actually would not like that. I also would not like for someone else to have my car keys. I used valet parking once in the US and hated it.

...and (to continue my previous point), we know that the 'trapped' version of events is the one that M wanted to convey because it is not disputed by either O or M in the conversation that follows. Furthermore, not only is the 'trapped' version not challenged by either party, which it could easily have been given the existence of other plausible reasons for the removal of the items, it is actively embellished upon by O and immediately confirmed as accurate by M.

She says she felt trapped. Not that she was tied up in chains.
Why so dismissive?
Many people say they feel trapped e.g. in jobs, relationships, etc. They are not saying they are physically tied up.
But it is easy to dismiss what a woman says I guess.

She didn't walk into the RF off the street, she was already mixing in circles where private travel was common, where people would have family managers, managing all aspects of their households. It is absolutely common practice for VIP's to have their family manager or assistant be responsible for the safe keeping of their documents.

I expect people like Serena Williams don't have to worry about where they put their passport or driving licence before they head off to a tournament, it is not such a strange concept in those circles at all, although for us it seems totally alien.

I really doubt it was a withholding of her documents and car keys to ensure she believed she was trapped.

I agree. If someone's passport has been taken and they are a 'prisoner', I wouldn't expect for them to be able to fly to so many different places so freely. It's a contradiction.

Thanks pink for that link. This was interesting from it

Her Royal Highness has assured Patrick Jephson that
2 she will give him adequate notice of any intention to
3 travel abroad, privately or officially, so that he can
4 then enable a proper assessment of risk in the country
5 concerned to be swiftly and discreetly made.
6 The Princess has said that she is quite content that
7 the host country may impose whatever reasonable security
8 it chooses on her visit, or travel with police
9 protection from this country if the risk assessment
10 recommends it.
11 "The Princess of Wales has undertaken that, in
12 the event of any incident which occurs when she is
13 without personal protection, it may be stated that
14 the absence of protection was her specific wish, and
15 that she knew of the contrary advice offered by
16 the police.

Which I guess leads to the question - did the host country (France) think there was a need for additional security or not? The inquest lists witnesses but not job titles so I have no idea if anyone related to French security gave evidence...

what a shame that a thread about diana becomes a M bash.
i could be misremembering but I am sure that Diana wasn't "stripped" of her HRH just lost it on her divorce. not the same as say PA being stripped of it for being a sleaze.

Meghan mixed with some a-listers before but if she got a lift in a jet she had to bring her own passport.

would her passport and licence have to be changed so taken for a short period to organise. I don’t know if Duchess’s have to queue in the motor tax office to change their details or if someone does it on their behalf 🤣

You are not wrong at all about that, and I do believe she felt trapped by the restrictions she had to conform to as part of her life in the RF.

However, the point being discussed is how accurate (truthful?) it is for her to say that her passport, driving licence, car keys were removed from her person for nefarious reasons and to imply she wasn't allowed access to them.

Another thread about the RF, Op? My goodness. As a matter of recorded fact, Diana did refuse protection. I remember very well reading a newspaper report in the mid 90s about Diana taking a trip to Spain with some girl friends. They were mobbed at the airport in Spain by paparazzi and had difficulty getting into the car. The writer said Diana was putting herself at risk by refusing royal protection officers. I remember my mum and I chatting at the time about how reckless she was being.

I do not remember her saying they were removed for nefarious reasons. Just the fact they were removed added to her feeling of being trapped.

These threads certainly twist and turn.
I couldn't remember how/when Meghan was first mentioned on here. It was interesting (to me) to go back and see when her name was first mentioned and how a thread about Diana's security moved on to whether Meghan was or wasn't able to seek help for her mental health difficulties.

As there is a case in the courts about royal
protection for the Sussex’s, it’s a perfectly logical discussion regarding the parallels between Diana declining and Harry demanding protection.

Meghan felt ‘trapped’ by the protector at the time, I guess having to put your own hand in your pocket makes you appreciate what you had.

What struck me most reading thing (alongside Michael Mansfield's probing about the studied ambiguity of the intelligence services as to whether they did or did not undertake an enquiry about the recording of phone conversations) was that the RF were concerned that Diana was willing to make a public statement that the lack of security being her free choice in the event of anything going wrong. So they were more concerned about optics than her actual safety.

And as a pp has mentioned, wasn't it suggested to her that the protection detail were reporting her movements back to the RF?

"Lord Dyson found that Bashir deceived Earl Spencer by showing him forged bank statements that falsely suggested individuals - including Mr Jephson - were being paid for keeping the princess under surveillance."

Lord Spencer said
"t was "quite clear" from when he introduced Bashir to Diana in September 1995 that "everyone was going to be made untrustworthy, and I think that Diana did lose trust in really key people".

Patrick Jephson - Diana's former private secretary - said the interview "destroyed remaining links with Buckingham Palace".

He said after the interview, Diana lost "the royal support structure that had guided and safeguarded her for so many years" which "inevitably made her vulnerable to people who didn't have her best interests at heart, or were unable properly to look after her".

Added to this, I think that, judging from Michael Mansfield's probing, that Diana probably was easily persuaded that the RF didn't exactly have her wellbeing at the forefront of their minds, because there was such a lot of obfuscation surrounding the subject of the phone hacking and GCHQ. [Do we really believe that the Prince and Princess of Wales had their phones hacked, the conversations made public, and the security services really didn't enquire as to how those conversations became public property?] And because Charles and his friends had been all too happy to brief against her making her out to be mentally unstable and a loose cannon when she was doing very effective and valuable charitable work highlighting the evils of land mines. That alone would be enough to persuade her that she wanted to cut all links between herself and the establishment. Especially at a time when she was seeking to establish proper access to her children.

@Mintchervilpurslane

just regarding your point about optics.
The royal family might have been concerned for her safety if she made a statement as it might make people feel she was an easier target so nothing was said

Sometimes people put alarm boxes only and warnings on houses to make a house more secure, similarly by not saying ‘Diana no longer receives protection’ the nutters who might have targeted her stayed away.

its very hard to know definitively at this point so I could easily be wrong.

Yes I think that's a very fair point Ohnonevermind. It was quite widely discussed in the media though at the time I thought?

As brother to the heir, I do think that Harry and family should qualify for public protection when in the UK as long as it is for formal occasions and he doesn't abuse the privilege. And given that he now lives in the States it is going to be less expensive than previously. Given what happened to his mother, it seems churlish to deny him that.