Diana's Friends, Lovers and Bodyguards


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
We must also remember that Diana was a proven liar so she isn't a reliable witness. It is perfectly possible that she lied in this interview. She had to be pushed to admit to cheating on Charles with Hewitt years after outing his cheating - conveniently forgetting that she was cheating at the same time. Her honesty is questionable at best and certainly not a person whose words can be presented as reliable evidence.
 
Iluvbertie said:
We must also remember that Diana was a proven liar so she isn't a reliable witness. It is perfectly possible that she lied in this interview. She had to be pushed to admit to cheating on Charles with Hewitt years after outing his cheating - conveniently forgetting that she was cheating at the same time. Her honesty is questionable at best and certainly not a person whose words can be presented as reliable evidence.
Click to expand...

You toke every words she said in those tape as truth, and only except that one. You make me think you just believe what you want to believe. I think you should try a little harder to find more evidence.
 
I have read heaps of stuff about her and I don't need to look further than I have done to have the proof that she lied about things.


Whether she lied about sleeping with Mannekee who knows as both are dead but the fact that she did lie a lot means that anything she ever said is questionable. Her version of events on everything has to be questioned given how many lies it is now proven that she told.


If she was asked to give evidence in a court of law she would classed as an unreliable witness due to the proven lies.


I don't need to search for 'evidence'. I lived through her lies and I am able to evaluate sources based on a clear criteria - a liar is always an unreliable witness in my book on every level.


Some people believe everything she said - because 'she was young and beautiful' as if 'young and beautiful' people can't lie.


Some people believe everything in the books they choose to read - but what happens when the books they read disagree with other people's books. Determining which is more reliable takes skill and one of the criteria trained people use is the veracity of the writer. Diana fails all tests of veracity and so I take everything she says with a large grain of salt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iluvbertie said:
I have read heaps of stuff about her and I don't need to look further than I have done to have the proof that she lied about things.


Whether she lied about sleeping with Mannekee who knows as both are dead but the fact that she did lie a lot means that anything she ever said is questionable. Her version of events on everything has to be questioned given how many lies it is now proven that she told.


If she was asked to give evidence in a court of law she would classed as an unreliable witness due to the proven lies.


I don't need to search for 'evidence'. I lived through her lies and I am able to evaluate sources based on a clear criteria - a liar is always an unreliable witness in my book on every level.


Some people believe everything she said - because 'she was young and beautiful' as if 'young and beautiful' people can't lie.


Some people believe everything in the books they choose to read - but what happens when the books they read disagree with other people's books. Determining which is more reliable takes skill and one of the criteria trained people use is the veracity of the writer. Diana fails all tests of veracity and so I take everything she says with a large grain of salt.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't see one single evidence in your post, only full paragraph of character assassination.

Go back to the the tapes. The tape is the only evidence in the world which can prove Diana might have extramarital relations with Mannekee. Because his own wife denied her late husband had cheated on her.

On one hand Diana confessed that she had strong feeling for Mannekee, on the other hand Diana also confessed that she didn't have sexual relationship with him. Both are Diana's own words.

Therefore, anyone want to prove Diana's extramarital relationship with Mannekee, the tape should not be used as an evidence. However if the tape was not used, then there is no other evidence to prove it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There a many reports about Diana's relationship with Mannekee from the days when he was sacked as her bodyguard because he was found in a compromising position with her - reported by those close to her in the 1980s. I do remember the reports. What that compromising position was only those who saw them know and at least two of the are dead - Mannekee and Diana. Were they sitting on a couch? Were they in bed? We know Diana lied e.g. she denied having an affair with Hewitt which was first suggested in 1989 until incontrovertible proof was provided and she had to admit it.


You don't seem to understand that one lie is enough to call into question everything a person has said. I use a lot more than just the interviews as I use sources from people who knew her and both liked and didn't like her - people who have praised her to the hilt and others who have condemned her from the first.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iluvbertie said:
There a many reports about Diana's relationship with Mannekee from the days when he was sacked as her bodyguard because he was found in a compromising position with her - reported by those close to her in the 1980s. I do remember the reports. What that compromising position was only those who saw them know and at least two of the are dead - Mannekee and Diana. Were they sitting on a couch? Were they in bed? We know Diana lied e.g. she denied having an affair with Hewitt which was first suggested in 1989 until incontrovertible proof was provided and she had to admit it.
Click to expand...

First, I don't believe when the affair was first suggested in 1989, as the Princess of Wales, Diana would be allowed by the Royal Courtiers to admit publicly her relationship with Hewitt. Neither would I believe Diana would issue any public statement herself to deny her relationship with Hewitt in 1989. It is most likely the Royal press speaker's job to answer this kind of question. There is no way Diana had to answer them personally to the public. The rule for her is to keep silence. That is why when Charles and Diana admitted adultery in a TV program, it would cause so much turmoil, because they broke the rule.

Diana was not the first Royal member to have lover. I believe the rule for the Royal family to deal with this kind of rumor, no matter it is truth or not, is DENIAL until not possible to deny anymore. This is the rule.
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
You don't seem to understand that one lie is enough to call into question everything a person has said. I use a lot more than just the interviews as I use sources from people who knew her and both liked and didn't like her - people who have praised her to the hilt and others who have condemned her from the first.
Click to expand...

Very true. There have been several times that I'm aware of that Diana stated something that was later proven to be not true. It doesn't do one's credibility any good to be found out in untruths. One of the top of my head was at first, it was believed that Diana had no part in Andrew Morton's book when in fact, she was behind it.
 
Yes, Diana did tell untruths and had done so since childhood. The fact that she lied on occasion however, doesn't mean that everything that came out of her mouth, especiallyregarding her relationship with Charles and the lovers he and she both took during the marriage, was untrue.

Her deep insecurities and the fact that she did turn to other men for comfort, was due to her inner sense that she was deeply in love with her husband but he didn't love her in the same way.

Diana wouldn't have gone around denying her relationship with Hewitt when it was first hinted at in the media. The royals simply ignore that sort of Press speculation and keep mum unless and until it reaches such a level that something has to be done. (Andrew's reaction during the 'Virginia' scandal, for instance.)

The speculation about Hewitt never reached huge levels (the Press itself wanted to maintain the 'fairytale Union' for as long as possible) and so no Kensington Palace spokesmen was ever called on to implicitly deny it. At the end of the marriage Diana spilled the beans herself in the Panorama interview. She wasn't forced into it but got in there first before the story really broke. (She knew Hewitt was going to betray her by writing his version.)
 
Osipi said:
Very true. There have been several times that I'm aware of that Diana stated something that was later proven to be not true. It doesn't do one's credibility any good to be found out in untruths. One of the top of my head was at first, it was believed that Diana had no part in Andrew Morton's book when in fact, she was behind it.
Click to expand...

That one was a real doozy, too. It demonstrated beyond any doubt that Diana would lie, and in a big way, when it suited her.

I don't know about Mannekee. It's been a while since I read the reports about that allegation. It wouldn't surprise me if they had an inappropriate relationship. One thing I do know though is the fact his widow later said he hadn't had an affair is not going to persuade me one little bit. She's likely to have been the last person who would know, and she could be denying it out of self-interest.
 
Last edited:
Osipi said:
Very true. There have been several times that I'm aware of that Diana stated something that was later proven to be not true. It doesn't do one's credibility any good to be found out in untruths. One of the top of my head was at first, it was believed that Diana had no part in Andrew Morton's book when in fact, she was behind it.
Click to expand...



One have to distinguish between misleading and lie. About Andrew Morton's book, what Diana said was she never met the author which actually is true. Because she was interviewed by a doctor as a go-between. Of course, people would misled by her words and interpreted it she had no part in the book, but technically she didn't tell a lie here.

Let's go back to the tape. She was asked whether she had sex with Mannakee, and her answer was straightforward, "NO". If one really wants to use Andrew Morton's story as evidence, then they can only suggest that Diana's answer would be misleading. But I don't see how can we have any interpretation rather than "NO" with respect to this answer.

But I think we don't need to over analyze the story. The fact is
(1) Diana denied sex relationship
(2) Mannakee's wife said no proof suggested her late husband had cheated on her.
(3) Mannakee never said anything.
(3) No witness ever came out to give evidence suggesting any sex behavior.
(Actually, Diana said in the tape that "they"(her husband's camp) had no evidence)

By the rule of "non-guilty until proved", there is no way to go on suggesting these two deceased persons had extramarital relationship, unless there is any new concrete evidence coming out.
 
From all I've read on Diana and Mannakee is that they had a close relationship. He was there and someone to talk to and confide in and whatever else friends do. I believe too it was the first time that Diana reached out for male human companionship and that in itself, is not a bad thing. Perhaps they did get a little too close or maybe they didn't. It really doesn't matter. Mannakee was her protection officer so it stood to reason he's be around her a lot. Just as Paul Burrell who supposedly became her "rock", they were in paid services to Diana at the time.

Sadly, I think Diana was in search of a man that would constantly be by her side, dote on her and her alone and think the world revolved around her. She was eventually to go through a lot of men after Mannakee and never find what she was looking for.
 
IIRC, during the inquest Mannakee was listed as one of her lovers.

If there was no evidence, would the court of law have listed him as a lover?
 
Queen Camilla said:
IIRC, during the inquest Mannakee was listed as one of her lovers.

If there was no evidence, would the court of law have listed him as a lover?
Click to expand...


Really I never saw that have you got a copy of that


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
In the transcript of evidence on 21 November 2007, during questioning by Fayed's counsel Michael Mansfield of Diana's former Private Secretary Michael Gibbins, this exchange took place:

Q. So we are dealing with, if the chronology obviously is
3 right, about a month before, so sometime in June. So by
4 June 1997, were you aware that there was a level of
5 disapproval of Diana and the relationships that she had
6 had in the past?
7 A. With whom?
8 Q. Well, I can name the people if you wish. I do not want
9 to go through the list. Barry Mannakee, James Hewitt,
10 James Gilbey, Oliver Hoare, Will Carling and so on.
11 A. Yes indeed.
12 Q. Why did you ask me "with whom"?
13 A. Because you did not say who you were talking about.
14 Q. No, no. But you were aware of all of those or you were
15 aware of the disapproval and you were aware that
16 the disapproval was not just in the tabloid press, but
17 in fact was coming from the Royal Household?
18 A. I am not sure that I was directly aware of that, but by
19 inference certainly.
20 Q. Your concern was that the same might happen again in
21 relation to any visit to the Al Fayeds?

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Hearing transcripts: 21 November 2007 - Morning session

Is that what you're referring to, Queen Camilla? Or is there another reference you had in mind? I am not aware of any other evidence along those lines, but there might be. I don't have the time to search through the transcript. I came upon the reference to Gibbins' evidence doing a quick google. If someone actually tendered a list, I'd like to read about it. I cannot imagine why it would be relevant, though.
 
If there is really a concrete evidence, then it must have been very well known now, considered the long-time Diana-basing industry since 1998.

It is well known that Mannakee have been listed as a rumor lover of Diana, because a lot of people just believe what they were told, and there are a lot of irresponsible biographers out there.

The only substantial evidence I knew is from Hasnat Khan's statement

I asked her if she had had an affair with Barry Mannakee and she said that he had looked after her very well.
Click to expand...

The reason I don't think a sexual relationship exists, it is not because Diana. She was young and silly, however Mannekee was a mature man 20 years senior to Diana, who had a daughter similar age to Diana. I think he would be more self-controlled to not take advantage of a young woman.

I think that is the nature of the relationship, "he had looked after her very well".
 
Last edited:
Sorry but maybe I'm missing something but I don't see where it says she was having an affair Maybe it's just hard to read as I'm using phone app


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
One thing I know is that there is much more to relationships than the sexual aspect of it and that aspect should be kept private between the two people involved in the relationship. I don't believe that Diana was ever the type to be considered a slut or whatever else one would call someone that does a lot of bed hopping for the sake of a sexual relationship. If she had found herself becoming close to someone and it evolved into a physical relationship. most likely she had very strong feelings for the person and the sex was a way of expressing that. The relationships were very real to her but it was other aspects of the relationship that would eventually end it. Khan didn't want the publicity angle that came with Diana. Hoare was married. I'm not sure on all the other ones why it finally ended.

Hopefully if she had lived, she would have found someone that was the perfect fit from all angles and they would have happily grown old with each other.
 
Roslyn said:
In the transcript of evidence on 21 November 2007, during questioning by Fayed's counsel Michael Mansfield of Diana's former Private Secretary Michael Gibbins, this exchange took place:

Q. So we are dealing with, if the chronology obviously is
3 right, about a month before, so sometime in June. So by
4 June 1997, were you aware that there was a level of
5 disapproval of Diana and the relationships that she had
6 had in the past?
7 A. With whom?
8 Q. Well, I can name the people if you wish. I do not want
9 to go through the list. Barry Mannakee, James Hewitt,
10 James Gilbey, Oliver Hoare, Will Carling and so on.
11 A. Yes indeed.
12 Q. Why did you ask me "with whom"?
13 A. Because you did not say who you were talking about.
14 Q. No, no. But you were aware of all of those or you were
15 aware of the disapproval and you were aware that
16 the disapproval was not just in the tabloid press, but
17 in fact was coming from the Royal Household?
18 A. I am not sure that I was directly aware of that, but by
19 inference certainly.
20 Q. Your concern was that the same might happen again in
21 relation to any visit to the Al Fayeds?

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Hearing transcripts: 21 November 2007 - Morning session

Is that what you're referring to, Queen Camilla? Or is there another reference you had in mind? I am not aware of any other evidence along those lines, but there might be. I don't have the time to search through the transcript. I came upon the reference to Gibbins' evidence doing a quick google. If someone actually tendered a list, I'd like to read about it. I cannot imagine why it would be relevant, though.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is it. Thanks for posting.

Diana was involved with Mannakee in 1985. He was fired because he got too close to her.

She had fired quite a few PO before she settled on Mannakee.

I too would love to see the list, especially if it list dates and times.
 
Last edited:
Sorry still don't see anywhere that says she had an affair but hey that doesn't stop people telling stories and she's not around to sue so go for it knock your socks off I've had enough of the nasty stuff


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
royal rob said:
Sorry still don't see anywhere that says she had an affair but hey that doesn't stop people telling stories and she's not around to sue so go for it knock your socks off I've had enough of the nasty stuff
Click to expand...

One thing is a given and that is as much as Diana was in the public eye and even how much she put herself and her private life into the public eye, we're surely can see that she was no Mother Teresa. The things I find discussed here are things that do have credible sources to back them up. "Telling stories" or fabricating facts is not something that is done here.
 
I always heard it was the other way around. The royals shut the door on his opportunist-self. My, his grapes seem to be bitter.
 
He, like Diana's former chef, makes a living out of invoking her name to the tabloids.

Like Miss Whirely said, the royals long ago cut ties with Wharfe. Just another bitter has been who likes to think he is relevant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Marty91charmed said:
Ouch, apparently Ken Wharfe (princess Diana's bodyguard) had it a go with almost every member of the royal family... I wonder if the palace will say something about that...
Princess Diana's former bodyguard Ken Wharfe REJECTS Royals | Adam Helliker | Columnists | Comment | Daily Express
Click to expand...

miss whirley said:
I always heard it was the other way around. The royals shut the door on his opportunist-self. My, his grapes seem to be bitter.
Click to expand...

Too true! :sad: Maybe. He may also be speaking truer than is comfortable.

However, it's not the royals he is pitching under the bus. He writes: “He was always a sly little boy, and now he’s become arrogant and spoilt. I hear from people who work for William that he can be very difficult." :ermm: Or might he be claiming more informants than are real? I mean, who would have the time to casually seek out Ken Wharfe to do some bean-spilling? Though it could be 'palace gossip' he's really referring to, not to anything directly said to him.

Fact is, I suspect Ken Wharfe may be a bellwether, like him or not for his 'cashing in' on his royal connections (always the premier sin). Fact is, the Queen is reported to be a decent woman with her staff (as was the Queen Mother, all-in-all). Fact is, no matter what is said about Charles, he is reported to be a decent employer. In one book I read, even when Charles might lose his temper with an underling, he makes a point of apologizing and making it up to the person. That says something. Diana, sadly, did not have this respect towards those who served her. It is reasonable to suppose that William would have learned how to treat servants from his mother's lead. There may be gossip in the palace about how William is, that inevitably leaks out over pub drinks. [I doubt Wharfe has had personal conversations with those who work for the Cambridges. I think he's repeating palace gossip that has reached him by circuitous routes. JMO.]

One can respect the Queen because (among other things) she respects those who serve her in her position. One can respect Prince Charles, the heir, because he looks out for those he will one day rule (through his Prince's Trust) and shows respect (like does the Queen) for those who serve him in his position. How do you respect someone one finds out shows scant respect for those who personally serve them in their position?

If William is an unpleasant sort to work for, it will leak out, as it appears to be doing in this instance. Can anyone respect a monarch who's a genuine snob and boorish in his private life? Ken Wharfe is raising the question perhaps. It's a fair one, I think. Or is he stirring the pot? Either way, he's raised an interesting prospect.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

You reminded me of that survey they did a few years ago amongst palace workers, over which royal was the best to work for. They said Philip was by far the best to work for, that he showed the most appreciation. Camilla, Andrew, and Edward were ranked at the bottom. There was some not so nice things said about them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
William, Harry and Kate employ less than the equivalent of 12 full-time staff. None of them from Wharfe's time.

Ken Wharfe hasn't work around the royals for years and years and even then it wasn't like he was a high level confident. He was a protection officer.

Like Diana's former chef who likes to believe he has all of this insider information, Wharfe is just a has been.

Anyone can say anything, Its always 'The people I talk to' sort of thing. Wharfe makes his living by doing this. He has to pretend to be important or otherwise tabloids won't interview him.
 
There hasn't really been great turnover in the Cambridges staff at KP. Miguel, Rebecca, Nick have been there a long time. Jamie was there a long time too. If William was such a horrible person to work for why would they stay. William's RAF SAR coworkers always speak well of him. Even the cook at RAF Valley spoke well of him but not Harry.

To me, William has never come across as the spoilt prince who never lets you forget he is a prince.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Claire
Diana and Sophie, Countess of Wessex
8 9 10
Replies
275
Views
110K
MARG
MARG
Furienna
Diana and Celebrities
3 4 5
Replies
136
Views
39K
Denville
D
Duchess Sophie
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Diana Websites, Links and Videos
4 5 6
Replies
160
Views
93K
corazon
corazon

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom