Diana's Friends, Lovers and Bodyguards


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
A question about bodyguards from a security standpoint, does anyone know why when she got rid of her scotland yard protection officers, she didnt hire private security?

Would have avoided alot of the purses and tennis rackets over her face pictures. I know she suspected SY security of spying on her, and cost might have been an issue, but id have thought as part of the divorce settlement shed have asked for that, given her need for them was as a result of the marriage.
 
I find it paradoxical that a woman so concerned about her safety didn't have security people when she was outside of Kensington Palace. Perhaps her freedom was more important to her than her fears.
 
Lots of poor choices was the big problem.
 
:previous: Yes. I think that, with the exception of her plans re William and Harry, Diana didn't think strategically; i.e., in terms of how her actions would have effects later on. She didn't seem to realize that her affairs could become public knowledge or that she'd completely lose her marriage by way of the Morton Book and the Panorama interview. She thought short-term: "If I cooperate with this journalist, I'll get a positive story to counteract that bad story"; "If I cooperate with this author, I'll finally get the secrets told"; "If I do this interview, it'll gain me more sympathy and answer Charles's interview." In the short term, her actions had the affect she wanted. But in the long term, they were disastrous for herself and for her children. :ermm:
 
Mermaid1962 said:
:previous: Yes. I think that, with the exception of her plans re William and Harry, Diana didn't think strategically; i.e., in terms of how her actions would have effects later on. She didn't seem to realize that her affairs could become public knowledge or that she'd completely lose her marriage by way of the Morton Book and the Panorama interview. She thought short-term: "If I cooperate with this journalist, I'll get a positive story to counteract that bad story"; "If I cooperate with this author, I'll finally get the secrets told"; "If I do this interview, it'll gain me more sympathy and answer Charles's interview." In the short term, her actions had the affect she wanted. But in the long term, they were disastrous for herself and for her children. :ermm:
Click to expand...

Well, nobody was out to hurt the kids, but the adults weren't really thinking at the time. It was a lot of pain and hurtful feelings involved and that got in the way of the right choices.

Despite her divorce, Diana was the mother of a future Queen and once was a future Queen. She should've had a great security team around her at all times. Even if she didn't want them, her advisors and officials should have had made sure she was well protected.

Poor choices all around put her in a bad position.
 
From our point of view it does seems astonishing that Diana did away with her security like that or refused it or whatever. One would have expected her to have at least one or two protection officers with her at all times.

I think at the time she wanted some freedom without the limiting influences of security telling her she can't do this, she can't do that - all the rigamarole of planning routes, checking places out before she went there etc.
 
Jacknch said:
From our point of view it does seems astonishing that Diana did away with her security like that or refused it or whatever. One would have expected her to have at least one or two protection officers with her at all times.

I think at the time she wanted some freedom without the limiting influences of security telling her she can't do this, she can't do that - all the rigamarole of planning routes, checking places out before she went there etc.
Click to expand...

Right, freedom is something she would never have again, and that's something she failed to understand. The lack of proper protection led to the tragedy in Paris.
 
I believe Diana did want the freedom to go where she wanted when she wanted and to see whoever she chose. However I have read that she also became convinced in the last few years of her life that security forces, including the Scotland Yard men who formed her protection squad, were spying on her and reporting back to her ex husband on everything she did.
 
Curryong said:
I believe Diana did want the freedom to go where she wanted when she wanted and to see whoever she chose. However I have read that she also became convinced in the last few years of her life that security forces, including the Scotland Yard men who formed her protection squad, were spying on her and reporting back to her ex husband on everything she did.
Click to expand...

Diana herself was telling Charles what she was doing. So I'm not sure that was the case. She was always asking him for advice, even post divorce.
 
But it was in 1993 that Diana was said to have hired an independent firm to sweep Kensington Palace for 'bugs'. That was at the height of her obsession with Oliver Hoare. Apparently Scotland Yard officers thought the debugging operation ridiculous, but that doesnt mean that Diana didn't believe that she was being spied on. Her relationship with Charles at that time was not great either. It was at the end of 1993 that Diana decided she didn't want Royal Protection Officers around any more.

Incidentally, (and I am NOT a conspiracy theorist as I believe Diana's death to have been an accident caused by drink driving) it came out in the Inquiry into her death that US Security services were listening in on conversations between Diana and Dodi in the last few weeks of her life. It was never clear why they were doing so and no explanation has ever been given.

Also, even after the separation with Charles, their relationship wasn't all sweetness and light. Penny Junor, no fan of Diana's, points to a very strained atmosphere for instance at William's confirmation ceremony. Diana was allowed to ask several dozen guests but ended up bringing no one.
 
Curryong said:
But it was in 1993 that Diana was said to have hired an independent firm to sweep Kensington Palace for 'bugs'. That was at the height of her obsession with Oliver Hoare. Apparently Scotland Yard officers thought the debugging operation ridiculous, but that doesnt mean that Diana didn't believe that she was being spied on. Her relationship with Charles at that time was not great either. It was at the end of 1993 that Diana decided she didn't want Royal Protection Officers around any more.

Incidentally, (and I am NOT a conspiracy theorist as I believe Diana's death to have been an accident caused by drink driving) it came out in the Inquiry into her death that US Security services were listening in on conversations between Diana and Dodi in the last few weeks of her life. It was never clear why they were doing so and no explanation has ever been given.

Also, even after the separation with Charles, their relationship wasn't all sweetness and light. Penny Junor, no fan of Diana's, points to a very strained atmosphere for instance at William's confirmation ceremony. Diana was allowed to ask several dozen guests but ended up bringing no one.
Click to expand...

Things were okay between Charles and Diana. They weren't in the same head space in the early parts of their separation. Charles would drop by the house, and Diana used to rush down the stairs and greet him with a kiss on the cheek. Friends and staff have spilled the beans on that. Things calmed down for them.
 
We're left with her actions giving us the best insight into her state of mind on the issue of hiring private security. She used to like to travel "light" on holidays, ie no Press Secretary, private secretary, in addition to no security after the break with the family.

So the desire for freedom, finances and perhaps, strategic thinking being the main causes, as while they weren't in the news then, firms like Executive Outcomes, Blackwater, and im sure several other private "bodyguard" in addition to security firms were out there (the Fayed's must have gotten their guards from somewhere, and one of the allures of spending the summer with them was that, the effectiveness of their protection is different matter).

Just seems to me such a colossal head scratcher that after the first time she got mobbed enough to run down the street to her car or hide her face walking, shed think that the money for protection would be money well spent, either hers or the BRF for security at a firm of her own choosing, so the claim of "Spying " for the crown could be taken out of the equation, as she was so afraid of.

But Jacknch's idea about not wanting to have security say what she could or couldnt do & go for security reasons, and checking out places beforehand is a good one and might have been seen as worse than the press harassment. I think her desire to do things on her own post marriage drove her make choices that an outside observer would say are unwise.

However shed need them 24/7 as Mark Saunders said on a doc that once the price paid for pics went through the roof, post separation, it became very much worth their time to tail her 24/7. Of course hindsights a wonder, but it just seems like such an obvious solution where in the books and docs they only ever talk of the SY protection as if thats the only option ever available to her.
 
Last edited:
So many thing are written about that woman that's it's beyond ridiculous. Diana didn't have time to do the many things folks say she did.
 
Even if it's true, why bring that up now?
After so many years, what difference does it make?


(And of course, anyone can say anything now; who's going to refute that story? The guy must be broke!)
 
Mirabel said:
Even if it's true, why bring that up now?
After so many years, what difference does it make?


(And of course, anyone can say anything now; who's going to refute that story? The guy must be broke!)
Click to expand...

Telling any kind of story about Diana still gain attention and make folks money. People have used and abused this woman even in death.
 
Last edited:
A few posts back there was the mention of the US listening to Diana's phone calls, there could be several reasons that we'll never know of, but the Edward Snowdon leaks told us of the Echelon program, I believe it was called.

Countries like the US, UK and Canada, etc had tougher restrictions on listening in on their own citizens calls vs other countries, so they would "swap" listening duties to get info on their own countrymen.

So the most logical was that the UK wanted info on Diana but not the media headache if it was found out that her majesty's intelligence services were listening to their recently divorced daughter in law.

Could be for logical security reasons, or for things more nefarious, we will prob never know in our lifetime, the real reasons why.
 
Jacknch said:
From our point of view it does seems astonishing that Diana did away with her security like that or refused it or whatever. One would have expected her to have at least one or two protection officers with her at all times.

I think at the time she wanted some freedom without the limiting influences of security telling her she can't do this, she can't do that - all the rigamarole of planning routes, checking places out before she went there etc.
Click to expand...

Which was a contributing factor in what happened. If she had trained people around her they probably could have evaded photographers without getting people killed.
 
Diana was somewhat paranoid.. and also didn't like being told what to do. She didn't want security because they would know what she was doing, and that scared her..and also because they would advise her, or downright tell her what to do for her own safety and she didn't like that. One reason Wharfe left was because of the night that Di jumped out of a window to go and spend the night problaby with a lover, and he felt he couldnt protect her when she was so reckless about her own safety.
 
Seemed like Diana thought that someone was spying on her or trying to find out what she was doing all the time.
 
nascarlucy said:
Seemed like Diana thought that someone was spying on her or trying to find out what she was doing all the time.
Click to expand...

Well she wasnt entirely being paranoid.. I think that during the Wales war years, yes people WERE watching her and she was right to be a bit suspicious. She feared that the RF were likely to attak her, and put her down, and perhaps to take the boys away. But I think that she took her fears too far. I think that Charles' camp WERE putting out stories about her in the news, and the RF were watching her warily.. and of course the papers were always on the look out for anyting that they could find out, that would sell. But had she remained withtin the RF and not tried to fight them, or get out of the marriage, this would not have happened..
I dont beleive that her PPOs were relating everything she did to Charles, or to the press.but she feared that they were and got rid of them, and that made her "alone" and vulnerable, and then she trusted herself to the proteciton hired by other rich friends like Dodi Fayed.. which wasn't very good or safe for her.. Had she retained her PPOs Im sure the ngith in Paris would have been a safe trip for her..
 
Q Claude, if a woman was upper class, she had to be married before engaging in affairs (well that began to gradually "slide" as the 20th C progressed) but generally, a woman like an actress or a lady of the night, coudl be single, if she was willing, but she was usually of the "kept" variety. A society woman would need to have the protection of a husband..
 
Denville said:
So I wish at times that she had just ignored the Camilla affair, got on iwht her life and stayed married and maybe over time, she and C would have managed to have a friendship as their children got older. Cutting herself adrift from the RF left her unprotected...
Click to expand...

I was laughing myself as I realized the mistake I made with George V. Its the kind of thing where the statement is the total opposite of what the person really is. Like calling Queen Victoria a spontaneous flibbertygibbet and bohemian. :D

I am in agreement about what might have been better if Diana had acted differently. Just maybe, if she had tried to make friends with Charles' set instead of feeling threatened by them or they both had compromised a bit more or who knows what else, things could have been much different.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and its too bad we don't get the full benefits of it when we're looking ahead on things in life.
 
I don't think it should be forgotten though, that Diana was friendly with several of Charles's set, the van Cutsems for instance. She treated Emillie van Cutsem like a mother, only to find after years of friendship, that the van Custems (and others) had been providing 'safe houses' like Anmer for Charles and Camilla to continue their affair.

The Vans weren't the only ones doing exactly that in Charles's set, so what price friendship? Even if she had tried hard with all of them in the spirit of compromise, even if Diana had been as close to them as a bug in a rug- would they have all rushed to Diana's side in sympathy if there had later been a marriage breakdown? I'll leave that for others to decide. I know what my view is.

And I ask again what I have asked before. Diana had remarkable longterm friendships from her single years, including her flat mates. Is there any known incident where Charles went out of his way to show interest in them, his wife's friends. Is there any time when he tried to get to know any one of them? Because I'll be very surprised if there is. What's sauce for the gander is also so for the goose within marriage, I would have thought.
 
Last edited:
Curryong said:
And I ask again what I have asked before. Diana had remarkable longterm friendships from her single years, including her flat mates. Is there any known incident where Charles went out of his way to show interest in them, his wife's friends. Is there any time when he tried to get to know any one of them? Because I'll be very surprised if there is. What's sauce for the gander is also so for the goose within marriage, I would have thought.
Click to expand...

I can't comment on who aided and abetted Charles once the marriage egg had broken as that's something I know very little about. Once that happened, I would imagine that's when the "camps" started to form and sides taken. Gearing up for war so to speak. When a couple breaks up for any reason, its pretty hard to keep a friendship and remain neutral with both parties.

I also cannot recall specifically any times that Charles showed any interest in Diana's friends and the sauce for the goose and the gander taste the same no matter what its poured on.

Perhaps they were two stubborn people that wanted things their own way. Diana maybe had her own specific ideas on how the marriage should work and Charles, being used to things his way since birth just about, was flabbergasted that he perhaps should change or compromise.

One thing I do realize is that it most certainly would have been much, much better if they had been able to separate and divorce a long time before they did. There wouldn't have been any need for Camillagate or Squidgygate or any gates at all.
 
I think that Diana did try to get on with the Highgrove set, but she was a lot younger than them, she wasn't realy into their lifestyle and she had a bit of jealousy about their having been long term friends of Charles'. And I think that after a while, she din't try that hard and excused herself form his parties and began to see more of her own old friends. I don't know if C tried to get to know them, but if they were mostly Di's age and still single girls, was he really likely to form a friendship with any of them? I think that once Di and C began to pull apart, row a lot, of course his friends tended to rush to his side and he spent more time with them and they did provide a place for him and Cam.. but Di's friends did the same with her and Hewitt... or Gilbey...
 
Diana did have some male friends and some of her girlfriends had boyfriends. He didn't even try to fit in, it seems to me, as he considered them lightweights, quite an elitist view really. I remember Charles as a young man and he always seemed older than his age. It wouldn't have hurt him to have lightened up a little.

Perhaps her friends did provide bolt holes for herself and James, though, apart from his mother I can't think of any. But then James Hewitt's mother didn't act as a substitute mother for Charles, did she, as Emillie van Cutsem had for Diana, only to turn on him after several years?
 
Mara Berni provided a safe house also, for Di to leave letters for boyfrends and I think ot meet them discreetly.
I assume that Diana had to be more careful than Charles did. He had a set of friends, who had all been around for a long time, whereas Di was younger and still forming her circle of friends..and the press were more watching her than they did with C.. so I suppose she could not go to various houses with say Hewitt, she had to stick to Highgrove or his mother's place.
And I dont think that Emile VC exactly turned on her. She may have tried to be a friend to Diana, but still mainly she was Charles' friend and probably as the marriage got more unhappy her sympathies were with him..and Diana probalby didn't see that much of her as it seems that after a few years, she had reverted to her own social circle and left Charles to entertain his friends alone.
I dont entirely blame C for not wanting to spend time wth the guys that Di hung out with.. as Ken Wharfe felt they were all pretty similar, probalby pleasant enough but not very bright, and I don't know if Di would have liked it, if he'd palled up with her girlfriends..
But even so, If a marriage goes south, the friends of the couple tend to side with their initial friend..
 
Last edited:
Another way to look at this also was that during the split up of the marriage, Charles' trysts were primarily set up so he could be with Camilla. (There have been allegations that there were other women he was "intimate" with during this time but as far as I know, nothing factual has come to light.) As Camilla and Andrew PB were among that circle of friends, it was seen as innocuous that both Camilla and Charles would be at one of their friend's house for an overnight stay regardless of who else was in residence at the time and no eyebrows raised.

With Diana, it was a whole different ball of wax. The men that she wanted to have assignations with weren't within a circle of friends that would make it logical for them to be at the same place at the same time (no matter who else was in residence too) and not raise a few eyebrows.

By these standards alone, Diana had to be more discreet with the plotting and conniving and whatever that probably could have put Jame Bond "007" to shame. :D
 
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