Diana's Secret Tapes Recorded in March 1997


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Queen Camilla

Royal Highness
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,861
City
Chicago
Country
United States
Diana's secret tapes

These are 7 tapes about 12 hours.
(These are not the Settelen which are 20 tapes about 21 hours.)

The most damaging:

"She makes it clear that she would do everything possible to make sure Charles never became King. She wanted William to succeed to the Throne when the Queen died. Diana clearly saw her role as the power behind William. She had this somewhat romantic idea of being a king-maker -- the mother behind the monarch", said the source.

And these are her opinion from 1997.

IMO, they should release all the tapes to the public.
Including these, the Settelen tape, the unedited Panorama interview, the Morton tapes and all secret recorded telephone calls.

We can all listen to them, in order of recording, to see how her story changes,
 
Last edited:
May I ask whom you are quoting? It appears to be a blind 'source'.
 
May I ask whom you are quoting? It appears to be a blind 'source'.

My guess would be Gordon Thomas who wrote the article. The link to the article is the first thing you see in Queen Camilla's post. :D
 
What's the point of the thread?
 
Exactly. Why do we want to bring this up again. Diana is gone. We all know there were issues and that her life ended tragically. But it's been so long since her death and we all need to let go and focus on what lies ahead for her children and grandchildren. We need to move on. Just my opinion of course.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using The Royals Community mobile app
 
This story didn't seem to develop "legs" at the time it was published, and so I don't take it seriously. There's an un-named source and an un-named cameraman. Plus, a "gag order" was part of Charles and Diana's divorce agreement. I also don't believe that Diana was short of money in March 1997!
 
The polite comment about the existence of the alleged tapes is:

"And the point would be...?"

The more direct comment would be:

"So, what?"
 
My sentiments exactly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have never believed anything from the story of Diana wanting to skip a generation. She herself was married to the Prince of Wales, she was a future Queen herself. As a born aristocrat and a countryside girl I am convinced she had a notion about the monarchy, an institution she herself was part of.

Plotting against the rightful King is also damaging the position of her own son (and his successors) because then it becomes clear Kings can become toppled by plotting (ex-)spouses, not even mentioning the hurt and the pain Prince William and Prince Harry would feel to see their beloved father bypassed and becoming a second sort Duke of Windsor with his own Court aside the real Royal Court. A most undesirable situation.

Really, this is one of these so typical complot theories based on nothing. It is also damaging the memory of the late Diana, framing her as an evil woman trying to undermine the monarchy. The real Diana would never damage the same instutution to which her very own two boys own everything.
 
Last edited:
Really, this is one of these so typical complot theories based on nothing. It is also damaging the memory of the late Diana, framing her as an evil woman trying to undermine the monarchy. The real Diana would never damage the same instutution to which her very own two boys own everything.

She damaged the institution with her behavior in the 1990's by working with the press to destroy her sons father including collaborating to write a book, making unnecessary interviews and many more...i can't write it all..if she was thinking about her sons future then i don't know why she portrayed herself as a victim stating the institution were evil to her. She succeeded though..part of her legacy is the negativity now written about the royals, mostly her sons father and even her own sons and sadly her daughter in law. Hope she is happy where ever she is, she might not have brought down the institution, but she definitely damaged it.
 
Even if i'm not the biggest fan of the late Princess of Wales, i find all this stuff unnecessary and distasteful at best. We all know that Diana did some pretty nasty things, as Charles, so why bring back AGAIN those old stories. Time to move on people, time to move on !
And to create a special thread for THAT ! C'mon guys, the athmosphere of the forum has been tense enough lately ...
 
[....] She succeeded though..part of her legacy is the negativity now written about the royals, mostly her sons father and even her own sons and sadly her daughter in law. Hope she is happy where ever she is, she might not have brought down the institution, but she definitely damaged it.

Negativity about the monarchy is of all times. George III, George IV, Victoria, all of them have seen the most grotesque cartoons or mockeries distributed in press. Even the now so great Queen Victoria has had periods of deep discontent and unpopularity. Rotten vegetables, dirt and stones were thrown to the royal carriage when the Queen rode out. So the negativity about royals is nothing new and surely not a legacy from Diana. Before her marriage, in 1977, there was a Silver Jubilee. This was in a time of doom and gloom, economic decline and "winters of discontent". The Queen's Silver Jubilee was carefully portrayed as a great success but there was quite a lot of negaitivity surrrounding it. Only a few years after, the wedding of Charles & Diana, Andrew active role in the Falklands War, the birth of new royal sprouts, the popularity of the royals rose but even then there were poisonous attacks, for an example on poor Sarah.
 
I don't believe the secret tapes in this article ever existed. Anyone with any access to the royal family can claim that Diana said or did things now, especially if the evidence has been "lost."

I believe that we should have access to tapes made by Diana when she knew she was being taped -- such as the Morton tapes and the full Panorama interview. Editing can completely change the whole tenor and meaning of the interviews and I think we should be able to judge for ourselves.

For those who say that we should drop it, I will ask how many books about Diana have you bought? Have you watched or listened to the tapes released so far? It's unreasonable for people who have probed Diana's private life to turn around and chastise others for doing the exact same thing. Like it or not, Diana intended the information she disclosed to Morton and Bashir to be made public and it is part of her legacy.

I feel less strongly about the Settelen tapes. She trusted the wrong person/ I believe there is a lot of information that was probably damaging to Diana's reputation that Settelen held back but, given that she was practicing her public speaking ability, she could have intentionally exaggerated or lied in order to practice.

I draw the line at secretly recorded telephone calls. Even public people have the right to privacy. There is not one person on earth would be able to withstand public scrutiny if all their private actions or words were made public.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm pleased to see this thread. People who don't see the point of it or who aren't interested don't need to venture in here. It's not compulsory.

I'm very interested in these tapes, for they are important primary sources. 'Sources for what?', you may ask. Well not evidence of the truth of the things said in them, but certainly evidence that they were said, and that, in itself, is of interest to me. From reading transcripts of anything you are at a disadvantage because you can't pick up nuances of speech or facial expressions made at the time the words are spoken. The difference is really noticeable when you compare a reading the transcript of the "Panorama" interview with watching the video of it.

I think these "Secret" tapes are fascinating. We can read so much about Diana and what she did and said but to be able to actually see her doing or saying them or talking about doing them is a treat and an invaluable resource.

NBC produced a show about the Morton & Colthurst audiotapes and videotapes, and it was shown on Larry King Live back in March 2004. I printed the transcript some years ago but I don't think it's still available on the NBC site. There were also the Settelen tapes.

On youtube you can find the 9 part "Princes Diana - The Secret Tapes" and I think it shows some of the film from the Settelen tapes as well as Morton's. I haven't watched it for a while so I can't be sure, but I know I've seen some extracts from the Settelen tapes somewhere though.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Roslyn, that was my point. I want to see everything all at once, not bits and pieces here & there.

In these tapes, she reads letters from Prince Philip & wonder if they were the same ones from the inquest. (I was searching for information on the inquest when I stumbled on this webpage.)

I think it is best if everything was out in the open.
 
To anyone with an interest in history these tapes, as well as her diaries, letters to and from and about her etc are invaluable sources of primary information about her life (as the same types of sources are about everyone).

It will be fascinating for historians in future generations to read Charles' and Diana's diaries about their lives, especially their life together, as this will shed a lot more information on what happened than the tit for tat interviews they did when they were alive - that is where historians have the advantage over people living at the time - the historian can get a fuller picture but getting all the information, or at least more of the information, than the person reveals during their lifetime.
 
:previous:
Is there any reason the British royal family should be concerned about a possible release of the tapes in question?
 
Last edited:
Best for whom?
For people with an interest in history and not just just current events, for the reasons Bertie set out above.

There are plenty of "he said, she said" contemporary accounts floating around, most of which, I venture to say, written by people biased one way or the other because of person feelings about one of the protagonists formed during their lifetime/s. Once the dust settles historians will get a go and I think they should have access to all of these valuable resources.

Is there any reason the British royal family should be concerned about a possible release of the tapes in question?
Considering what we already know Diana and Charles have said in private and public conversations and interviews, I doubt it. I know of no particular rumour/s.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Historians have access to diaries and letters and we get their interpretation of these events rather than getting to see the entire diaries, the entire letters, etc ourselves.

I don't want someone's interpretation of Edward VII's diary or the Queen Mother's or Queen Victoria's, I want to read the diary myself and form my own opinion.

Very few people expected their diaries to be read decades or centuries later.
The tapes are the modern equivalent of diaries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Considering what we already know Diana and Charles have said in private and public conversations and interviews, I doubt it. I know of no particular rumour.

If that is the case, then there is no need to do it - the information is already known.

Im not saying this to be contrary - I dont sit in a particular camp and I take the view that as Diana said shortly before she died, she hoped Charles and Camilla would get married; she was obviously in a happier place and she was "moving on". I think that showed character and maturity. I admire Camilla for her approach to public life and the commitment she has given - it wasn't an easy thing for her to do. I like the fact she has made Charles happier which has got to be a benefit.

If Diana was prepared to move on, then I think we all should. Whilst some of the main protagonists, and the children are still alive, this would only cause them pain as the partisan groups muster and argue over events and personalities.

I don't expect everyone/anyone to agree but I would prefer that these documents are released some 30 years from now (the same as with Cabinet Papers) or similar. I can see there is historical interest, but I would not like information gained through illegal means (phone tapping for instance) to ever be released.
 
My response you've highlighted was directed to the specific question posed by Al_bina of whether there is any reason the BRF should be concerned about a possible release of the tapes. What I was getting at, without actually saying it, was since we have already read the transcript of Charles saying he wanted to be his then-lover's tampon, and we have read the transcript of Diana saying "after all I've done for this f****** family", and have seen and read about them airing their dirty laundry in public, short of some revelation of serious criminal conduct or breach of national security on the part of a member of the BRF, what could be revealed that would be of concern to the BRF?

But the available information is not only limited to the personal stuff we should never have known about - for I agree with you about personal conversations like that being kept private - there is other stuff that Diana has said that I think is of interest and since others have had access to it and picked and chosen what they would reveal, that stuff should, I believe, be made available.

I may be wrong but I don't think the "secret tapes" reference means those private, illegally obtained, phone calls, I think it refers to the Settelen tapes and the Colthurst tapes, and they are the ones I would like to see made available, and not just made available in 30 years to historians. There is some merit in the suggestion that it could wait that long, but I am a curious beast and I may not be around then and I would like to hear all of it as it was made and not just the snippets that Morton decided to tell us about. Evidence can be very misleading when used selectively.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we will see some 'new information' or little known information released for the 20th & 25th anniversary of her death.

(Some may be from the tapes or letters.)
 
...I think it is best if everything was out in the open.
Would it be best for William and Harry for 'everything' to be out in the open? It's not as though the tapes would contain evidence that Charles was a double agent for the KGB, or that Diana was a murderess. It would just be more he said/she said regarding a nasty divorce. And any satisfaction the curious public would achieve would be minor in comparison to the hurt that her sons would experience.

Is there anyone on this forum who has ever been divorced? Would you want everyone in your hometown to have the complete record of what happened?

This amount of curiosity is unhealthy. Let her rest in peace, and let Charles enjoy his life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
She is an historic figure and so can't be left to rest in peace. She is studyable in history classes around the world and as such an information about her would be useful.

Sadly for members of public families this is part of the price they play for the privileged lives they live - that their lives will be dissected for centuries to come.
 
I doubt there will be many students to study the life of Diana. So much is already known and her impact was limited. The late Princess Margaret is already almost faded away, out of collective memory. The late Queen Elizabeth, who lived longer than a centenary, is following her daughter's path in the mist of memories. In comparison: Ms Wallis Warfield, previously Simpson and Spencer, had a much greater impact than Diana ever had. She was the cause of a constitutional crisis, of an amazing downfal of a reigning and popular King, of enduring tensions between two courts (the Windsors in London vs the Windsors in Paris) and even something 'banal' as the enormous collections of art, jewels and other objects made a longer lasting footprint than Diana had.

But even this lady -Wallis- is seldom studied by students. A lady to be compared with one of Henry VIIII's six wives, be it that not the wife but the King himself was beheaded in here. Other than for social interest, there is little for students to study about the life of the late Diana Spencer, I think.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As far as I can see, the ownership of the tapes is the issue for me. If they were stolen, "looked after" or whatever, who owns them. If they are the ones that Diana commisioned then it is pretty clear they belong to her estate. What is in them is totally irrelevant and to be honest, none of our damned business.

Yes there is a tiny bit of prurient interest "how did she sound when she put the knife in", you know, the baser parts of our nature that can keep us watching a train wreck. But once it's over, the debris has been removed and life goes on, what is it that keeps drawing us back to the train wreck that was Diana at that time.

I do not see any relevant, moral or ethical reason that the tapes should be aired. It's just that Diana's life is the ultimate money making machine. Even in death she has not been spared.
 
Last edited:
I doubt there will be many students to study the life of Diana...
On the contrary - the ladies you have named are great ones to study as biographies for students learning the ins and outs of writing a biography.

As a History teacher I can assure you that ladies such as Wallis and Diana are studied and will be studied for many years to come - Diana's influence and the outpouring of grief at her death makes her also a study in social change and sociology studies - certainly at a number of schools that I know personally.

Margaret will fade because she didn't do much. The Queen Mum and Wallis won't fade - Wallis brought down a King and The Queen Mum was inspirational to many during the dark days of WWII (she comes up regularly in essays I read by students across NSW on the question of the British Home Front during that war with Hitler's famous comment that she was the 'most dangerous woman in Europe' appearing frequently). No study of the British Home Front in WWII can ignore her.

As for Diana - she nearly destroyed the House of Windsor - and their recovery has been remarkable. 17 years ago if anyone has predicted that The Queen would be more popular than ever they simply would have laughed at you as the general feeling was that the monarchy might survive but it will never be as popular as it was in the early 80s.

If you look at the influential people of the 20th Century Diana is one of them and that makes her a person to be studied for generations to come - by historians and students in schools, even if not the general public at large.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I may be wrong but I don't think the "secret tapes" reference means those private, illegally obtained, phone calls, I think it refers to the Settelen tapes and the Colthurst tapes, and they are the ones I would like to see made available, and not just made available in 30 years to historians. There is some merit in the suggestion that it could wait that long, but I am a curious beast and I may not be around then and I would like to hear all of it as it was made and not just the snippets that Morton decided to tell us about. Evidence can be very misleading when used selectively.

Totally agree. They fed us bits & pieces and then only the bits they wanted to feed us.

There is about 36 hours of video tapes and unknown hours of audio tape.
(Videos: Settelen = 21 hours, 1997 secret tape = 12 hours,
Panorama = 2-4 hours. Audio: Morton/Colthurst = unknown. Phone tapes = unknown.)

These tapes are not the Settelen tapes nor the Colthurst tapes but were recorded in March of 1997.

I am curious cat and I want to see what they withheld.
 
On the contrary - the ladies you have named are great ones to study as biographies for students learning the ins and outs of writing a biography...
Maybe there are differences in what is needed to study a topic. Usually academic students must meet stringent requirements. They need to have a solid background in the theory and methods of their field and demonstrate a good knowledge. Prior to beginning work, a student will need to draw up a formal, written agreement with his/her supervisor. The agreement, which must be approved by the university, will outline the objectives of the research project and an individualised plan of study.

Let us assume that a student wants to research Diana, Princess of Wales. In what framework should that be done? History? Social sciences? Is the person of Diana, Princess of Wales "heavy" enough for an academic research project, for a thesis and a well-documented academic report, approved by supervisor and university? Yes, the late Margaret Thatcher is. Yes, Queen Elizabeth II is. Two ladies with direct political, social and historical influence which gives any student loads of data and information.

I have the feeling that any student who wants to make and to uphold a thesis about Diana, will meet raised eyebrows and even negative comments because it will become commented as ultra-light and not scientifical enough. Maybe we have different 'notions' of students. Maybe at secondary education level, studies about the life of Diana are acceptable for a starter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom