Diana's Secret Tapes Recorded in March 1997


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Early 1997 (Jan- Mar)


  • January 12-17 Diana visits Angola to support the British Red Cross’s campaign for a total ban of landmine. Her trip was attacked by junior defense minister Earl Howe for being “ill informed on the issue of anti-personnel mines” and “a loose cannon that Her Majesty’s government did not need”.

  • Jan 21, Diana has a secret meeting with Tony Blair.

  • In Feb, according to Simone Simmons in the hearing, Diana received a threatening phone call which told her that she shouldn’t interfere in matters she knows nothing about and “accidents can happen”. Diana believed the caller was Charles' close friend Nicholas Soames, the then Defence Minister.

  • According to [1][2], In late Feb, Diana started to contact a ex-BBC cameraman to help her to make some secret tapes. The first tape was made on March 7. The content was very explosive, and extremely hostile towards Charles. In one tape, Diana 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. The cameraman made a diary of this event. There are some suggestions she planned to use them as a bargaining tool. Other suggest she planned for them to be stored to secure her place in history.
"Arrived at KP (Kensington Palace) 7.45pm as prearranged. Taxi waved through by duty policeman. Diana waiting in drawing room as previous. Chatted while I set up. She sat in armchair, hands on lap. Asked me to frame only head and shoulders. She would signal with her hand when she wanted a break." -- The BBC Cameraman's diary

  • March 19, Diana suddenly decided to attend the Daily Star Gold Awards ceremony, which she always refused for years. She presented an award to former Royal Marine police captain, Chris Marine police captain, Chris Moon who lost a leg when trying to clear a landmine in Mozambique. Diana tells guests at the award, "Chris truly symbolises what selfless bravery is." Former Daily Star executive Michael Hellicar said: "We had been trying to get Diana along to the event for years but she always politely declined. Suddenly, in 1997 we received word she would attend"[3][4]. In the lunch afterwards, she had a long chat with Chris about landmine:
"We had a long chat about every aspect of the landmines issue. She was very interested in the detail of what was going on in different places to clear mines and to assist victims. We were discussing the best strategy for helping people and she knew it was not always straightforward. She was looking seriously at where the money was going and what was going to be the most effective and efficient course of action" -- Chris Moon

  • According to Simone Simmons' testimony to the inquest, Diana had been collected report of the manufacturing and trading of landmines, and she called it "Profiting Out Of Misery".

References:
[1] Gordon Thomas, “Diana’s Secret Tapes Forced Charles to Admit He is At Center of Royal Scandal”, 10 Nov 2003.
[2] Gordon Thomas, “Diana’s Secret Tapes”, Canada Free Press, 4 Oct 2006.
[3] “Star Who Shone in Landmine Campaign”, Daily Star, 1 Sep 1997.
[4] “Hero Awards Party Sealed Princess Diana’s Fate”, Daily Star, 10 Oct 2013.
 
Last edited:
Remark of "Early 1997"

Although some of the events were not solidly confirmed, but one can see a casual connection between them, and they very well explained the existence of each other. The life-threatening call she received can explain why she would made those tapes shortly afterwards. And her sudden decision to attend the Daily Star Gold Awards ceremony and the words she said there was her response – a gesture of defiance towards the threat she received. And her strong desire to help the mine victims explained why she would make the “Profiting Out Of Misery” report. The only thing which doesn’t make sense is Diana's extreme hostility towards Charles in those tapes. They were said to be in a really good relationship in the last year.

However, the fact that Nicholas Soames (the phone caller) was Charles’ long-time friend and confidant can explain this hostility somewhat. Nicholas Soames was/is very loyal and close to Charles. When Diana’s panorama interview was on live, as a Minister of the government, Soames broke the protocol to attended a live TV show (in order to defend Charles), in which he called Diana “at the advanced state of paranoid”. And latter, he went on to do an interview in the Daily Telegraph, and called Diana “totally unguided missile” [1]. Thus, the hostility towards Charles, actually would make Simone Simmons’ testimony more credible.

Moreover, the existence of these tapes was revealed in Nov 2003, and the life-threatening call was disclosed in Jan 2008 in the inquest. It is impossible to fake such a story which turned out years latter can fit in the context so perfectly.

As the Defense Minister of the government, Nicholas Soames, definitely had a deep inside knowledge of the weapon industry. No wonder Diana would take his words so serious. However, it doesn't mean he would be the one who has intention to harm Diana. Because it would be quite silly to disclose himself in this way. I tend to believe he actually tried to warn Diana based on his "knowledge". His intention was not totally malicious, that is why he could be so honestly and frankly to say those things to Diana.

Reference:
[1] “Hearing of Inquest into the Deaths of Diana and Dodi – Nicholas Soames”, 12 Dec 2007 afternoon.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Oh please, not another rehash of unsupported finger pointing a Prince Charles close friend. I reference him as that because that's what makes him "important".

However, as ever, there is no proof whatsoever that such a telephone call was even made.

According to [1][2], In late Feb, Diana started to contact a ex-BBC cameraman to help her to make some secret tapes. The first tape was made on March 7. The content was very explosive, and extremely hostile towards Charles. In one tape, Diana 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. The cameraman made a diary of this event. There are some suggestions she planned to use them as a bargaining tool. Other suggest she planned for them to be stored to secure her place in history.

The only thing which doesn’t make sense is Diana's extreme hostility towards Charles in those tapes. They were said to be in a really good relationship in the last year.
And there we have the eternal conundrum that was Diana. It didn't make sense at all unless you wish to attribute malice to her making the tapes because Diana knew that the only way Charles would not be King would be if he predeceased his Mother.

You are right, she was seen and heard to be in good relationship with Charles, and yet here she is making tapes about Charles friends trying to threaten and intimidate her. It doesn't make sense.
 
anbrida, Diana and Charles had good relationship in the last year of her life. I don't remember hearing anything about Charles friends threatening her in 1997. They may not wanted to divorce in '96', but they found clarity in their relationship and moved on.
 
anbrida, Diana and Charles had good relationship in the last year of her life. I don't remember hearing anything about Charles friends threatening her in 1997. They may not wanted to divorce in '96', but they found clarity in their relationship and moved on.

It is from Simone Simmons' testimony in the hearing of the inquest to Diana and Dodi's death.

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Hearing transcripts: 10 January 2008 - morning session

But as I say, Nicholas Soames made this phone doesn't mean he was the one who had intention to harm her. And it was a fact that Nicholas' party the Tory was very unhappy about Diana's involvement in Landmine. And Nichola was not only Charles' friend, he was also the Defence minister of the government. I am not surprise he made that call.

Actually, there are many other things indicate that such thing happened.
 
:previous: Oh please, not another rehash of unsupported finger pointing a Prince Charles close friend. I reference him as that because that's what makes him "important".

However, as ever, there is no proof whatsoever that such a telephone call was even made.

And there we have the eternal conundrum that was Diana. It didn't make sense at all unless you wish to attribute malice to her making the tapes because Diana knew that the only way Charles would not be King would be if he predeceased his Mother.

You are right, she was seen and heard to be in good relationship with Charles, and yet here she is making tapes about Charles friends trying to threaten and intimidate her. It doesn't make sense.

What do you mean by "no proof". Someone told this story when she testified in a court. To the contrary, there is no proof to disclaim her testimony.

Nicholas Soames was not only a close friend to Charles, he has another important role -- the Defence Minister of the Tory government. It is well known that Tory was very unhappy about Diana's involvement in the landmine. I believe Nicholas Soames made this call not because he was Charles' friend, but because he was the Defence Minister.

However, when Diana got his phone, she might more think of his role as Charles' close friend instead. She might think Charles' camp being jealousy about her again. But from her good relationship with Charles later on, I think she changed her mind, and believed Nicholas called because of his another role -- the defence minister.

If you read the two reference articles I posted, you can see the story behind those tapes was very detailed. It has detailed dates, direct quotes and even diary. The most incredible thing is, the tape story was disclosed in 2003, 5 years before the the disclosure of the phone story. But these two stories match perfectly well in the context. To me it is quite impossible to be fake.
 
[...]
Nicholas Soames was not only a close friend to Charles, he has another important role -- the Defence Minister of the Tory government. [...]

Nicholas Soames was never "the Defence Minister of the Tory government". He was a Minister of State for the Armed Forces, which is a middle-ranking ministerial position (no Cabinet position), subordinate to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Defence (= the British Minister of Defence).

:flowers:
 
Nicholas Soames was never "the Defence Minister of the Tory government". He was a Minister of State for the Armed Forces, which is a middle-ranking ministerial position (no Cabinet position), subordinate to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Defence (= the British Minister of Defence).

:flowers:

That is what I read from wiki

Soames is a former Defence minister having served in the government of John Major (1994–97). His main political interests are defence, international relations, rural affairs and industry. He is also chairman of the private security contractor Aegis.[1]

But I think you are right too. However defence is one of his main political interests.
 
What do you mean by "no proof". Someone told this story when she testified in a court. To the contrary, there is no proof to disclaim her testimony . . . .
In a Court of Law in the UK, be it Criminal, Civil or Inquest, people testify "telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Needless to say, that testimony is weighed for it's truth and (mercifully) robustly examined.

So, to continue;
Nicholas Soames was never "the Defence Minister of the Tory government". He was a Minister of State for the Armed Forces, which is a middle-ranking ministerial position (no Cabinet position), subordinate to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Defence (= the British Minister of Defence).
So, the lady in question not only testified that Nicholas Soames made a threatening call to Diana, she also didn't bother to do her homework and investigate the job description of her villain of choice, naming him as "the Defence Minister of the Tory government". Her pièce de résistance was that he was also "a friend of Charles". Damning evidence indeed.

The Guardian said:
Mohamed Al Fayed branded Prince Philip a "Nazi" and a "racist" in the high court today as he detailed his belief that his son Dodi and Diana, Princess of Wales, were "murdered" in a conspiracy initiated by the royal family and carried out with the involvement of Tony Blair, the security services and others.

If my position on evidence given at the Inquest is of any help, I did not believe Mr Al Fayed's "testimony" either.

So, still no actual tapes!
 
Last edited:
Marg: A lovely, logical tour de force that you wrote. I liked Diana a lot, and honor her legacy. But there are two sides to the story, at very least.
 
Marg: A lovely, logical tour de force that you wrote. I liked Diana a lot, and honor her legacy. But there are two sides to the story, at very least.
Hear!Hear! When it comes to the Charles/Diana stories this can be forgotten in my opinion.
 
In a Court of Law in the UK, be it Criminal, Civil or Inquest, people testify "telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Needless to say, that testimony is weighed for it's truth and (mercifully) robustly examined.

So, to continue;So, the lady in question not only testified that Nicholas Soames made a threatening call to Diana, she also didn't bother to do her homework and investigate the job description of her villain of choice, naming him as "the Defence Minister of the Tory government". Her pièce de résistance was that he was also "a friend of Charles". Damning evidence indeed.



If my position on evidence given at the Inquest is of any help, I did not believe Mr Al Fayed's "testimony" either.

So, still no actual tapes!

The lady in question never described Nicholas Soames as "the Defence Minister of the Tory government" neither "a friend of Charles". She just gave the name. It is my fault to call him "the Defence Minister". Because I don't know in Britain there are "the Defence Minister" and "a Defence Minister". I thought they are the same. But now I know it.

About the existence of the tape. Though the tapes have never disclosed to the public, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, there is never any physical evidence found to support the claim that Jesus is a true history figure. But we still can pretty sure that Jesus did once exist in this world. That is because we have a lot of environmental evidence to suggest it.

Back to the tapes. Yes no physical evidence suggest they exist. But there are a lot environmental evidences to suggest so -- the phone call, the timing, Diana's so-called premonition of her death, Diana's fear of her life, Diana's own words in the Le Monde interview and so on.
 
Last edited:

  • January 12-17 Diana visits Angola to support the British Red Cross’s campaign for a total ban of landmine. Her trip was attacked by junior defense minister Earl Howe for being “ill informed on the issue of anti-personnel mines” and “a loose cannon that Her Majesty’s government did not need”.

  • Jan 21, Diana has a secret meeting with Tony Blair.

  • In Feb, according to Simone Simmons in the hearing, Diana received a threatening phone call which told her that she shouldn’t interfere in matters she knows nothing about and “accidents can happen”. Diana believed the caller was Charles' close friend Nicholas Soames, the then Defence Minister.
...
Thank you for the time line.
Diana, who had recently visited a land mine site, is contacted by someone whom she believes to be in government and a friend of Charles (but she's not 100% sure who the call came from.) This person asks her to not be involved in the land mine issue.
We know members of government don't want her blundering into the issue because she is seen as a loose cannon and ill informed about the issue. It's a message she doesn't want to hear.
The caller tells Diana in the land mine conversation that 'accidents can happen.'
To my literal mind if some one warns about 'accidents' happening in a conversation about land mines they are trying to remind the listener that even with the clearing efforts mined areas remain unsafe and people get blown up even in areas believed to be cleared. Sounds to me like someone trying to persuade her to stop visiting land mine sites for her own safety because walking through even cleared areas could cause her to get blown up by stepping on an undiscovered mine - or at least using that concern as part of the argument to try to get her to stop.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the time line.
Diana, who had recently visited a land mine site, is contacted by someone whom she believes to be in government and a friend of Charles (but she's not 100% sure who the call came from.) This person asks her to not be involved in the land mine issue.
We know members of government don't want her blundering into the issue because she is seen as a loose cannon and ill informed about the issue. It's a message she doesn't want to hear.
The caller tells Diana in the land mine conversation that 'accidents can happen.'
To my literal mind if some one warns about 'accidents' happening in a conversation about land mines they are trying to remind the listener that even with the clearing efforts mined areas remain unsafe and people get blown up even in areas believed to be cleared. Sounds to me like someone trying to persuade her to stop visiting land mine sites for her own safety because walking through even cleared areas could cause her to get blown up by stepping on an undiscovered mine - or at least using that concern as part of the argument to try to get her to stop.

That is an interesting interpretation. What Simone Simmons heard was

"Don't meddle with what you don't know about" and "Accidents can happen".

So if the caller's intention is to warn her about the mine field, I think he would be more explicitly about what he said. According to Simone Simmons, Diana's face turned pale after hearing his words. I don't think the caller intention was only to warn her away the minefield.
 
Hear!Hear! When it comes to the Charles/Diana stories this can be forgotten in my opinion.


Hear Hear Hear!!The Lady died,leave her in peace.
 
Gosh are we still with that story ? I thought that one of the members of the forum, who worked for the landmine campaign at this time, told us that Diana was not a key figure at all and that all the decisions were already made.
This thread is borderline "conspiracy theory" imo ....
 
:previous: Once "the proof of life of Jesus" card is played equating it with the proof of the existence of these Diana tapes, oh yeah, definitely crossed the border into conspiracy theory.
 
:previous: Once "the proof of life of Jesus" card is played equating it with the proof of the existence of these Diana tapes, oh yeah, definitely crossed the border into conspiracy theory.

The main fact is that it is all supposition about what may have been with no real evidence. There is no way we'll ever know and even if we did, what difference would it really make? To be honest, I really don't care.
 
The main fact is that it is all supposition about what may have been with no real evidence. There is no way we'll ever know and even if we did, what difference would it really make? To be honest, I really don't care.

According to your argument, why do we need to study about history, read history book, investigate history then? Since what difference would it really make? Actually why do we need to talk about Diana at all, she's been dead for 18 years, a very much history figure now, everything we talk about her are history. There is no rule here tell us what can we talk about and what we can't talk about right?
 
:previous: Once "the proof of life of Jesus" card is played equating it with the proof of the existence of these Diana tapes, oh yeah, definitely crossed the border into conspiracy theory.

What is your argument here. You said there is no physical proof of the existence of tapes, the same to the existence of Jesus as a real history figure. That is true. Historians try hundreds of years to find any physical evidence of Jesus, but nothing has ever been found. That is a typical example of "no physical evidence \= not exists".
 
Last edited:
According to your argument, why do we need to study about history, read history book, investigate history then? Since what difference would it really make? Actually why do we need to talk about Diana at all, she's been dead for 18 years, a very much history figure now, everything we talk about her are history. There is no rule here tell us what can we talk about and what we can't talk about right?

History, for the most part is looked at without rose colored glasses and is based in fact. Diana attending the State Opening of Parliament with multiple videos, photographs are witnesses to the occasion are part of history. Diana's children following in her footsteps with various charities and causes are historical and create a legacy that lives on and hopefully will through generations to come. What is pointless is to rehash and try to pull off as fact are things that are suppositions, maybes and could have beens and things that an author wrote that could very well have been embellished or totally made up as has happened in many, many books written about famous figures.

As time passes, historians can and will look at Diana with more impartiality and mostly for the facts. What I don't care about is all the "conspiracy" suppositions regarding her private life and secret tapes and whether or not Diana was pregnant by Dodi when she died.

ETA: About the rules of what we should talk about and not talk about, according to the TRF rules we should:

Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources. The moderators reserve the right to delete posts containing the more fanciful types of gossip and speculation, whether they originate in gossip magazines and websites or are simply fabricated.
 
Last edited:
Gosh are we still with that story ? I thought that one of the members of the forum, who worked for the landmine campaign at this time, told us that Diana was not a key figure at all and that all the decisions were already made.
This thread is borderline "conspiracy theory" imo ....

Why can't we just talk about everything about Diana, without giving label. IYO, it is a conspiracy theory, IMO I think it is a history study and analysis.

A member here said Diana was not a key figure, that is only her opinion. However it seems some politicians didn't think so. When Diana did her campaign, politicians called her "a loose canon", "meddling in politic", force her to pull out a private landmine meeting, asked her to "keep quite and don't seek so much publicity", before the Oslo meeting. If Diana was so irrelevant, why those politicians would be bothered to come out one by one to attack her.

A lot of evidences, not only in this thread, showing that Diana did have concern of her safety. Therefore if people want to talk about Diana's activity and state of mind in her last year, it would unfortunately make some people feel borderline conspiracy. Does that mean 1997 becomes a landmine field of Diana, which we should not talk about, study about, because it make some people feel that way?
 
Last edited:
History, for the most part is looked at without rose colored glasses and is based in fact. Diana attending the State Opening of Parliament with multiple videos, photographs are witnesses to the occasion are part of history. Diana's children following in her footsteps with various charities and causes are historical and create a legacy that lives on and hopefully will through generations to come. What is pointless is to rehash and try to pull off as fact are things that are suppositions, maybes and could have beens and things that an author wrote that could very well have been embellished or totally made up as has happened in many, many books written about famous figures.

As time passes, historians can and will look at Diana with more impartiality and mostly for the facts. What I don't care about is all the "conspiracy" suppositions regarding her private life and secret tapes and whether or not Diana was pregnant by Dodi when she died.


There is no limit to what kind of history we can talk about or not talk about. There is no limit to WHO should study the history and who should not. Even conspiracy claims can be a subject of history study AS LONG AS there are evidences to support those claims. However, not only physical evidences but also documentary evidences are considered as evidence.

Everything in history study is MAYBE or COULD HAVE BEEN. Most historian has never met the subject they study. Every conclusion they made is MAYBE or COULD HAVE BEEN. That doesn't mean their work is worthless. It depends on whether their evidences can adequately and logically explain some known events.

When we read a history book, they way we evaluate the book, is not by looking at its author. Who is the author doesn't matter, what matter is the content.

Different to other years of Diana's life, 1997 is her most informative year. Because she died on that year, many people who knew her came out to give a memoir of her, of course their clearest memory of her was in 1997. And there is an inquest to her death, which provide abundant information on her in the last year. Therefore, in terms of history study, 1997 is a gold mountain.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? Those Diana tapes are being compared to Jesus? Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of all mankind?

That's beyond fanaticism. And it's also ridiculously pathetic.
 
Seriously? Those Diana tapes are being compared to Jesus? Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of all mankind?

That's beyond fanaticism. And it's also ridiculously pathetic.

I think you may have misunderstood.
I understood that Jesus' name was introduced here as being another subject for which there was anecdotal evidence as are the tapes, not at all to suggest that the tapes were sacred or a matter of salvation! :flowers:
 
As for these tapes, no one even know if they really exist? So why are people here acting like their existence is fact? As for releasing them, I am a history major and part of this just seems like people being nosey in a world where everyone thinks everything is their business.
I understand personal matters are studied but usually it is because they impact the larger world. JFK being a man whore impacted the US govt. Henry VIIIs letter to Anne Boleyn had a huge impact on England. The rantings of a woman about her fantasy to be the QM seems more like petty gossip history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once she admitted to the Hewitt relationship, the other rumours became so much more credible. That was the real turning point in my own opinion about Diana. Once Charles and Diana began "invading their own privacy", no holds were barred. The press went wild and published more negative stuff than ever before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes I think you're right Mermaid. I think she HAD to, because there was plenty of gossip and there were other relationships she had had, that were more damaging to her reputation than the one with Hewitt.
He was single, at least and some of the others were with married men.. and I think to avoid questions about Hoare or Will C, she felt she had to tell about Hewitt, and also I think she wanted to hit back at Charles to say "OK so you are admitting an affair with camilla, well I haven't gone unadmired. I have had a lover as well."
but all the same, once she had admitted to one affair, the others became more credible. And while some people seem to be able to believe there was nothing in the other relationships, there is too much evidence and do we really beleive that she was checking a man out and saying "are you married" before she let herself get fond of him?
so once that had happened seh began to look no different to charles, that she was looking for consolation over her unhappy marriage and didn't care if she was getting it from someone already committed... and I think people began to cool and see her as - not a bad person but no better than her husband.. and perhaps begain to feel "OK they had a bad marriage.. noone's fault and they have both found other lovers..and they have not been able to live with each other and keep up a facade of marriage..She isn't an angel of goodness and he isn't a demon..." So the feelng of Diana as someone really angelic and special and her husband as a horrible guy began to ebb away...
 
You know neither you or I were there in their lives prowling the corridors to see who was sleeping with who. Why can't we ALL just move on. There is something a bit sad that we can't just let it go. Diana is dead she can't reply. And I don't buy it's history etc it's just sad very sad


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Sometimes a person comes to these forums with knowledge about a certain area of the BRF as I once did. Interest in Diana, the triangle and the scandalous stuff I saw on the front pages of tabloids at the grocery store back then. Oh yah, and silly Ascot hats.

Trust me, I didn't even have knowledge at all. Look where its gotten me in 8 years. I'm astounding myself by learning something new every time I visit. I asked questions and stated stupid stuff that got me right royal corrected. I'm not there yet but starting to branch out to other royal monarchies and their families and who they are, what they do and yes, the royal scandals just because I can.

One way to learn and be a part of someone else's learning experience is just to be here. That's what TRf is for. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom