Diana's Secret Tapes Recorded in March 1997


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
:previous: I know what you mean. When I go there, I do a search string that specifies " -death -accident -conspiracy -icke " Otherwise, there are videos about Diana's death and accident (sad) and conspiracy theories (weird) that show up. :sad:
 
Oh yes, the Globe. Just a few weeks ago it's headline was, "Camilla Secretly Poisoning The Queen So She Can Take The Throne". Absolutely not a credible news source at all. I could see Diana writing in a journal or diary rather than taping her thoughts. We, as a public will never probably know and I agree with Denville, if any such writings or tapes actually existed, I hope we never find out and hopefully were destroyed. It wouldn't do Diana, her sons or the Royal Family any good. It would be too many years and the past needs to be buried. I agree also if there was anything such as tapes or diaries/journals, Paul Burrell would have blabbed about way before now.
 
As an historian I must disagree. To have her real thoughts etc would be a boon to future historians who would be able to refer to them - imagine if Princess Beatrice, instead of just editing Queen Victoria's diaries had destroyed them instead - how much poorer would be our understanding of QV?

If she did write a diary then it should in the royal archives and be made available to historians about 100 years after her death but certainly it shouldn't be destroyed.
 
My wish is that Diana's diaries are kept safe in the archives as well. I remember that it was discussed at the time of the 1981 wedding that one of her duties was keeping a diary. Historians need that information.
 
It depends what sort of a diary is kept, of course. Some royals, like Queen Victoria, poured their heart and soul into the pages of their journal. Others keep it strictly as a schedule of what they are doing/have done on any particular day, and therefore will not be particularly informative for future historians.

Actually, I don't know whether I would want to read in her diary about Diana's growing misery and despair during her life as Princess of Wales. I think we've all read enough of that, though little anecdotes about her children and Royal life would be interesting.
 
If a Diana diary/journal was to contain information and thoughts of historical significance then they, of course, would be of great interest. I agree with Curryong if a Diana diary contained entry upon entry of her sadness and misery at her marriage and being Princess of Wales, then there's nothing new to be gained or learned about, we do already know more than is enough. I agree also if she had insightful Royal life anecdotes that would be interesting.
 
Did she actually kepe a diary?I don't think i'd want to see these tapes (not that they exist) but if they did I fear that they would be from a time that Diana was very unhappy and a bit paranoid and she would not come across well in them
 
I believe that she had to keep an official diary for the Windsor archives, such as the type that are reviewed in official biographies. We certainly won't live to see what's in it.
 
I doubt that there is any rule that they have to keep an 'official' diary. It that was the case then Vicotria's wouldn't have been able to be edited and Edward VII's destroyed (he put that in his will and that was carried out - so we don't have his at all even though he kept a diary from the age of 7).

More modern royals probably don't keep diaries based on the fact that they communicate via social media way more and so probably don't record anything in that way - typical of their generation.
 
If a Diana diary/journal was to contain information and thoughts of historical significance then they, of course, would be of great interest.I agree with Curryong if a Diana diary contained entry upon entry of her sadness and misery at her marriage and being Princess of Wales, then there's nothing new to be gained or learned about, we do already know more than is enough. I agree also if she had insightful Royal life anecdotes that would be interesting.

In terms of social history, we can assume we'd have an accurate timeline for all the shenanigans going on behind-the-scenes, and not the 'spin' that took place later. That alone being the case, I doubt such a document would ever be allowed to see the light of day (if it exists) except a couple of hundred years down the line. :cool:
 
I believe that she had to keep an official diary for the Windsor archives, such as the type that are reviewed in official biographies. We certainly won't live to see what's in it.

I don't think so. I think she would have had to have a diary in the sense of her engagemetns ad so on, but there's no obligation to have a "personal" diary. I think they would NOT want that relly, as it might get into the wrong hands. BUt I think that Di wrote memoes to herself, about her problems..and I'm suere the Royals/palace officials would want to keep those secret...
 
An interesting thought that may be a possibility (and notice I said *may be*).

We know that during troubled times, Diana often turned to the spiritual and psychic looking for some answers and guidance. It wouldn't be surprising to me if one of them suggested that Diana keep a dream journal. A lot of our subconscious issues come out to us within dreams and many people keep a dream journal by the bedside as its the best way to remember dreams by writing them down upon awakening before the memory of them is lost.

I would think that any really personal writings such as dreams, emotional recordings and such would be respected and not be put into the public domain. A recounting of her thoughts and feelings, for example, from her trip to the Taj Mahal (we all remember the lonely photo there) would add to the historical significance of that tour.

I would hope that people would be discriminating as to what is of historical value and what should remain being Diana's personal thoughts. Perhaps this is what Diana's sisters felt as, if I remember right, they did destroy a lot of papers not long after Diana died.
 
well IIRC her family said that they destroyed just routine stuff like invitation letters and so on. But then they're not exactly brainy, the mother or sisters. I would like to think that if Diana had written personal stuff, or stuf about her marriage in private letters, it could be kept safely for a long time and then released when it could not hurt people. that would IMO be the ideal thing to do. But who knows what the Spencers got rid of? However I doubt if Diana kept a diary, Q Vic and older royals did, but that was a long time ago and she wasn't IMO of the generation that might keep one.
 
I know Diana liked to write, but some how I can't see her writing a whole voluminous personal diary like Q Vic. I think she liked writing letters, and I'd say tat that is why the Spencers got nervous about her letters and did a lot of destroying because she might have been engaged in indiscreet correspondence with friends. there were her love letters to Hewitt. and I'd imagine that in letters to friends she might have complained about Charles or talked about her love affairs. But I don't quite see her writing a diary. I think she might have jotted down "memoes to herself" mulling over things.. and they might also have been "dangerous" or indiscreet.
But thinking it over I'm not sure if she was likely ot have made tapes, I'd say pen and ink was more her medium
 
I doubt that there is any rule that they have to keep an 'official' diary. It that was the case then Vicotria's wouldn't have been able to be edited and Edward VII's destroyed (he put that in his will and that was carried out - so we don't have his at all even though he kept a diary from the age of 7).

More modern royals probably don't keep diaries based on the fact that they communicate via social media way more and so probably don't record anything in that way - typical of their generation.

Agreed, I doubt she kept a diary. If she did we would have known by now. Ken Wharfe, Patrick Jephson or Paul Burrell never mentioned that she kept a diary, I believe.
 
Simone Simmons mentioned in her book "Diana: the last words" that Diana had kept a personal diary. Most probably it was in Lady Sarah's hand right now, since she was the one in charge of sorting Diana's possession after her death.
 
Oh well if it is only Simone Simmons I' wouldn't trust her word too far.
 
HTML:
Oh well if it is only Simone Simmons I' wouldn't trust her word too far.

I wonder why you wouldn't trust her? Had she ever been caught telling false information, or you think she was not close to Diana to know this. Diana would spent 9 hours on phone with her one time. She was definitely a reliable source about Diana than most people.
 
About Simone Simmon's credibility. Here are some background information. Simone Simmons was asked to testify in both the Paul Burrel's case and the inquiry to the death of Diana and Dodi. She must be considered to be close to Diana enough to be asked by the juries, right?

About Simone Simmon loyalty to Diana. Yes she wrote two books about her. But according to herself, she was asked to do that in Feb, 1997 by Diana herself. But no evidence to suggest she was telling lie here. However, I happened to come across the following comments Simone Simmons left under the page of Sally Smith's 1999 book "Diana: in search of herslef" on Amazon. In that book, Sally Smith shed a very negative light on Diana, claiming that Diana was seriously mentally unstable. From the content, one can see Simone Simmon's genuine care for her late friend.

BySimone Simmonson January 12, 2000
Format: Hardcover
Sally Bedell Smith purports to have written about Diana, a book supposedly based on interviews with friends and relatives of the late Princess. I, for one, was mentioned and was faintly amused that this woman whom I have never spoken to or corresponded with in any way should claim to have interviewed everyone (including myself) for this book. I do see however, that she has taken some choice paragraphs out of my own book, re-worded them herself and has taken them completely out of context. Other contacts of Diana don't seem to have been interviewed by the author either. Maybe she can explain herself at a later date! This is not a book which portrays the Diana I knew, who had the same range of emotion as every other woman, but who enjoyed having fun, being "normal" when in disguise and had a propensity for practical jokes. She was a warm, spiritual person who cared about people, the environment and wanted to rid the world of horrors. She was emotional about disasters in her love life as are millions of other women on this planet. She certainly was not unstable as this book suggests and therefore, in my opinion, the material for this book is questionable.

At least Simone Simmons would be bothered to write a comment on an Amazon's page to defend her friend, this is an action I didn't see too much from Diana's other friends or even close relatives. Isn't it a manifestation of loyalty?
 
she wrote not one but 2 books on Diana, she sold stories to the papers, she and Di had a row and Diana cut her off. I wouldn't clal her a friend
 
she wrote not one but 2 books on Diana, she sold stories to the papers, she and Di had a row and Diana cut her off. I wouldn't clal her a friend

Simone simmon gave a clear explanation why she needed to write two books in the court. Because the first one was heavily edited by the publisher, and she couldn't bring out the information she wanted the world to know, for example the telephone call Diana received in Feb, 1997, therefore there was a second book.

Speaking about intention, after Diana's death, there was a lot of one-sided, unfriendly book written about Diana, as a friend, she wanted to write something to defend her late friend, can it be an intention?

About her row with Diana, Simone Sommons actually talked about it in her second book. In June 1997, she called to KP for Diana, but Diana was not around to answer, so Simone chatted a while with Paul Burrell. Later Diana found out their chat, she was angry. She said Simmons should not talk to Paul, because he was only a staff. And several days later Diana didn't answer Simone Sommons' call anymore, and moreover she didn't allow Paul Burrel to speak to Simone either.

Let's talk about Paul Burrel this person. In one way, I think he was in obsession with Diana but would do everything for her. In another way, he was so possessive of Diana he even secretly read Diana's corresponding without permission. He always claimed he knew everything about Diana. I do understand why he would have such confidence to say so. But I doubt Diana would let him know everything.

Let's turn to Simone Sommon. From her two books and her testimony in the inquiry, it seems she knew Diana's anti-landmine activities to a deep level. She claimed she was the person who introduced Diana to this campaign, in late 1996. She gave a great deal of details about this in her books and also in the court. There is physical evidences to support her claim. In the hearing to Diana's inquiry, she presented a Christmas card Diana sent her, which talked about this.
Q. Right. She sent you a Christmas card, is this right, in 1996 that referred to the work she was doing?
A. Yes.
Q. You have very kindly given us a copy of it, but it has this sentence in it. It says:
"Dearest Simone,
Thank you so much for all the lovely Christmas presents you arrived with today. Each one has been hand-picked with great care and attention and I'm enormously touched by your kindness. The knowledge is expanding at alarming speed. Watch out world.
"Lots of love and special thanks from Diana".
A. Yeah.
Q. Did you think that was a reference to research into landmines?
A. It was a reference, yes.

So from the information so far, Diana sounded like a nut to cut off a friend for such a petty reason -- because Simone had gossiped with Paul Burrell. If this is the real reason, no wonder people would say she had BPD (even BPD would be too mild to explain such exotic behavior). However, besides mental illness, there might be more sophistic reason to explain this. One explanation is Diana had some secrets (about her landmine campaign) she didn't want other people know, and she happened to have a very sneaking butler who would tried to peep into her secrets at every chances. Then she would really be worried when she found out Simone and Paul Burrel would sometimes talked to each other accidentally. It seems the most efficient way to prevent such thing happened again, is to excommunicate Simone, at least for a while. In this case, no wonder she wouldn't allow Paul Burrell to talk to Simone either.

Of course this is a speculation, a complicated one. But I think Diana was a very complexed person whose exotic behavior can not be explained simply by "madness".
 
....

Of course this is a speculation, a complicated one. But I think Diana was a very complexed person whose exotic behavior can not be explained simply by "madness".

I go with: 'if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck - within considerable reason it is a duck'
 
I go with: 'if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck - within considerable reason it is a duck'

That depends on the number of dimensions a person can see. A two dimensional person can never see a cube. To them a cube looks like a square, sounds like a square, so it must be a square. But a cube is not a square.
 
I really don't know what your points are.. Simmons wrote books on Diana for money. she also sold stories to the papers when Di was alive.
As I recall, she admitted that Di had cut her out because they had a dsipute about payment, Di gave her a present when she sent Diana a bill for her services.. and she watned to be paid in money, not a gift.. So Diana cut her off.
She also IMO appallingly made comments about Charles Spencer..
As for Burrell I'm afraid that he too has been disloyal to Diana, I think in fairness to him, he was hurt by the Spencers dropping him from the Diana Memorial fund but it does not excuse his taking her things or his books about her.
 
:previous:

I think your memory went wrong. Simone Simmons herself gave a clear description about her row with Diana in her book "Diana: the last words". She cut her off because she spoke to Paul Burrell in private.

What made the grief even harder to bear was that Diana and I had not spoken during the weeks before. We had had our tiffs before but this one was very petty. I had been to heal a mutual acquaintance and had telephoned Kensington Palace afterwards. Diana wasn't there and I spoke to Paul Burrell, just to leave a message asking Diana to call me back. He told me that I sounded tired. I said `No more than usual,' but then I made the mistake of telling him whom I had been treating.

Diana called the moment she got home. She was in a fury and asked why I had gossiped with Burrell. I told her I hadn't, that Burrell was exaggerating and that all I had told him was whom I had been healing. She retorted, `You shouldn't have been speaking to him at all--he's not a friend, he's a member of staff'. We spoke several times on the telephone in the following days, but the row carried on.
 
About Simone Simmons sold stories to the press about Diana. I think you got this information from Tina Brown's book. Well I don't count Tina Brown as a reliable sources. She had been caught making up stories in her book several times. But I knew Simone Simmons had talked to the press about Diana's landmine campaign around Jan 1997. Well I am not sure whether it was her own idea or Diana's idea. You know Diana liked to use the press to highlight her charity.

About her writing books about Diana after her death. There is not only one dimension in our worlds. Money may be one purpose, but mean while she could use her books to let the world know more about her friend. A book's effect is definitely better than leaving a comment on Amazon, right?
 
I wouldn't regard Simmons as a responsible source. as I recall, Bill Deedes and others got Diana interested in landmines...and SImmons was a friend of Diana's why did she write a load of trivila tittle tattle about her and insinuate thngs about Diana''s brother?
Its some time since I read the book, because I felt repelled by it.. but my recollection is of her and Diana fallig out over the issue of payment.. or at least having a dispute over it. She sent Diana a bill for her services (whatever they were) and Diana was astonished to get a bill from someone she thought was a friend.. and instead of paying the bill, sent Simmons some gift like a music player. Simmons Unless I'm greatly mistaken said that she already had one and that as her flat was tiny she had no use for another one. I'm pretty sure that this story came from SS's book, as I can't think that I could have imagined such a silly scenario. And as I recall Simmons admitted that she and Diana had not made up their quarrel so her claims to be a "friend" seem to be dubious to me. She and D only knew each other a short time, they quarrelled and Simmons was cut out by Diana.. and I'm sure that Di would be upset appalled that yet another "friend" had written a book about her for money.
Indeed on re reading the bit you've quoted which describes Di's row with SS over Burrell, if that's true, then Diana comes across as losing the plot very badly...
 
Last edited:
:previous:
I read the instance you mentioned about their row on money in Simone's book too. I don't think you made up the story. But the event happened long before. It was not because of that Diana excommunicated Simone.

Talk about who introduced Diana into the Landmine Campaign. I think I have read all Lord Bill Deedes' articles about Diana. I don't remember he claimed himself to be the one introduce her in that campaign. Moreover, I don't think Lord Bill Deedes, as experienced as he was, would take the initiative to drag Diana, who was till a member of the Royal Family after divorce, into such a political field. Through out her whole Landmine campaign, Diana had been accused meddling political things by a bunch of political figures, until two days before her accident.

In her book "Diana: the chronicle" Tina Brown wrote in a way that as if it was Mike Whitlam, the Director General of British Red Cross, who recruited Diana into this campaign. I didn't know where she got this information -- Tina didn't provide any reference to this story. But Mike Whitlam himself said the otherwise. He wrote an article about Diana shortly after her death which showed it was Diana who took the initiative. Here is a quote

The Princess called me out of the blue to have a meeting to talk about landmines. She had received quite a lot of information about landmines from the Red Cross and other organizations and she wanted to know whether the situation was a read tragedy or not. Of course, I explained the issue fully and after one hour she was convinced that this was something she could help with and make a real contribution to. The Angola trip was part of the program agreed. [1]

Plus, the trip to Angola was on Jan 15, 1997. But as early as around the christmas time of 1996, Diana had already communicated with Simmons about Landmine, as showed by her christmas card to Simmons ( ''The knowledge is expanding at alarming speed. Watch out world''). Clearly Simmons was among the first knowing about Diana's anti-landmine involvement. I found no reason not to believe her.

Although Simone Simmons was a friend, and she had publicly defended Diana several times. But it seems to me she is not a kind of person who would modify or hide facts in order to glorify Diana.

On one hand she would leave comments on Amazon to defend her friends. And when Penny Junor's book ``Chales: Victim or Villian'' was publish (1998), Simone Simmons immediately came out to dispute the book's claim that Diana had made life-threating calls to Camilla.
Simone Simmons, a close friend of Diana, said: "There is no way Diana would have made threats to Camilla. I'd have known. It's just not her style. She might try to kill herself but not anyone else. ''

On the other hand, in her second book, Simone Simmons claimed that Diana had an affair and sex with JFK junior in 1995 (at that time he was single). I am not surprised if this was true. Diana was not a traditional lady. That is why many people esteem her not, but this doesn't mean she didn't genuine care people's pright and suffering. Also definitely Simone Simmons was not a decent person by disclosing such secrets. It was reported that the JFK junior story had drove Prince William into tears. But to some degree, it manifests she was a frank people, who told thing as it was.

Some people believed Simone Simmons made up the story about the call Diana received in Feb 1997, which warned Diana to stay away from the landmine issue. Well if she really made up that story, she didn't need to tell the particular name of the caller, Nichola Soames, a person who is still alive to dispute her. She could easily pick a dead person's name, so that no one can dispute her claim at all. And a lot of subsequence evidences did show that Diana had concerns over her life in 1997. (Of course, that doesn't mean there is any conspiracy about her death, coincidence can happen!!)

References:
[1] Mike Whitlam, Director General The British Red Cross, "Diana, Princess of Wales the world's most effective volunteer", Forester Lifetime Magazine, autumn issue, 1997.
 
Patrick Jephson, Diana's Private Secretary, called Simmons' claim about the JFK affair "disgraceful." This is a quote from an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live":

"JEPHSON: I go with the others on this. The one particular example that I knew from my experience was the JFK, junior story. There is no truth in the allegation that Simone Simmons makes. I think it is disgraceful that she made it. I set up the meeting. I was present throughout it and that she should make up a story like that from such an innocent event is -- I think it's disgraceful."

The quote is taken from near the end of this transcript: CNN.com - Transcripts





On the other hand, in her second book, Simone Simmons claimed that Diana had an affair and sex with JFK junior in 1995 (at that time he was single). I am not surprised if this was true. Diana was not a traditional lady. That is why many people esteem her not, but this doesn't mean she didn't genuine care people's pright and suffering. Also definitely Simone Simmons was not a decent person by disclosing such secrets. It was reported that the JFK junior story had drove Prince William into tears. But to some degree, it manifests she was a frank people, who told thing as it was.
 
I don't thnk that Jephson can take any high moral ground, mermaid but I do feel that in this instance he's right. As I recall SS first put it out as Diana finding JFK attractive and then in the next book she claimed there was a fling.. clearly lying to make the story more exciting..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom