The Panorama Interview: November 20, 1995


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think she had a lot of motives for that interview, largely to do with trying to take back some control over her future by appealing to the people over the heads of the royal family, but I still think that a large part of the motivation was to plant the idea in people's heads that the succession could be altered. And I think she thought she was popular enough to really start a serious debate that would end in Charles realising he was so unpopular that remaining in the line of succession would be too damaging for the monarchy. Her "I want to be queen in people's hearts" seems to me to be a suggestion that she'd make a good mentor and regent for her young son because she wasn't really just a semi-detached princess but was in fact the royal personage who really mattered in the eyes of the public. That whole interview struck me at the time, and still does, as an attempted coup.

Interesting thoughts. I hadn't thought of it in terms of an attempted coup, but I think that's a good way of putting it. I think she probably had a number of reasons, but that they were all selfish and directed at achieving the best possible position for herself. It was like an election campaign speech, designed to get support from the public, and make her more popular than her competitors. She would have known she'd had some bad press, and wanted to claw back support with a view to improving her bargaining position with the enemy.

After all she'd done, she can't seriously have thought she would be able to mend bridges with the RF; what she said in the Squidgygate tapes can have left them in no doubt as to what she really thought about them and their respective importance.
 
I think Diana really was hooked on the public's opinion as transported through the media. Richard Kay from the Daily Mail said that Diana phoned him occasionally to ask what the Sunday papers were writing about her and he said that she really was afraid that an unpleasant story could be printed. IMHO she thought too much about her power through the public because especially the Royals have been very good in ignoring negative press.

True. It's awful to come to a point where you must always please people around you just to have their 'love'. It reflects a certain loneliness she couldn't push away because she felt she had no one around her. IMO, she only came obsessed with her image in the press in the early 90's. Before, she still had a grip on Charles' possible affection or care and she had an affair (two, if you include Mannakee) so she wasn't craving for someone's love. But then it all went away : the dreams, the caring lover, etc. to be replaced by terrible headlines like Squidgygate and separation rumors ; It was supposed to be the fairytale of the century and it ended up in a disaster. Who was left next to her ? Who was still standing at her side ? The public. And that's how it all started ...
 
Interesting thoughts. I hadn't thought of it in terms of an attempted coup, but I think that's a good way of putting it. I think she probably had a number of reasons, but that they were all selfish and directed at achieving the best possible position for herself. It was like an election campaign speech, designed to get support from the public, and make her more popular than her competitors. She would have known she'd had some bad press, and wanted to claw back support with a view to improving her bargaining position with the enemy.

After all she'd done, she can't seriously have thought she would be able to mend bridges with the RF; what she said in the Squidgygate tapes can have left them in no doubt as to what she really thought about them and their respective importance.

I USED TO THINK that the Panorama Interview-which was 'off the chain' as we say in the hood was a classic example of " hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." I also read Dimblebly's book in which Charles waxes poetically about Camilla -"finding the love, security, understanding etc.. that he never thought that he would find in another person." Ouch. So Diana struck back.

But with recent revelations that Diana was conspiring with Tony Blair to 'pass over' Charles; install William as king with Andrew as regent, I re-read the Panorama interview. Some of the rhetoric does not even sound like Diana. It sounds more Alastair Campbell , Labor partyish. eg. "Queen of People Hearts" line.
I think Diana was being fed false information-likely by Blair and cronies that the Queen was going to abdicate soon. Diana was being used to create an impossible situation for Charles and the royal family.

No one is blameless. It is just a shame that the parties involved forgot that personal is personal and business is business. The BRF, the monarchy is the Winsdor family BUSINESS. This pettiness and BS should have been put aside for the good of the business and the future of the family.
 
Do you think Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell knew about this interview ahead of time? Although Tony Blair was Labour leader at the time of the Panorama interview, he didn't become Prime Minister until 1997.
 
Do you think Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell knew about this interview ahead of time? Although Tony Blair was Labour leader at the time of the Panorama interview, he didn't become Prime Minister until 1997.

YES I DO. In 'The Blair Years' , Campbell lists a series of meetings with Princess Diana, him, and Blair, and sometimes Cherie. The first meeting was May 4 1995.
 
YES I DO. In 'The Blair Years' , Campbell lists a series of meetings with Princess Diana, him, and Blair, and sometimes Cherie. The first meeting was May 4 1995.

We have learned not a long time ago that Tony Blair agreed to the British part in the Iracq war single-handed, without consulting the queen or listen to her advice, so I wouldn't put it past him to think about replacing the strong-minded Prince of Wales with his underaged son and the people's princess as regent. For Labour surely profited from the fact that people were seeing the most conservative family in the country fighting in public and so did diminish the image of family, heritage and tradition which carries the conservative party.

If I were prone to conspiracy theories I'd say that Balir ordered MI& to bump Diana off as she was a nut case when it came to her relationships with politics - Blair would never have been able to control her when she believed she was in the right. But OTOH his party still had advantages from the fact that she was still there, still a thorn in the side of the establishment. So, sorry, no motive here IMHO. :flowers:
 
Somehow that reminds me of that Stpehen King novel with the pschopathic nurse who nursed the writer. In the beginning she only seems to want to take care of him but once she realises that he has a mind of his own she does all she can to bring him down and make him do what she wants... In a similar way Diana seemed to have believed she was the only possible saving grace of the monarchy and all had to do as she guided them in order to "save the monarchy".
MISERY - How apt! :ROFLMAO:

We don't get the chance to go on TV and try to get the sympathy of the world though...
Most people wouldn't want to! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
That, I really don't know Jo. But Diana lied easily when she was in a tough situation so it was much more simple for her to place the blame than recognize her faults.
These were not 'on the spur of the moment lies', these were well thought out and practised lies. We know from Bashir's later interview about the programme, that he and Diana had sorted out what questions he could ask. We know that Mannakee, Gilby, Hoare, Carling, etc were off the menu so to speak. We know that she insisted on moving the chair, to ensure the woeful look. So it wasn't a case of in a 'tough situation', she knew what questions were coming and had carefully planned her answers.
 
These were not 'on the spur of the moment lies', these were well thought out and practised lies. We know from Bashir's later interview about the programme, that he and Diana had sorted out what questions he could ask. We know that Mannakee, Gilby, Hoare, Carling, etc were off the menu so to speak. We know that she insisted on moving the chair, to ensure the woeful look. So it wasn't a case of in a 'tough situation', she knew what questions were coming and had carefully planned her answers.

it reminds me of a psychological study about hatred I read lately. It described a series of tests where people who had identified themselves as hating someone else should pass judgment on texts over that hated person. It turned out that it was enough to add only one positive sentence in an otherwise very to extremely critical text to make the proband angry and to make him/her dismiss that text completely.

Thinking about that I guess Diana really hated the Dimbleby-book and that may be a reason, too, why she overdid it so much in the Panorama-interview. The interesting thing is that at the time of presentation it was quite well received, it took some time for the implications and the deliberate intent of it to sink in with the viewers. But it must have ben pretty hard on the Royal family. Especially as even Diana said that they had offered help but she hadn't taken it.
 
I USED TO THINK that the Panorama Interview-which was 'off the chain' as we say in the hood was a classic example of " hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." I also read Dimblebly's book in which Charles waxes poetically about Camilla -"finding the love, security, understanding etc.. that he never thought that he would find in another person." Ouch. So Diana struck back.
I doubt even Tony Blairs and Alaris Campbell would ever said these to Diana. Moreoever, the interview was in 1995 and Tony Blair was not the opposite leader yet. I doubt how Diana could have any interaction with them. Even some people near the Queen may have given her some suggestions about changing the succession line, they would not feed this information to Diana.

IMO Diana was very capable of positive spinning without Alairs Campebell's advices. She was a PR genius and even these professional spinning doctors recognised this. Since Diana thought herself as "Queen of the hearts", it was not a surprised that she would use her son to replace Charles as the next-in-line and herself became the King's mother after the Queen.
 
True. It's awful to come to a point where you must always please people around you just to have their 'love'. It reflects a certain loneliness she couldn't push away because she felt she had no one around her. IMO, she only came obsessed with her image in the press in the early 90's. Before, she still had a grip on Charles' possible affection or care and she had an affair (two, if you include Mannakee) so she wasn't craving for someone's love. But then it all went away : the dreams, the caring lover, etc. to be replaced by terrible headlines like Squidgygate and separation rumors ; It was supposed to be the fairytale of the century and it ended up in a disaster. Who was left next to her ? Who was still standing at her side ? The public. And that's how it all started ...

Well Diana seems to have found a tireless and loyal champion in YOU, TheTruth.

You seem to have boundless sympathy and understanding for her no matter what she did. May I ask you a question? Do you think that, Diana, this object of your devotion was deserving of your devotion trust and loyalty?

Could Diana have done anything to make you lose that devotion to her?
 
Last edited:
Moreoever, the interview was in 1995 and Tony Blair was not the opposite leader yet. I doubt how Diana could have any interaction with them.

Nobody just appears on the stage and within two years becomes prime minister. Tony Blair was already on the move up to the leadership of his party and thinking about ways to make his party the ruling one. As the Rf had been notoriously non-political and surely were no labour voters ;) Blair had nothing to loose on encouraging Diana but a lot to win.
 
Well Diana seems to have found a tireless and loyal champion in YOU, TheTruth.

You seem to have boundless sympathy and understanding for her no matter what she did. May I ask you a question? Do you think that, Diana, this object of your devotion was deserving of your devotion trust and loyalty?

Could Diana have done anything to make you lose that devotion to her?

Well yes, of course ! She did terrible things that I can't accept and I wouldn't have liked to be around her. I don't have sympathy or devotion for her in those moments close to madness, obsession or whatever. I don't want to be labeled as a "Di defender" because I'm simply not one of them. I refuse to think she was all good but I don't see her all bad either. I've never found her any excuses for her behavior and action if I remember well.
The post you've quoted may need some explanations because I didn't intend to show devotion or compassion. The questions I wrote in the end were NOT my opinion, just a glimpse of how she felt. I didn't say I was adhering to it. And what worked for Diana also works for Charles ; he, too, had to go through the whole story.

Could you tell me why you believe I'm a "tireless and loyal champion" :D ?
 
Could Diana have done anything to make you lose that devotion to her?


Diana, Princess of Wales did the Panorama interview to get a divorced sooner. I think she went a little overboard about Prince Charles and the BRF in the interview.

I still see Diana as a mentally sick person who the BFR gave up on. I guess I see a victim. So to answer your above statement, I don't think that anything that Diana would have done would not make me her fan.:flowers:
 
I always felt that the Princess of Wales did the interview to A. Try to get the public's sympathy, and B. try to damage Charles' reputation.
Whenever I look at that interview I see a woman who was angry, hurt, vengful, and sad that her marriage turned out to be a complete failure.
I also saw a woman who had hopes for the future, for herself and her children.:)
 
Well yes, of course ! She did terrible things that I can't accept and I wouldn't have liked to be around her. I don't have sympathy or devotion for her in those moments close to madness, obsession or whatever. I don't want to be labeled as a "Di defender" because I'm simply not one of them. I refuse to think she was all good but I don't see her all bad either. I've never found her any excuses for her behavior and action if I remember well.
The post you've quoted may need some explanations because I didn't intend to show devotion or compassion. The questions I wrote in the end were NOT my opinion, just a glimpse of how she felt. I didn't say I was adhering to it. And what worked for Diana also works for Charles ; he, too, had to go through the whole story.

Could you tell me why you believe I'm a "tireless and loyal champion" :D ?

Believe me, I was thinking of it as a compliment. :flowers: You are always willing to stick around any discussion about Diana no matter how negative it sounds, and you are always pleasant, always cheerful in trying to get people to see things from Diana's point of view. The way you described the way she must have felt in the Panorama interview displayed such empathy and compassion towards Diana made me think that this was a person and a situation that you could identify with a lot. And I've noticed your willingness to empathize with Diana in cases where it seemed difficult to empathize with her.

I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, In fact I was just thinking after I read your post that the British Royal family would have no worries about the future of the British monarchy if they had received just a small fraction of the devotion that Diana got from her fans.
 
I always felt that the Princess of Wales did the interview to A. Try to get the public's sympathy, and B. try to damage Charles' reputation.
Whenever I look at that interview I see a woman who was angry, hurt, vengful, and sad that her marriage turned out to be a complete failure.
I also saw a woman who had hopes for the future, for herself and her children.:)
My thoughts exactly! If I might add a respectful C) in an effort to secure a somewhat official position for herself within the royal family after the divorce became final or perhaps as even part of the divorce settlement. I believe she was a little naive in that regard.

Cat
 
Last edited:
Diana, Princess of Wales did the Panorama interview to get a divorced sooner. I think she went a little overboard about Prince Charles and the BRF in the interview.

I still see Diana as a mentally sick person who the BFR gave up on. I guess I see a victim. So to answer your above statement, I don't think that anything that Diana would have done would not make me her fan.:flowers:

Georgiea, while I of course respect your opinion, it still makes me a bit worried.:flowers: If you'd said that while you see her bad sides as well you still enjoy her charisma etc., okay. But saying as you said that you see her as a mentally ill victim, so no matter what she'd have done, you'd be a "fan" = fanatic about her - that really, really scares me and makes me think of the fascination some people have with psycho- or sociopaths. Like sympathy for Hannibal Lecter, no matter what. ;)
 
My thoughts exactly! If I might add a respectful C) in an effort to secure a somewhat official position for herself within the royal family after the divorce became final or perhaps as even part of the divorce settlement. I believe she was a little naive in that regard.

Cat

I think her problem was that she never understood her husband at all. She obviously always had the wrong picture of him. As Skydragon said in another Thread he seems to be very thick-headed but very often he is right about what he thinks so it's worth accepting and going along. That's something I think Diana could not do. I think it was in the Morton book where a scene is described of Charles presenting Diana to somebody and she really is not a "Yes, Sir"-personality there but is equally thick-headed and convinced she is right. Which makes for a very bad situation because that means a compromise is not easy to achieve between the two and what is a marriage without compromising? IMHO it's doomed.

What Diana IMHO could not see was the gentle, caring and helpful side of Charles. And he could not see hers because this strong will to lead which both possessed obviously gave the other the image of an unbreakable wall and slowly there came the moats till each of them lived in his own crennellated castle: the war of the Waleses had started.

But if she had accepted for herself that the marriage was over, she surely would have found reassurance in Charles when it cames to the kids.Of course, Diana still wanted it all:

Lady Sarah, her sister at the inquest yesterday:
with divorce goes problems of access to
11 children, and she was very stressed about sharing them
12 and having to not have them with her all their holiday
13 times.

I doubt Charles felt the same way. For him IMHO it was natural that his sons needed their mother while I doubt Diana saw the need for her sons to see their father. In the Morton-book it says that Diana even threatened to move with the kids to Australia and found out that you can't move with the heir of the heir into another country without the queen's okay, even if you're the mother. But how could she ever thought of that and/or used that in negociations about a divorce settlement? Didin't she see that William needed Charles' guidance and the back-up of the RF and their court to be able to become king one day? Just imagine: Diana with William and Harry moved to Australia, both kids grow up like your typical Sydney-child with lots of fun at the beach, barbecues, etc. While that sound good and probably is pretty good for next to anyone, I doubt that the British media would have supported the "Aussie"-prince on his return as the next king...

So, IMHo Diana was not able to see where compromises lead to better results in the long term.
 
I think her problem was that she never understood her husband at all. She obviously always had the wrong picture of him. As Skydragon said in another Thread he seems to be very thick-headed but very often he is right about what he thinks so it's worth accepting and going along

I don't think Charles is very often right about things. Actually one thing Charles and Diana both agreed on was the boys schooling and in Harry's case I think they both got it wrong. They both wanted the boys to avoid the heartaches that Charles had experience in the rough and tumble school Gordonstoun and avoided sending the boys to anywhere like that at all costs. What they failed to realize that a very physical but less intellectually gifted boy like Harry would likely thrive in an atmosphere like Gordonstoun much better than where he did end up and where his cousins Peter and Zara actually did end up and enjoy it immensely. For Harry I think Eton was a big mistake.

When Charles and Diana both agreed on something, the results were often not quite right. Charles and Diana also agreed when the boys were little on less discipline and more hugging and affirmation for the children and as a result William was almost uncontrollable. He behaved so badly when Diana took him by herself to an event when he was about 3 that she had to leave in the middle of the event.

Charles was most often not right when he made decisions for his sons based on his miserable childhood.
 
He behaved so badly when Diana took him by herself to an event when he was about 3 that she had to leave in the middle of the event.

Charles was most often not right when he made decisions for his sons based on his miserable childhood.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think 3 yo's have to behave all the time on occasions that are not organised for children - prince or no prince. And it is difficult for parent to choose the right school for their kids. But IMHO you're right and Gordonstoun would have been a better choice at first and then they could have taken advice if the school really was the right thing for them. But if a father has serious misgivings about a school because he hated it there, of course he will not send his own sons there.
 
I'm not sure about that. I don't think 3 yo's have to behave all the time on occasions that are not organised for children - prince or no prince.

Actually that was my mistake he was closer to 4, it was a couple of weeks before Andrew's and Sarah's wedding and he was being taken out to see if he could behave himself during the wedding ceremony. However, the discipline problems with William when he was a toddler were pretty public.
 
Actually that was my mistake he was closer to 4, it was a couple of weeks before Andrew's and Sarah's wedding and he was being taken out to see if he could behave himself during the wedding ceremony. However, the discipline problems with William when he was a toddler were pretty public.

But isn't hat a question of character? IMHO either prince Frederick of princess Mary of Denmark just said that while their son prince Christian has always been an extremely easy child his little sister Isabella is turning out to be a kind of hellion. And I doubt you can stop that that easily by educating the kids till they have reached a certain age.
 
No because his character after they changed nannies turned 100 percent better and he became the best behaved of the children.

I noticed this in my nephew, he is a sweet sensitive soul but his parents admitted they got some things wrong in the discipline department when he was younger and he was a terror, they changed their tack and he became a delight to be around.
 
When Charles and Diana both agreed on something, the results were often not quite right.
There you have it in a nutshell, where both of them agreed. However we don't know what Charles stance on discipline would have been with another partner. I feel that discipline is a necessary evil but in many families that I have contact with, I can see the father is overridden by the mother.
 
Believe me, I was thinking of it as a compliment. :flowers: You are always willing to stick around any discussion about Diana no matter how negative it sounds, and you are always pleasant, always cheerful in trying to get people to see things from Diana's point of view. The way you described the way she must have felt in the Panorama interview displayed such empathy and compassion towards Diana made me think that this was a person and a situation that you could identify with a lot. And I've noticed your willingness to empathize with Diana in cases where it seemed difficult to empathize with her.

I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, In fact I was just thinking after I read your post that the British Royal family would have no worries about the future of the British monarchy if they had received just a small fraction of the devotion that Diana got from her fans.

I'm happy you see my devotion this way :D :flowers:. Thanks a lot for your kind words and may I say how I truly admire your way of being fair with the members of the RF and Diana, no matter who you like the most :flowers:.
 
There you have it in a nutshell, where both of them agreed. However we don't know what Charles stance on discipline would have been with another partner. I feel that discipline is a necessary evil but in many families that I have contact with, I can see the father is overridden by the mother.

I quite agree on most couples but I don't think that Charles was the type to let himself be overriden against his better judgement by a 19-20 year old young bride who we later learned was very unstable at the time. Especially when he realized that the eldest of his children was in line for the throne.

I think he had enough scars from Prince Philip's discipline to have a strong aversion to a lot of discipline when it came to his own children even without a Diana. If I remember correctly it was only when the Queen stepped in that Charles and Diana did something about the nanny.

I think he had an aversion to discpline in general. He used to complain about his whole days being scheduled out to the hour months in advance. He said it made him boxed in. Diana had other reasons for her aversion to discipline.
 
Was the problem with the nanny that she was lacking in discipline of William? I'd not read that the Queen stepped in on the nanny issue, and so that's news to me.
 
I quite agree on most couples but I don't think that Charles was the type to let himself be overriden against his better judgement by a 19-20 year old young bride who we later learned was very unstable at the time. Especially when he realized that the eldest of his children was in line for the throne.

I think he had enough scars from Prince Philip's discipline to have a strong aversion to a lot of discipline when it came to his own children even without a Diana. If I remember correctly it was only when the Queen stepped in that Charles and Diana did something about the nanny.

I think he had an aversion to discpline in general. He used to complain about his whole days being scheduled out to the hour months in advance. He said it made him boxed in. Diana had other reasons for her aversion to discipline.
It is possible that Charles got to the stage that it was easier to give in, than risk another tantrum. I don't think Charles would have been keen to over discipline, but the fact that he encouraged Harry and William in their pursuit of Army careers, says to me that he would have chosen a 'stronger' route than was taken. William and Harry were born at a time when mother was 'in charge' of the nanny and the child, before the 'new man' era arrived.
 
Back
Top Bottom