Why do you think Diana did the Panorama interview?

[selrahc4]

Rosa Monckton testifed at the inquest that Diana said "that she very much regretted having done the programme." (She also testified that Diana did not tell her the reasons for her regret.)

If Diana did truly regret doing the interview, why do you think she regretted it? Because the results were not what she expected? Was she made aware that her children were less than happy about it? (The effect on them is something that I have to believe she did not consider enough in her decision to do it). How soon after might she have begun regretting?

[normalil]

Judging by Diana's make up, her pathetic eye gestures, and her critisism of the Prince of Wales, she did this interview just to "get" at Charles and the Queen I think.
Did you notice how she berates Charles for being in love and unfaithful? When asked about her relationship with Hewitt, her eyecontact has gone, and she excuses herself by saying, "Yes I adored him, I was in love with him." Here she displays terrible double standards, and I think that it's a pity that Bashir did not have the chance to ask her about Will Carling, Oliver Hoare, to name but a few!
Her remarks about Charles and his future kingship were unforgivable.
To me the whole interview was done for nothing but spite, and showed her as a selfish little user. We all have our problems, much worse than bulimia and an unhappy marriage. We don't get the chance to go on TV and try to get the sympathy of the world though...

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by normalil

Judging by Diana's make up, her pathetic eye gestures, and her critisism of the Prince of Wales, she did this interview just to "get" at Charles and the Queen I think.
Did you notice how she berates Charles for being in love and unfaithful? When asked about her relationship with Hewitt, her eyecontact has gone, and she excuses herself by saying, "Yes I adored him, I was in love with him." Here she displays terrible double standards, and I think that it's a pity that Bashir did not have the chance to ask her about Will Carling, Oliver Hoare, to name but a few!
Her remarks about Charles and his future kingship were unforgivable.
To me the whole interview was done for nothing but spite, and showed her as a selfish little user. We all have our problems, much worse than bulimia and an unhappy marriage. We don't get the chance to go on TV and try to get the sympathy of the world though...

Well bulimia and a doomed marriage is, IMO, enough for someone to bear. And we don't have to go out in front of hundreds of people watching every moves, your physic appearance and then criticize how you dress, etc.
So, with all those bad sides I think she had the right to express herself in front of TV.

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Well bulimia and a doomed marriage is, IMO, enough for someone to bear. And we don't have to go out in front of hundreds of people watching every moves, your physic appearance and then criticize how you dress, etc.
So, with all those bad sides I think she had the right to express herself in front of TV.

In that case, her problem was with the media and the public and she should have limited her comments and criticisms to them.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

In that case, her problem was with the media and the public and she should have limited her comments and criticisms to them.

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.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I thought she thought the Panorama interview would convince the Queen into letting her have a more high profile role representing Britain out of the country. If you remember, this was the only direct request she made to the Royal Family in the whole interview. She specifically said she wanted to represent the Royal Family outside of the country.

You'll remember that she spent a large part of the interview stressing how her only goal was to do a good job for the country despite all the hardships she had had. A large part of the interview seemed like a job interview. She talked about how she kept all her pain inside because she wanted to do a good job for the country and she didn't want to let people down and she said that despite not getting any help from the royal family on how to perform her role, when it came time to sink or swim she decided to swim. She said that a fulfilling job was now more important than being in a close relationship and that she wanted to be the Queen of People's Hearts. I thought she was trying to make a case that she had been successful at what the Royal Family had given her and that now she thought she was eligible for greater job responsibility. The one question that Martin Bashir asked her about whether she was really at the young age of 19, qualified for the job of Princess of Wales, she adroitly sidestepped to draw attention away from her onto Charles' deficiencies - she said sweetly that she had expected support when she married. This is a very adroit job interview tactic to avoid admitting a weakness and I don't think the answer was chosen by chance.

I'm probably just being cynical, but putting the above appeal together with her attempts to undermine Charles and her strong hint that he'd be so much happier moving to Italy with "his lady," it seems to me that the job she was really looking for was that of mentor to her son, the successor to the Queen, and possibly regent if the Queen didn't survive till William's 18th birthday.

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.

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

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.

Yes. And I think she felt insulated from any possible harm to her image or her position from the interview because of the public's adulation.

[ysbel]

Reminder:

I've had to correct some newspaper and reporter references. Make sure when referring to newspapers and their staff (as well as anyone else for that matter) that you use their correct names. For example, the Daily Mail and Richard Kay. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me or another one of the British team.

Thanks.

ysbel
British forums moderator

[love_cc]

I agree that Diana didn't want a divource, and she did not think the Queen or Charles would choose the divource option. I guess the interview was just another method of testing water, the revenge to Charles's very public confession as well as another opportunty to make people to take her side.

I think Diana thought too highly of herself and she never had difficulties to see through the reality and the implications of the course of the history. I would say Diana was brave enough to have this interview but a lot of recklesss thought which failed her to see the disaster effects followed by.

[Mermaid1962]

I agree with Elspeth in that I think that Panorama was an attempt to appeal directly to the people over the heads of the Royal Family. She wanted an Ambassador's role, she believed that people were conspiring against her, she wanted to have "the last word" over Charles's Dimbleby Interview and book and refute some of the rumours and criticisms that had developed about her, and I also believe that she truly thought that she had some unique gifts and talents that the other Windsors didnt' have and wanted to publicize them. I've never believed that Diana was certifiably mentally ill, but I do believe that she didn't think out the consequences of her actions in full. Perhaps she knew that her supporters would still support her after the Panorama interview; but I don't think that she considered the long-term implications of what she was saying and how her remarks could be considered treacherous toward Prince Charles.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

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.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

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 ...

[sthreats]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

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.

[Elspeth]

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.

[sthreats]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

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.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by sthreats

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.