Diana's Secret Tapes Recorded in March 1997

[Denville]

I don't think Osipi that she had reached any kind of equlibirum by the time of her death as regards Charles. I think that perhaps although she did want out fo the RF, she maybe thought on one level that it would never actutally happen. She was a volatile emotional person who I think had great potential but needed help to fulfil it..a nd I'm not sure she was getting that help
But she had probably been told for years that "even if she was unhappy in the marriage, the marriage had to last for the sake of the monarchy", and I think perhaps she found it hard to believe it, when It DID actually happen.
and she hadn't adjusted. I think she was still hurt that Charles had essentially lost any feelings for hr and was now happily settled in an affair with Camilla, which might very well become a marriage. But I think she tired to "play nice" with him and to develop some kind of friendly relationship, but it wasn't easy.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Having said that, I'm of the opinion that Diana should have got a grip of her emotions. By the time she passed she was no longer a 19 year old virgin. She'd had several affairs, she should have gotten over Charles and focused on being a future King Mother. That is a very powerful. Instead she was fighting Charles to her dying day. Everything she did was calculated to reel him in or to rile him up. She wanted him to abdicate while she raised William to be the next heir

Underlined bolded comment: exactly so! I always feel that fans of Diana see her fixed in amber, as that 'innocent 19 year old virgin' even as a 36 year old mother of a teenager, which btw is Diana's spin. Her 'lamb to the slaughter' rings down the years, yet we have rumblings that she may not have actually been as virginal as advertised (a boyfriend lurks in the months prior to her bale-of-hay meet-up with Charles I have recently read). She was a bit too adept at filtration to be the 'innocent'.

As a woman, in life, you have to choose your battles. Diana had some pretty good cards but she played the game poorly!

Exactly so! The very sentiment Camilla conveyed to Diana in the famous confrontation scene from the drama Diana was scripting.

Diana really did hold the best hand (not Camilla, or any other woman). All the evidence points to a Charles who genuinely liked Diana very much upon their (arranged) marriage and subsequently loved her. Can't ask for more than that.

she kept on banging her head against the wall.

Yes. Maybe Charles can be a jerk. Maybe Diana could be a jerk. Yet we are suppose to believe that in all of it Charles bears the greater burden because of the unpardonable fact that Diana was 19 when she married. Good grief!

When they divorced, she literally cleaned out Charles, she got £17,000,000 in cash, she got to keep her apartment at Kensington Palace and Charles was to pay for her private office. Diana should have taken her white woman privilege and chilled out instead she took to running around with unsavoury men. Dodi Fayed's dad- Mohammed Al Fayed was/is end of! And dabbling in explosive charities- landmines. That chick played herself!

Well put! Thank you!

Diana's story is her private story overlaid with her fascination (and fixation) on her public story. She had the ill-luck to have her story coincide with Rupert Murdock's tabloid ascendency. She was the 'prefect storm' for his kind of 'news'.

Unfortunately, Diana was not balanced. There was little inner life ballast evident in her life choices. It's like she saw her soul in the tabloid press and behaved accordingly. Tragedy of monumental proportions, and nothing Charles could ever have 'corrected', even had he immolated himself for her, which he initially began to do, until he realized the insanity that was being demanded and did the only thing he could to maintain his own balance: freeze her out. Unfortunately, that also left his sons to figure it all out on their own. Hope they have.

Yes, Diana did some good - her work with unfashionable causes - HIV, cancer, leprosy and landmines - but to her detriment she also acted as if she was the first and last woman ever scorned. 20 years later, the Institution is still standing, which is less than you can say for her.

Standing, yes, but at some human cost, unfortunately, in the lives of those closest to her. It remains to be demonstrated whether her active animus towards the BRF will play out with William's kingship, and Georges'. We already know there has been a lasting impact on Charles and his relationship to his sons. If one is a monarchist, one can hope that the influence of the present Queen will maintain over the influence of Diana.

And the last and saddest part of the story: Diana's insistence on remaining a public figure after her divorce. How can one not remember the video of Diana in an airport trying to keep photographers at bay: the ultimate victim, when we all know (or at least some of us know) that she had access to innumerable perks that would have allowed her to enter and exit airports virtually invisible to anyone. Diana played herself, but she also played her public, and they have believed the Diana-Bible-Text she has supplied to this day.

Had she played the game a bit more wisely, she could be alive today, still married to Charles, looking forward to being Queen one day. Sad.

 

[Pranter]

I think it takes two to tango though when it comes to Charles. He's just lucky it's not the 30's.


LaRae

 

[MARG]

Why? In the 30's there were no mad media (witness the way Wallis very existence was kept from the general public) wars and steps would have been taken to ensure the status quo was not upset. If she cut up rough she would have lost everything including her children. They were still locking up women in asylums for "immoral behaviour". Perhaps Diana would have been sent to Balmoral forever? Women had no power at all back then.

 

[Osipi]

Perhaps the doctors in the 30s would have put Diana on Mrs. Lydia Pinkham's Vegetable Compound that was supposed to cure all women's problems. If you're not familiar with Lydia Pinkham's Compound, let me refer you to a later example. Lucy Ricardo doing the Vitameatavegamin commercal for one of the episodes of "I Love Lucy" of 1952. Its a classic.

Back in the 30s, the trials and tribulations of the Wales' marriage would never have reached the public ears. Charles, as the Prince of Wales would have trumped over anything and everything Diana had to complain about. Then again, if this all happened in the 30s, its very possible that Diana would have had a totally different mindset than she had.

We'll never know.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I don't think Osipi that she had reached any kind of equlibirum by the time of her death as regards Charles. I think that perhaps although she did want out of the RF, she maybe thought on one level that it would never actutally happen.

One has to be clear as to when Diana said what she said. We have very little from the 1980's. We have tons from the Morton book onwards. We need to work gingerly with the revisionist history Diana spun, always keeping in mind that Diana was in full-bore self-defense mode when she characterized Charles and the marriage in the 1990's. She was also in deep trouble after the Morton book. It was hard to envision how it all could be 'fixed' once it was all out-of-the-bag.

She may have said to one or three confidants that she wanted out of the marriage but I have never for an instant believed she really did. It was just a way of doing more damage, accentuating the spin of a 'trapped innocent' in a bad marriage (a situation so many women identified with, I think).

She was a volatile emotional person who I think had great potential but needed help to fulfil it..and I'm not sure she was getting that help.

She was being offered help all through the 1980's. Her response was to kick it down the road. But as so often happens, you pose the scenario as though she was a clueless someone who needed to be 'helped' rather than identify her as the strong, willful (even powerful) self directing (and very canny) woman she was. She may have had issues, but she was also all of that, too. Remember, she came up with the Morton book. That is pretty remarkable. That points to someone with amazing capabilities (that she used to serve herself, to great effect). Forget potential, she was a real genius handling her public story. Amazing demonstrated capacity.

But she had probably been told for years that "even if she was unhappy in the marriage, the marriage had to last for the sake of the monarchy", and I think perhaps she found it hard to believe it, when It DID actually happen and she hadn't adjusted. I think she was still hurt that Charles had essentially lost any feelings for hr and was now happily settled in an affair with Camilla, which might very well become a marriage. But I think she tired to "play nice" with him and to develop some kind of friendly relationship, but it wasn't easy.

She clearly thought she was untouchable. Just watch her in interviews in the late 1980's, she is overtly unpleasant towards Charles. She almost seems to snicker. She was feeling her oats and happy as could be. She was publicly idolized and was the mother of a future king. Her world was secure. She had a docile and devoted lover. She could do without Charles, and her behavior during that period confirms it. She was her own center of power. It was only with the deconstruct (that she initiated publicly) that we then hear of a miserable existence, as she tried to spin her defense for her unacceptable extra-marital dalliances.

One must place her comments in context to the timeline (when the comments were said, not when the events occurred). She was endlessly re-writing her own history, though it was hers to so re-write, though I think much of what she finally started spinning must have been incredibly painful/hurtful to Charles.

Anyway, it is a story that will endlessly fascinate far, far into the future, I predict. One of those drama-drenched footnotes in history that will be referred back to, to explain some BRF event yet to come 40 to 60 years hence.

 

[aigulminimalist]

One thing to remember too is that at the time of her death, Diana had only been legally divorced from Charles for a year. That's a relatively short time in which she, according to you, would move on and get a grip on her emotions.

The cold, hard reality of a divorce takes time to sink in after the final decree. Up until then, there is always the odd chance that things will work out and the divorce canceled and its like being in limbo. Not really married yet not really single either.

One thing I have read many places is that by the time of Diana's death though, Diana and Charles were able to have a somewhat amicable relationship with each other and they were both moving forward in their lives.

By the time Diana passed she was not a 19 year old virgin anymore, she was THIRTY SIX YEARS OLD.

Adolescents comes to an end at 25 yrs. Women begin to mature at 25yrs. At 28 yrs a woman has to be in a position to bring her A game. Life is unkind, you snooze, you loose. I will grant Diana a 4 year extension. When I look at her life, I expected her to have figured things out by the time she was 32 years old, this is circa 1992!

Truth is, Diana was spoilt. She once slapped her father- when she was 16 yrs, he re-married and the kids were up in arms and she flounced into the drawing room or dining room and slapped him.

There are many women out there who have been treated badly by their spouses, some of them do not have a fraction of the priviledges Diana possessed. It is my opinion that by 1992 at the age of 31 ish, the focus should not have been on her, it should have been on the well being of her children. When she married into that family she did little to undestand the significance of the union. Even her grandmother warned about the Royal Family. She knew about Charles and Camilla but she thought she would triumph.


When she got engaged, she was given books on the Royal Family, on her predecessors (previous Princess' of Wales) but she didn't want to know. She would pop downstairs for hours on end to have a chat with servants. Some were uncomfortable, one even bluntly told her, she should be upstairs learning her craft'.

Unfortunately things fell apart. I agree Charles behaved badly but Diana had a responsibility to herself, her children and their legacy. She made everything about Charles to the point where she forgot to see the bigger picture. People tried to pull her back, her friends and family tried to advise but there was no telling her. At this point one realises that she was damaged way before Charles came on the scene- her parents marriage and subsequent divorce had left some deep scars. Charles exacerbated them.

The schism grew in 1984. She had 12 years to figure things out. She had ample time to wild out and then begin to make peace with her situation. It takes 7 years to get over somebody.. She should have been over Charles by the 7th year! Despite the affairs (hers) she was still allowing him to affect her. She just kept on careering from one crisis to another. She had numerous affairs, she secretly briefed the media, She 'wrote' the book, she confronted Camilla. People told her to chill but she didn't want to know. She fell out with her mates, fell out with her family- at the time of her death she was not on speaking terms with anyone of her immediate family members! The few genuine friends she had were shocked at the way she was carrying on, anyone who tried to raise their concerns was ostracised. There was no telling her.

She should never have done that Panorama interview in 1995. That was the stroke that broke the camel's hump. One may argue that she was driven to it but what about her children? Their heritage? Her Legacy? It had been 10 years since they had been together, 14 years since they married. By 1995 she should have
been working on her healing
been loving herself
accepted that Charles would never love her
recognised she had immense priviledge and children who loved her
taken stock of her gifts and worked towards harnessing them

Instead she continued waging this war of attrition. The Republicans rejoiced at the interview but thing is, she was not trying to be revolutionary, she didn't call for the end of the monarchy, she just said she would much prefer that the crown bypass Charles for William. How do you think that made William feel?

Goodness knows who Dodi was to her. Was he 'The One'? Was he a stooge? And then of course there was her latest pet project- the landmines- very controversial. She was warned.
I sympathise with her, however as an adult who has faced her share of challenges I think Diana became self indulgent. Had she played her cards differently she would have still managed to have a very fulfilling life

 

[Denville]

I think it takes two to tango though when it comes to Charles. He's just lucky it's not the 30's.


LaRae

What ahas the 30s got to do with anything.

 

[Osipi]

While its true that people mature physically according to the chronological clock, its a totally different ball of wax when we talk of emotional and mental health. I would even wager that when Diana married at 19, she was quite a young 19 emotionally. From all accounts, she never had a serious relationship before Charles to the point that she knew how relationships work and don't work. She went into marriage by diving off the high dive into the deep end of the pool without knowing how to swim. There were many, many occasions that should have raised red flags with Diana even before she walked down that aisle.

She had a fixation on how things should be. She was a very insecure person seeking security with home and family but unfortunately, she had no real clue how to maintain one. She wanted to be cherished and doted on and cared for and married a man that never really experienced being the caretaker type. He was used to everyone doing for him and falling in line with his wishes. She was also very stubborn and stood her ground when she wanted something. As time passed, those fixations grew into the passionate need to blame everyone else for things not being as she thought they should be and did everything in her power to paint that kind of a picture. She was wronged, she was trod on, she was neglected, she was a whole lot of things that point to a deep case of the "poor little ol' me" syndrome. In other words, her reality check bounced and things got out of hand to the point where there was no turning back.

I don't get where it takes 7 years to get over somebody. Some people can walk away from a bad marriage and never look back once and move right along with their lives. Some people, after going through a very acrimonious divorce, never get past the anger and the hurt at all and carry those emotions with them. I do think Diana recognized that she had some serious issues to deal with and eventually did seek help along with a quest to find answers and healing in many places. What astounds me is that in 1989, Diana became the patron of Relate which was Britain's largest marriage counseling agency.

Diana was a very complex and unique individual that, I believe, just wanted to be loved but never really experienced a loving give and take relationship. Perhaps it would have been better should she have found a best friend in a man before looking for that grand passionate "Cartland" love affair. I don't know. I'm not Diana. I just know the biggest mistake she ever made was to air everything and anything in public and putting her own spin on things. Many people were hurt because Diana was hurting and needed to strike back.

Its said that what you put out into the world comes back to you threefold and I think Diana is a prime example of this.

 

[Pranter]

What ahas the 30s got to do with anything.

I was responding to the last part of the post right above my response. Did you read what Lady Nimue said?


LaRae

 

[Missjersey]

I don't think she was ever meek or timid. Remember early on at Balmoral she would leave the table or go upstairs, that for me in hindsight is the beginning of the "I'm going to be queen" persona starting to emerge. She didn't respect the RF even then. All the tantrums and shenanigans were part of the package she brought to the altar when she reeled in the big fish which were unbeknownst to most of us at that time IMO. You can only imagine what went on behind closed doors. She even played her children against their family. Whether it was embarrassing HM or sticking a knife in Charles's back, she was #1. Kowtow. When the Bashir interview backfired, she must have been seething when told to divorce. Without the RF she had nothing. You can say she was kind and loving etc. to the outside world, sure, "centerstage", "adore me" but I doubt she would have done charity anything if she hadn't married into this family. The true purpose of these tapes we can only guess, yet, I doubt its anything positive for the Firm. Instead of moving on, IMO she spent her time obsessing in how to destroy everyone in the RF. If she had had the length of years and remarried, other than a husband name change, who knows, but I do know a leopard can't change its spots.

 

[Pranter]

I do think early on she was overwhelmed. I don't think she was meek or timid no. Overwhelmed yes. Immature yes. Impulsive yes.

There was a lot to deal with even for an emotionally 'level' person let alone a 19/20 year old with emotional/eating issues. Things just never got a solid footing with them, and really they should of separated long before they did. That might of headed off all the nasty stuff that played out publically.



LaRae

 

[Osipi]

Diana was a master at manipulation. She moved people around her like they were pawns on a chessboard. Playing royal chess though was a grand mistake. Its one thing to try and manipulate those close to her like Charles as the husband when newly married or rearranging the staff to suit her or even controlling a love affair but to try and manipulate the press against a centuries old institution was just idiotic and a big sign of a sense of self importance that far exceeded who she really was. It backfired on her horribly with consequences that couldn't be undone.

Diana was also a person very much in the "now" and manipulated the "now" without much thought to the backlash or consequences of her actions. She actually loved the press attention and how she could play push you, pull me with them to attain what she wanted to get out yet when the press would turn against her, she couldn't figure out why. To me, this is shown to be a major part of her life up until her death as Richard Kay of the Daily Fail was one of the last people to talk to Diana before she died. This shows me that she actively wanted the public to know where she was, who she was with and what she was doing. She needed the public opinion behind her as a little one uses a security blanket.

She got along famously with those that she met out and about during public engagements but those were people that admired her, held her in high esteem and gazed up at her as a wonderful person. She fed on that to make up for the misery she was experiencing in her private life where it seemed, to her, that everyone in some form or the other, was against her.

What is sad is that Diana never grew to be a strong woman and comfortable in her own skin. The person she should have been learning how to manipulate and trust and have confidence in was herself and I don't think she ever really realized that. The answers were always "out there" somewhere.

 

[Denville]

Diana was a master at manipulation. She moved people around her like they were pawns on a chessboard.
What is sad is that Diana never grew to be a strong woman and comfortable in her own skin. The person she should have been learning how to manipulate and trust and have confidence in was herself and I don't think she ever really realized that. The answers were always "out there" somewhere.

For Goodness sake, how did she "Move people around" or "manipulate people?" She couldn't do anything. She tired to make the RF like her, not because she was some Evil manipulating queen but because she was a lonely person who wanted people to like her, who hoped they would be her family. They didn't really take to her, because she didn't understand them..and after the first year or so, had clearly not really welcomed her that much because she didn't fit in with them that well. She couldn't even kepe her husband away from his mistress, how is she this super manipulator...

 

[Missjersey]

Pranter, I daresay she was overwhelmed early on. As the years passed, I think, JMO, she was more overwhelmed with all the havoc she created as it was starting to catch up with her.

Agree Osipi in all you say.

Denville, she needed to learn to like herself first and unfortunately, never got around to doing that.

 

[Osipi]

For Goodness sake, how did she "Move people around" or "manipulate people?" She couldn't do anything. She tired to make the RF like her, not because she was some Evil manipulating queen but because she was a lonely person who wanted people to like her, who hoped they would be her family. They didn't really take to her, because she didn't understand them..and after the first year or so, had clearly not really welcomed her that much because she didn't fit in with them that well. She couldn't even kepe her husband away from his mistress, how is she this super manipulator...

To me, this manipulation was obvious in her behavior when first married to Charles by the various reports of tantrums, extreme behavior such as "throwing herself down the stairs" and cutting herself and amid all of that, the bulimia. This was a fight for control. To make someone do something that she wanted them to do.

There's also the various reports of those that left royal service to Diana and Charles household solely because of Diana. There's actually a pretty good list of them. This, to me, is manipulating the people around her. If she liked you, you were in. Cross her in any way and out you goes.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/PRIN...+..+HOW+32+ROYAL+STAFF+COULDN'T...-a061101119

She very much manipulated (or tried to) the press and control what the public saw in regards to her image. There are just far too many cases of this to even start to list them all.

So, in my book, yes. She was a manipulator. She also found that there were just some things that she couldn't play with without getting burned.

 

[Elan]

You can only imagine what went on behind closed doors. She even played her children against their family. Whether it was embarrassing HM or sticking a knife in Charles's back, she was #1. Kowtow. When the Bashir interview backfired, she must have been seething when told to divorce. Without the RF she had nothing. You can say she was kind and loving etc. to the outside world, sure, "centerstage", "adore me" but I doubt she would have done charity anything if she hadn't married into this family.

Wondering if she actually was 'shell shocked' by the announcement of divorce proceedings. If by then, she was more than uncomfortable with the dishonesty in the relationship, it suggests that the outcome may have been foreseen, or anticipated.

At one point in her youth, Diana impressed a director at a patient care center (Darenth) where her manner of calm in the presence of severely handicapped was noticed, and she made an impression in having some 'natural' ability for the work.. For ex, she devised a technique of dancing with someone wheelchair bound, holding the person from the rear of the chair while dancing, which the director thought was original, to come up with that on her own.

 

[Denville]

I think she was shocked by the divorce. She had been separated from Ch for a while but the RF had clearly been reluctant to move towards a divorce and Diana may have unconsciously believed that "it would all go on as before" and they'd never actually allow a divorce. So she foolishly did the Panoroma interview and provoked the queen to the point of realising that a divorce however bad, was less bad for the monarchy than the "war" of Charles and Diana going on.

 

[aigulminimalist]

paul barrell wrote in his book "Royal Duty" Diana did not oppose separation. She rather supported the separation. But she was outraged by the letter about the divorce.
Has anyone read Patrick Jephson, Ken Wharfe, Simone Simmons books?
How did diana react to separation and divorce in their books?

 

[Osipi]

To be absolutely honest, I don't think we'll ever know just how Diana felt about the separation and the subsequent divorce. She was a very mercurial person and could change what she thought and felt about something on a dime. One thing we do know is that she didn't walk away from the marriage ready to move on in her life. There are just too many instances where its blatantly obvious that she carried resentment and bitterness and was still playing games of manipulation to go one up on Charles. The fact that she made these supposed tapes right before she died points to that.

I'm not sure right now if I have the Jephson book. I do have the Burrell book and the Simmons book. Basically the last two are pretty much slanted in Diana's favor as Burrell paints a picture of how important he was to Diana and Simmons basically only knew Diana after Charles was pretty much out of the picture.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think she was shocked by the divorce. She had been separated from Ch for a while but the RF had clearly been reluctant to move towards a divorce and Diana may have unconsciously believed that "it would all go on as before" and they'd never actually allow a divorce. So she foolishly did the Panoroma interview and provoked the queen to the point of realising that a divorce however bad, was less bad for the monarchy than the "war" of Charles and Diana going on.

Agreed. I have always thought that Diana didn't 'get' it, that she thought she was untouchable for most of her marriage. However, that may have changed by the time of the Panorama interview. A lot was coming down by that point (Morton book, Hewitt book, phone stalking a married man with criminal charges pending). She was in a 'royal mess'. All her survival instincts may have been up and alert (she after all had just seen Sarah suffer a divorce when lovers came to light).

If one looks at what Diana actually said in that interview it is riddled through with inconsistencies and glaring appeals to the public to be 'on her side' (like her stating she would never be queen, would be the princess of people's hearts, that the RF thought she was bonkers, etc). It's as though she knew a divorce was possible at that point (maybe 'in the wind'? would she have known that Charles was petitioning his mother to allow a divorce? was there a timeline?)

Diana was nothing if not a (public relations) survivor. (of a kind, because the flip side for her was always disaster). It was crunch time. The Panorama interview proved to the Queen that making Charles wait was pointless as long as Diana had the wallop of her status as his wife. With the Panorama interview it was as though Diana was saying to the Queen: 'I double dare you to try anything with me. I have 'the people' behind me, I am their princess. Back off.' Just speculation, but it's a curious moment.

paul barrell wrote in his book "Royal Duty" Diana did not oppose separation. She rather supported the separation. But she was outraged by the letter about the divorce.
Has anyone read Patrick Jephson, Ken Wharfe, Simone Simmons books?
How did diana react to separation and divorce in their books?

I'd believe it. It was a come down of massive proportions. I have always felt that the animus from the public against the BRF (Queen) at Diana's death would have pleased her: sweet revenge. Pretty nasty when you think about it, and amazing.

 

[aigulminimalist]

divorce lawyer Maggie Rae confirmed
<<Rae said Diana wanted her son William and not her husband Charles to take over as the next head of the House of Windsor.
That, in Diana’s view, was “the happiest solution for the future of the monarchy.”>>

bitter vindictive ex-wife? or what? why did she want to take throne from Charles?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rles-as-king-court-told-idUSL1525700120080115

 

[Lady Nimue]

divorce lawyer Maggie Rae confirmed
<<Rae said Diana wanted her son William and not her husband Charles to take over as the next head of the House of Windsor.
That, in Diana’s view, was “the happiest solution for the future of the monarchy.”>>

bitter vindictive ex-wife? or what? why did she want to take throne from Charles?

None of it makes sense. There is no logic to any of it, and that she thought she could 'take down Charles' is in itself a demonstration of hubris that one is hard pressed to account for. Where did it come from? I guess we could say she believed her press clippings, believed the spin in the tabloids. She referenced her life through the lens of what the tabloids had written, see the Panorama interview for a harrowing display of that.

At some point she became disassociated from the fact that she held whatever social position (and 'power') she did, with the consequent interest of the tabloids and public, because of Charles. That she thought she had the power of her own person to alter a dynastic succession is breathtaking really.

Reading the transcript of the Panorama interview is valuable, to see the self referencing reasoning. Tough to read no less to watch but this is where she sets a lot of spinning rationales in motion that get repeated to this day: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/panorama.html

If you can suss out her motivations from this tangle of expressed 'beliefs', or points of view, let me know. I would be interested. Diana is far from a 'settled' quantity imo.

 

[anbrida]

After reading some previous posts, I almost felt I went to the wrong thread. But I agree with some posters, Diana could be very manipulative, but to some people's surprise, not always in a purpose to benefit herself. Still, no one can be a bigger manipulator than God. He really predetermined some people's fates!!!

Let us go back to the "Secret tapes Diana Recorded in March 1997". I have discovered an old piece of article, which was about a secret recording Diana made to her children. First I believe the content of the recording is authentic. But I think the report WRONGLY attributed the recording to voice coach Peter Settelen, who made some recordings with Diana during 1991-1993. I don't think that recording was made in 1991-1993; it must be, at least, after May, 1996. Therefore, most likely it is one of those she made in March 1997. The following is the link to the article. The article was published in April 15, 2003.

https://moonforlove.tumblr.com/post/66883923624/secret-tapes-of-princess-diana/amp

The reason I believed its authenticity is because the following parts of recording, in which she wanted to explain to her children the reason for her affair with Hewitt.

"It might as well have been a prison," she says. "My outside contacts were so limited -- that's why I felt so strongly for James Hewitt. I loved him because he was my escape from the royal prison wall that surrounded me."

She discusses how she fantasized about running off with the dashing army major. But then the mood changes to bitterness, and she accuses the ex-cavalry officer of betraying her "all for the sake of sex."

Smartly dressed in a blazer and blouse, Diana looks directly into the camera and says: "James always showed me the love I didn't get from Charles. But James betrayed me over the letters (the collection of love letters she had sent him while she was stationed overseas). It was devastating and vile to me...He hurt us so much. He turned out to be a total rat ... and all for the sake of sex."

She also wonders what Hewitt might do in the future. "God forbid he does anything that could hurt Wills or Harry," she prays.

We know James Hewit once published a book about his affair with Diana, which definitely had hurt Diana. But there was another rarely known story about those letters. Hewitt had once tried to used those letters to blackmail Diana for a huge amount of money in May, 1996.

According to Simone Simmons' book which published in 2005, two years after the report, she wrote a story which happened when Diana was in the final negotiations for her divorce from Charles. James Hewitt used those letters to harass Diana, threaten her he would sold them. And Diana wanted to buy them back, and Hewitt asked for 250,000 pounds.

He was constantly telephoning her and she felt she had to take his calls. She was frightened not to. He still had those highly embarrassing letters and he used them like a chain to keep her in his thrall...Faced with that dismal probability, she decided that, if they were going to be sold, she was the one who would have to purchase them...After a number of fractious telephone calls and the assistance of an intermediary, Diana agreed to meet Hewitt and buy back the letters. Hewitt set the terms. He stipulated that the handover should take place in Spain. And he demanded that the money be paid in cash.

"He wanted two hundred and fifty thousand pounds -- and that's what I am going to give him," she told me.

Diana did fly to Spain with Susie Kassem with that money，but in the end she didn't meet James Hewitt because he refused to, with an excuse that because of paparazzi. And she was back in London the next day with the money but without having seen Hewitt.

Paparazzi photographs did so that Diana took a flight to Spain on May 3, 1996 in disguise and back to London the next day. They even reported that the trip was due to meet a mystery male friend.

The fact that she couldn't get back those letters makes it understandable why she would pray in front of camera, "God forbid he does anything that could hurt Wills or Harry."

I think it was impossible to make up such contents in 2003, two years before Simone Simmons's book in 2005. On the other hand, it implied the tapes were recorded at least after May 1996.


What I found quite amazing and justful is, that it seems the prayer did work. After about merely one or two years of her death, James Hewitt started to give away message that he was willing to sell the letters to the highest bidder. In 2000, he even went to Larry King to advise those letters for 1 million pounds (4 times higher than what he had asked from Diana). And it has been reported he had flew to America many times to meet the potential buyers. But every time, every time, he failed to sell these letters for even a single pound. The latest attempt was made in 2017, obviously he wanted to use the hype of the 20th anniversary to do some business. But he failed again, and then not long later, he suffered a stoke. God had mercy on him, he finally recovered. I highly suggest him not to try it again, for his own dignity and for God's sake.

 

[Elan]

According to Ken Wharfe, who tried to dissuade her from sending the letters, Diana felt Hewitt was less in love than claimed, while hoping to snare a princess. Her feeling at the time was that he was "getting too serious". Letters boosted his morale overseas with the result that he talked openly about "spending the rest of their lives together".

Once he returned to England, face to face, something had radically changed. Alarmed, he called Ken in near panic, who was not about to intervene on his behalf. She discovered from Richard Kay that using a satellite phone in the Gulf to call, meant others nearby could listen, which rankled her. It must have been a nightmare of a homecoming for Hewitt to find himself put out to pasture unexpectedly, standing there in shock from it all. Soon, she would no longer receive his calls at Kensington.

Ken advised her to request a full return of the letters. When she attempted that he told her he wanted to keep them as a remembrance.

 

[Denville]

Serves him right.. He is a pathetic excuse for man