Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today we are undertaking,
well, a really monumental deep dive into the
life of a figure who didn't just capture global
attention. She fundamentally redefined what it
meant to be royal in the modern era. diana princess
of wales absolutely we're looking at her not
just uh as this tragic royal figure but really
as an international phenomenon an activist who's
well whose short life and enduring legacy permanently
shifted the whole balance you know between the
monarchy and the media we really did and the
sources we have gosh there are so many personal
accounts official biographies journalistic exposés
public records they paint this really intense
portrait of paradox you have the shy noble woman
who becomes arguably the most photographed woman
in the world. That paradox is exactly what makes
her story so, so compelling, isn't it? Our mission
today is really to move beyond those sensational
tabloid headlines and try to understand, using
the facts we've got from our source material,
how Diana evolved, how she went from this relatively
unknown aristocratic girl into, well, the global
force that Tony Blair famously called the people's
princess. We want a thorough, clear understanding
of her profound influence. Indeed. We are tracking
a life lived at, like, full throttle. Born Diana
Frances Spencer in 1961. She was, of course,
the first wife of Charles III, the devoted mother
of Princes William and Harry. And she died so
young, age 36, in that terrible crash in 1997.
It's hard to believe it's been that long. It
is. Her charisma, her struggles, her glamour,
and her unwavering focus on humanitarian work
that really defined her time in the spotlight.
So let's unpack the roots of that remarkable
yet, well... Deeply troubled personality. Okay,
to do that, we absolutely have to start right
at the beginning. Let's jump into part one. Early
life and her sort of non -traditional path to
the palace. Now, the Spencer name carries some
serious weight in British history, doesn't it?
What was the context of her entry into the world?
Well, the context was pure British nobility,
top tier. But internally, things were messy.
The Spencer family was, you know, intimately
connected to the royal household for generations.
Her grandmothers both served as ladies -in -waiting
to the Queen Mother. Diana herself was born at
Park House, which is literally right there on
the Sandringham estate. It just reinforces that
tight, almost sort of feudal connection to the
very core of the monarchy. So she was basically
born next door to the crown. Hmm. Literally.
Yet, despite this high society pedigree, her
childhood was marked by really deep instability.
Our sources suggest there was immense disappointment
when she was born. Yeah, that's right. Primarily
because her parents had desperately hoped for
a boy to secure the family lineage. And that
pressure only intensified after the death of
her infant brother, John, just before she was
born. That parental strain, it just became too
much. Her parents divorced when Diana was only
seven. She later described her childhood as...
very unhappy and very unstable. This profound
family fracturing obviously left deep emotional
scars. It must have. Her younger brother, Charles
Spencer, has described the whole thing as dreadful
and likely a root cause of their subsequent emotional
struggles. And that background, that sort of
emotional volatility, it became even more visible
after her father remarried in 1976, didn't it?
To Rain, Countess of Dartmouth. Oh, yes. Diana's
immediate hostility toward her stepmother, Rain,
whom she famously called a bully. It's really
well documented, including that, well, astonishing
anecdote where Diana reportedly pushed Rain down
the stairs during an argument. Pushed her down
the stairs. Apparently so. It's shocking, right?
And it speaks volumes, I think, about the level
of maybe uncontrolled emotional reaction just
simmering beneath that polite aristocratic facade.
It's an incident that kind of foreshadows the
intensity. of her internal struggles later on
and the difficulty she had containing her emotions
within, you know, restrictive environments like
the palace. It really does. This unstable home
life, contrasted with the rigid expectations
of her class, it seems to have led her down a
surprisingly non -traditional academic path,
especially for a future royal spouse. Absolutely.
Academics just weren't her strong suit. She failed
her O -levels twice, left West Heath Girls' School
at 16. That's quite an unconventional path for
someone who would eventually marry the future
king. Definitely not the usual road. No. And
her brother recalls her being incredibly shy
during this period, despite her aristocratic
lineage. But she certainly wasn't without talent.
We see this strong creative and physical intelligence
sort of emerging. She excelled in swimming and
diving. She was an accomplished pianist and she
trained in ballet and tap dance. Right. These
are activities that require discipline, expression,
commitment, a different kind of focus maybe than
she found in formal skilling. And that desire
for a nontraditional existence, it seems to have
manifested in her work before the engagement.
After coming back from a Swiss finishing school,
she took on genuinely low -paying jobs in London.
She really did. She was a dance instructor for
a bit until a skiing accident sidelined her.
She did cleaning work, believe it or not. And
she worked as a nursery teacher's assistant at
the Young England School in Pimlico. And that
nursery job, that's so crucial to her narrative,
isn't it? It really is. She was the first royal
bride to the heir apparent who had ever held
a proper, consistent -paying job before marriage.
It immediately gave the press and the public
something relatable to latch on to, didn't it?
Something that hinted at a, well, a non -guilded
existence, even though her roots were pure blue
blood. Exactly. It helped cement that image of
the sort of commoner who caught the prince, even
though, as you say, she was far from a commoner.
The courtship itself, well. It was a whirlwind.
How did it start? She actually first met Charles
way back in 1977. She was only 16, and he was
29, dating her older sister, Sarah, at the time.
Oh, right, her sister. Yeah. The dynamic really
shifted in the summer of 1980. They were at a
weekend gathering in the country. Their paths
crossed again, and things just clicked. And the
relationship accelerated pretty rapidly after
that weekend, leading to the critical invitation
to Balmoral, the ultimate royal test, basically.
That's right, the Balmoral test. Our sources
confirm she was well -received by the entire
inner circle, the Queen, Prince Philip, the Queen
Mother. That signaled official approval. And
Charles proposed not long after, on February
6, 1981, at Windsor Castle. They kept the secret
for about two and a half weeks. And right there,
even before the world knew, Diana gave us this
little insight into her future independent streak,
didn't she? How so? She chose her own engagement
ring. From a Gerard catalog, rather than accepting
a custom piece or a family heirloom. Ah, yes,
the sapphire and diamond cluster. It was a choice,
wasn't it? It sort of symbolized a new kind of
royal bride, someone who maybe prioritized personal
preference over pure tradition, even then. Exactly.
A little hint of what was to come. That choice
was perhaps the first small step in a whole series
of steps away from protocol that would really
define her brief and ultimately tumultuous tenure
as the Princess of Wales. Which moves us perfectly
into part two. The fairy tale fades marriage,
public exposure, and eventually divorce. The
wedding itself was magnificent, wasn't it? Held
at St. Paul's Cathedral, July 1981. Chosen specifically
for its sheer capacity, allowing for this huge,
grand spectacle. Oh, the scale was immense. And
the global reaction, Dianamania. It was instantaneous.
An estimated 750 million people watched worldwide.
It was marketed globally as the fairy tale wedding.
750 million people. just staggering it really
is yeah but what's interesting i think is that
even amidst the vows right there in the ceremony
she was already pushing back subtly against the
establishment she certainly did there was a small
matter of her inadvertently reversing charles's
first two names during the vows yeah yes a little
slip but the major really comment worthy deviation
was that she and charles together chose to omit
the traditional vow where the bride promised
to obeyed her husband. That was significant.
For a 20 year old marrying the heir to the throne,
that was a very overt, highly visible declaration
of, well, perhaps equality or at least partnership.
It's definitely a statement. Yet behind the scenes,
the private reality seems to have been crushing
almost immediately. She became the Princess of
Wales at just 20, facing instant, immense global
pressure. And it showed quite quickly, didn't
it? It did. Her struggle was so intense that
by 1983, during a royal tour to Canada, she was
already confiding in Brian Peckford, the premier
of Newfoundland at the time. She told him she
was finding it... Very difficult to cope with
the pressures. Just two years in. And that difficulty,
it manifested internally with, well, horrific
clarity. She suffered profoundly from postpartum
depression after William's birth in 1982. Yes,
which was not widely understood or discussed
back then. Not at all. But the most chilling
detail, revealed much later in tapes she recorded,
was her confession that she'd intentionally thrown
herself down a flight of stairs while pregnant
with William. It's just awful to contemplate.
She said she felt so inadequate and was desperate
for attention, a cry for help, that she felt
the palace, the system, was completely ignoring.
That level of psychological distress is just
staggering. It speaks to the profound loneliness
she must have felt inside that gilded cage. And
she also struggled intensely with bulimia nervosa
and engaged in self -harm. Yes. And it's important
to note, as the sources do, that biographers
frequently cite these struggles, the emotional
volatility, the self -harm, the perhaps compulsive
behaviors as potential indicators of something
like borderline personality disorder. It reflects
a personality that really struggled to stabilize
under that intense, unrelenting spotlight. It's
a complex picture. But the silver lining, if
you can call it that, in that immense struggle
was her absolute dedication to her children.
She fundamentally altered the tradition of royal
parenting. That's where her resolve truly shone,
wasn't it? She was intransigent on this. She
chose their names, William and Harry. She chose
their schools. She famously dismissed the traditional
royal nannies for staff she handpicked herself.
And she structured her public duties around their
timetables, didn't she? Completely. She made
sure William and Harry had experiences far beyond
the usual royal bubble, like those private visits
she took them on to homeless shelters and hospitals.
She was determined to keep them grounded, to
give them a glimpse of, you know, real life.
Despite that dedication, the marriage itself
was visibly crumbling pretty quickly. Due to,
well, fundamental incompatibility, that significant
13 -year age difference. Yeah, all of it. By
1986, just five years in, their mutual unhappiness
was so stark, so obvious, that the media had
already dubbed them the glums. You'd see these
photos of them looking utterly miserable together.
The glums. I remember that. And 1986 really marks
the point of no return, it seems. Charles, disillusioned,
rekindled his longstanding relationship with
Camilla Parker Bowles. And almost simultaneously,
Diana began her own serious affair with James
Hewitt, the family's writing instructor. The
marital lines were irrevocably broken by them.
And the pressure cooker finally blew in 1989,
didn't it? When Diana famously confronted Camilla
Parker Bowles at a private birthday party, that
confrontation became the stuff of legend almost
instantly. It did. A very direct move. But the
real war moved decisively into the public sphere
in 1992. Ah, 1992. The queen called it her annus
horribilis, her horrible year. And for good reason.
andrew morton's explosive book diana her true
story was released it revealed diana's bulimia
her deep unhappiness her suicide attempts and
the existence of extramarital affairs it was
a bombshell and it became an even bigger scandal
when it was later revealed that diana herself
had secretly provided the material for the book
hadn't she through recorded tapes delivered via
a third party james colthurst exactly she was
actively collaborating fighting back using the
media and the tapes just kept coming the infamous
squid G -Gate tapes featuring an intimate phone
call between Diana and James Gilby were leaked
that same year. Huge embarrassment. But arguably
the truly damaging public humiliation came with
the Camilla Gate or Tampong Gate tapes in 1993.
Oh, that was something else. It really was. They
contained this intensely intimate, frankly vulgar
and just shocking phone conversation between
Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles recorded years
earlier but leaked then. Tampong Gate was seismic,
wasn't it? The sheer detail of their longing
for each other. the really crude language, it
just destroyed any remaining pretense of dignity
the palace was trying to project. Absolutely.
The public was reading raw, intimate transcripts
involving their future king. It was an unprecedented
violation of privacy and a massive, massive constitutional
embarrassment. And all this public exposure only
seemed to fuel Diana's private fears and her
desire for maybe an escape hatch. It seemed so.
She confessed on videotape to her voice coach,
Peter Settle, in tapes that also emerged later
that she had been deeply in love with her bodyguard,
Barry Manichie, between 1984 and 1986. Manichie,
right. Yeah. She even stated she was quite happy
to give all this up royal life just to go off
and live with him. It shows a real depth of feeling
or perhaps desperation. Such vulnerability in
that statement. Mannequin was moved from her
protection detail in 86 after suspicions arose
about their closeness, wasn't he? He was chucked
out, as Diana put it. And then he died in a motorcycle
accident shortly after, in 1987. Diana became
convinced, or at least expressed the suspicion,
that he was killed deliberately. This fed into
her growing sense of paranoia and feeling unsafe
within the palace walls. And that paranoia reached
this really chilling climax in October 1993.
She wrote a note to her butler, Paul Burrell.
The infamous Burrell note. Alleging that Charles
was actively planning an accident for her, specifically
involving brake failure and serious head injury,
so he could marry Tiggy Legberg, who was then
his personal assistant and nanny to the princess.
Whether those fears were based in reality or
were a product of her isolation and perhaps paranoia,
the fact that she believed this and wrote it
down profoundly suggests the level of danger
and betrayal she felt surrounded by. It's a very
dark place to be. And this dark internal atmosphere
provided the backdrop for Charles' own big TV
interview in 1994 with Jonathan Dimbleby. Right,
where he admitted resuming his relationship with
Camilla, but only, he insisted, after his marriage
to Diana had irretrievably broken down. It was
his attempt to control the narrative. But Diana
wasn't having it. And that set the stage for
her ultimate mic drop moment, the 1995 BBC Panorama
interview with Martin Bashir. Oh, that was the
absolute tipping point, a self -inflicted wound
on the monarchy, really, orchestrated by Diana.
She dropped that instantly unforgettable line
about the marriage. Well, there were three of
us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.
Instantly iconic. And she spoke with shocking
openness about her bulimia, her depression, her
self -harm. She masterfully used her vulnerability
to gain global sympathy and position. herself
not just as a victim of the press, but as a victim
of the palace establishment itself. But a huge
shadow hangs over that interview now, doesn't
it? A massive one. We now know, thanks to inquiries,
that the journalist Martin Bashir used deceitful
methods, including forged bank statements, and
actively played on Diana's paranoia, suggesting
people close to her were spying on her specifically
to secure that interview. It's quite damning.
It is. And the source material reveals that both
William and Harry concluded years later that
the unethical way the interview was obtained
and the interview itself directly contributed
to the breakdown of their parents' relationship,
the divorce, and ultimately, they believe, played
a part in the circumstances leading to her death.
Wow. That's a heavy conclusion from her own sons.
Very heavy. The fallout was swift. The Queen
advised Charles and Diana to divorce in December
1995, just weeks after the interview aired. The
divorce was finalized in August 1996. The negotiation
was complex, but the emotional cost was perhaps
most visible in the handling of her title. Right.
She lost the official style, Her Royal Highness
the HRH, but she retained the title, Diana, Princess
of Wales. That distinction, while seeming maybe
small to outsiders, meant everything within that
world. It defined her remaining somewhat ambiguous
links to the institution. And it led to that
incredibly poignant, almost heartbreaking promise
from young Prince William. Oh, what was that?
He reportedly told her after she lost the HRH
something like, don't worry, mommy, I will give
it back to you one day when I am king. Oh, bless
him. Wow. Shows the depth of his feeling even
then. Post -divorce, Diana fought hard to maintain
her independence while still leveraging her unique
status. She kept her apartment at Kensington
Palace. She retained access to royal air travel
and her amazing collection of jewels. But crucially,
she made a decision about security, didn't she?
Yes. She refused Metropolitan Police protection
in her final years. She reportedly felt it was
a measure of control used by the royal family
or the firm, and she wanted absolute distance
and freedom from that. A decision with obviously
tragic consequences later on. She was also actively
trying to redefine her public life, wasn't she?
Beyond just charity work. She was. She was engaging
in talks with the then new prime minister, Tony
Blair, about potentially taking on a special
sort of non -royal ambassadorial role, promoting
Britain's interests overseas. She was clearly
carving out an independent, influential platform
for herself, totally outside the constraints
of official court duty. And her personal life
reflected this desire for, well, normal freedom,
perhaps an intense connection. Absolutely. She
maintained a highly secretive, very serious relationship
with the British Pakistani heart. surgeon has
not conned. Friends have referred to him as the
love of her life and her Mr. Wonderful. A very
private relationship. Incredibly so, given her
fame. It lasted nearly two years, apparently
very intense, until it ended rather abruptly
in the summer of 1997. Sources suggest her mother,
Frances Shandkid, strongly disapproved of her
relationship with a Muslim man, leading to a
profound and lasting rift between Diana and her
mother. That's sad. And it was just a month after
that devastating breakup with Khan that she began
dating Dodi Fayed, the son of the Harrods owner,
Mohamed El Fayed. Yes. And the sources reveal
a sort of practical, almost reactive reason for
this choice initially. She had intended to take
William and Harry to the Hamptons in New York
that summer, but was apparently prevented by
security concerns. So Fade offered an alternative.
He did. She accepted Dodi's father, Mohamed Al
Fade's, invitation to join them at his massive,
securely guarded compound in the south of France
because it offered a kind of sanctuary, a level
of private security that British royal protection
officials wouldn't object to for the princes.
So ironically, she was seeking privacy and security,
but ended up under the most intense paparazzi
scrutiny imaginable. A terrible irony. This push
for self -determination, both personally and
through her work, brings us neatly to part three,
the humanitarian dynamo redefining royal duty.
Yes, and this is the part of her legacy that
remains, I think, unquestionably positive and
deeply effective. Diana was celebrated precisely
because she rejected those traditional, often
quite staid, royal patronages. She consciously
moved her focus to serious, often stigmatized
issues, things like AIDS, leprosy, homelessness,
and landmines. She wasn't just lending her name
either, was she? Not at all. That's a huge statement.
desperately needed them, and her pioneering work
in championing the IVAIDS cause. particularly
in the mid to late 80s, remains arguably her
defining humanitarian moment. I'd agree. In 1987,
right at the height of the AIDS crisis, when
public fear, ignorance, and misinformation were
absolutely rampant, she visited a London hospital,
the Middlesex Hospital, and famously shook the
hand of a man suffering from AIDS without gloves.
Such a simple gesture, but revolutionary at the
time. Completely. That physical contact, being
the first British royal to do it so publicly,
was revolutionary. It actively and visually debunked
the terrifying widespread myth that the disease
could be transmitted by casual touch. The images
went global and instantly started breaking down
massive barriers of stigma and fear. And her
quote from that time is still so powerful, isn't
it? HIV does not make people dangerous to know.
You can shake their hands and give them a hug.
Heaven knows they need it. It perfectly captured
her empathetic approach. That work earned her
recognition like Time magazine's Woman of the
Year in 1987. And later, Nelson Mandela himself,
another huge moral authority, praised her specifically
for transforming public attitudes toward the
disease. Her influence truly transcended borders
and politics. And that courage, that willingness
to tackle tough issues, transferred directly
to her high -risk activism with the Global Landmines
Campaign in 1997. This arguably brought her into
the most direct political conflict with the British
establishment. Indeed. Those iconic pictures
of her in Angola, walking through a partially
cleared minefield, wearing a ballistic helmet
and a flak jacket. They were incredibly potent.
She was intentionally using her unparalleled
celebrity to force the world to pay attention
to a deadly, insidious, invisible killer. But
she wasn't just posing for photos, was she? No,
she was actively campaigning for an international
ban, which drew intense political heat back home.
The political backlash was... Pretty swift and
fierce, as I recall. She was criticized for meddling
in politics, wasn't she? And infamously called
a loose cannon by conservative junior defense
minister Earl Howe. Yes, that loose cannon comment
stuck. It was a clear sign that parts of the
establishment saw her activism as a direct constitutional
threat. She was using her celebrity platform
to influence foreign policy completely outside
of official government channels. They didn't
like that one bit. Yet the tangible results of
her efforts really speak for them. They absolutely
do. Her high profile awareness campaign was instrumental,
many believe, in building momentum towards the
Ottawa Treaty later that same year, 1997, which
brought about the international ban on the production
and use of anti -personnel landmines. And the
international campaign to ban landmines actually
won the Nobel Peace Prize that year, too. Exactly.
A massive recognition of the gravity and impact
of the cause she had so powerfully championed
just months before her death. Beyond these huge
global issues, she maintained a steadfast focus
on the vulnerable closer to home as well. She
became patron of the leprosy mission. Yes. And
again, she made a point of deliberately touching
those afflicted by leprosy, reinforcing her message
that they are not reviled, that they deserve
compassion and human contact, challenging centuries
of stigma. Her focus also extended strongly to
mental illness and homelessness, areas that often
suffered from severe public neglect and misunderstanding.
That's right. She was a longtime, very active
supporter of Centerpoint, the youth homelessness
charity. And she famously took William and Harry
on those private, unpublicized visits to homeless
shelters, ensuring they understood poverty and
vulnerability firsthand. She argued passionately
that society had a duty to ensure young people
are given the chance they deserve. And her specific,
often intense patronages, like being president
of the Royal Marsden Hospital, which focuses
on cancer research, or visiting psychiatric facilities.
like Broadmoor gave her this perfect platform.
She could bring legitimacy, funding, and huge
visibility to issues that were often deliberately
kept hidden from public view. She really did
create a new, modern campaigning model for royal
duty. Less ribbon -cutting, more direct engagement
with difficult realities. The contrast between
her incredible public success in this humanitarian
work in Part 3 and the tragic personal turmoil
we discussed in Part 2, it's just so jarring.
And that contrast ultimately defined her end,
didn't it? Which brings us to part four, the
tragic end and her enduring legacy. It does.
The context of her death remains absolutely crucial
to understanding her legacy. She died, as we
know, on August 31st, 1997, after that devastating
car crash in the Pont de L 'Homme tunnel in Paris.
And the circumstances were just horrific. The
car was traveling at high speed, actively fleeing,
pursuing paparazzi on motorcycles. Exactly. Dodie
Fade, her companion, and the driver, Henri Paul,
who was the acting security manager of the Ritz
-Paris, were also killed instantly. Her bodyguard,
Trevor Reese Jones, part of the... The public
response was... Well, it was like nothing anyone
had ever seen before in modern British history,
wasn't it? Completely unprecedented. The sea
of flowers, the messages, the sheer outpouring
of collective grief outside Kensington Palace
and Buckingham Palace. It transformed mourning
into this massive, almost overwhelming national
event. It triggered what many historians and
commentators describe as a kind of constitutional
crisis for the monarchy. Because the royal family
initially seemed so aloof. So cold in comparison
to the public's profound sorrow. Precisely. There
was this huge disconnect. The public demanded
a response, a recognition of Diana's unique place
that the traditional royal protocols just weren't
equipped to handle. The funeral itself on September
6th was watched by an estimated 2 .5 billion
people worldwide. A truly global event. And it
forced the monarchy into a massive historic shift
in protocol, didn't it? It really did, responding
directly to public pressure and arguably Tony
Blair's advice for the first time ever. The royal
standard, the monarch's personal flag, was lowered
to half -mast over Buckingham Palace on the day
of the funeral. This set a completely new historic
precedent for royal mourning protocol. It was
a clear sign that the palace recognized the sheer
magnitude of Diana's public identity and the
depth of public feeling. And at the funeral,
her brother, Charles Spencer, delivered that
devastatingly memorable tribute, didn't he? Famously
saying, saying she needed no royal title to continue
to generate her particular brand of magic. A
powerful eulogy. He framed her death not just
as a personal tragedy, but as a casualty, implicitly,
of both the monarchy's rigidity and the media's
relentless intrusion. It was quite pointed. And
the musical tribute was equally iconic, Elton
John performing the rewritten Candle in the Wind,
1997. Yes, originally about Marilyn Monroe. Rewritten
for Diana. It became the best -selling single
of all time, with all the global proceeds channeled
directly to the charitable causes Diana had championed
through the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial
Fund. A fitting tribute. She was later buried
privately at Althorp, the Spencer family estate,
on a small island in the middle of a lake called
the Round Oval, chosen specifically by her brother
for absolute privacy and security away from the
crowds. Of course, the dramatic circumstances
of her death inevitably led to years of intense
speculation, investigation, and numerous conspiracy
theories. Oh, inevitably. The initial French
investigation concluded quite quickly that the
primary cause was the driver, Henri Paul's, high
level of intoxication alcohol and prescription
drugs, combined with reckless driving at high
speed while trying to evade the paparazzi. But
Donny Fade's father, Mohamed Al -Faid, never
accepted that, did he? No, he publicly and persistently
maintained for years that the crash was not an
accident but a planned murder, orchestrated by
British intelligence services, MI6, possibly
on the orders of the Duke of Edinburgh. He targeted
both Diana and Dodi, he claimed, perhaps because
Diana was pregnant with Dodi's child and planned
to marry him claims which were later disproven.
He accused MI6 and Prince Philip. Those are huge
allegations. Massive allegations. He pursued
them relentlessly, funding private investigations
and legal challenges. He eventually dropped the
specific claims against Prince Philip and MI6.
But the sheer scale of the global scrutiny meant
these conspiracy theories persisted for years
and still linger in some quarters. But the final
decisive conclusion came much later from the
massive multimillion pound British inquest Operation
Paget, which reported in 2006 and a subsequent
jury inquest in 2008. That's right. After hearing
from hundreds of witnesses over six months, the
2008 inquest jury returned a definitive verdict
of unlawful killing. Crucially, though, this
verdict attributed the cause equally to two factors,
the grossly negligent driving of the chauffeur
Henri Paul and the speed and manner of driving
of the pursuing vehicles, the paparazzi. So shared
blame, both the driver's condition and actions
and the media pursuit. Exactly. It placed shared
legal and moral blame squarely on the media intrusion
that Diana had spent years trying, often ambivalently,
to manage and escape. And this brings us right
back to the complex, deeply complex nature of
her relationship with the media. She remains
one of the most popular royal figures ever, doesn't
she? Voted third, amazingly, in the BBC's poll,
the 100 Greatest Britons back in 2002. Higher
than most monarchs. It's extraordinary. Tony
Blair coined that phrase, the people's princess,
in the hours after her death. And it stuck precisely
because she felt relatable, accessible, warm,
vulnerable qualities not typically associated
with royalty. Yet her actual dance with the...
was utterly ambivalent, as our sources confirm,
and as her life showed. She complained bitterly,
oft justifiably, about the constant intrusion
into her privacy. But simultaneously, she absolutely
leveraged the press, often brilliantly, for her
own narrative control and to promote her causes.
We know, for example, that she reportedly leaked
that confidential directory of royal household
phone numbers and addresses to the News of the
World newspaper back in 1992. Why did she do
that? Apparently, specifically to spite Charles
and cause internal chaos within the palace structure
during the height of their conflict, it was a
calculated move. That contradiction is just fascinating.
It's her genius. Maybe her flaw all rolled into
one. I think that's fair. Critics then and now
often labeled her self -indulgent or manipulative
because of these leaks, the panorama interview,
the constant courting of attention, even while
complaining about it. But her admirers saw it
differently. Completely. Admirers like her biographer,
Tina Brown, for instance, argued she was far
from just a vulnerable victim. She was canny.
She was resourceful. She actively learned how
to use the massive media machine as a weapon,
really, against the rigid establishment that
she felt was trying to crush her. She was also
resourceful enough and smart enough to use fashion
as a sophisticated tool, even a weapon. Diana
remains one of Time Magazine's all -time 100
fashion icons. Deservedly so. Her style evolution
was remarkable and, importantly, entirely deliberate.
She went from those romantic, almost frilly,
traditional Sloan Ranger looks in the early marriage
years. The shy dye phase. Exactly. To much bolder,
more structured, business -like, even glamorous
outfits, particularly post -separation. And this
wasn't just about looking good, it was strategic.
How so? She consciously used her fashion choices
to produce... We definitely remember the famous
looks. That elegant off -the -shoulder velvet
gown, the Travolta dress she wore when dancing
with John Travolta at the White House. A huge
fashion moment. But perhaps the single most powerful
fashion statement she ever made was that black,
off -the -shoulder Christina Stambolian dress.
The revenge dress. Ah, yes, the revenge dress.
Worn the very night Charles publicly admitted
his adultery with Camilla in that Dembleby interview.
Precisely. That dress wasn't just clothing. It
was a nonverbal act of defiant independence and
glamour. It instantly launched her new, post
-royal, confident image. It was bold. It was
sleek. It was utterly commanding. It sent a crystal
clear message to the world and perhaps to the
palace. She was moving on and she was stronger
than ever. Her impact is just woven into the
fabric of the modern monarchy and British public
life, isn't it? Undeniably. The Diana Princess
of Wales Memorial Fountain in Hyde Park, the
Memorial Playground in Kensington Gardens. These
stand as lasting public tributes in London. The
Diana Award, established in 1999, continues her
humanitarian mission by honoring young people
who inspire positive change. And perhaps most
personally, her spirit lives on quite literally
within the royal family itself. through her granddaughters.
Princess Charlotte's full name is Charlotte Elizabeth
Diana, and Prince Harry's daughter is Little
Bit Diana. Carrying her name forward, she introduced,
I think, a vulnerability, a relatability, and
certainly a campaigning spirit into royal life
that simply cannot be erased, even if the institution
has perhaps tried to contain it at times. Her
legacy is definitely complicated, multi -layered,
but her methods, particularly in humanitarian
work, were undeniably effective, weren't they?
Incredibly effective. She showed perhaps more
powerful... than anyone before or since, that
global celebrity could be used as a blunt, powerful
instrument for genuine humanitarian change, even
if, and this is key, even if it meant risking
the right confrontation with both government
and the monarchy itself. Which brings us right
back to that ultimate, maybe provocative question
that her life, and especially her death, raises
for us. Diana was famous, celebrated, for utilizing
her enormous visibility for these global causes,
and for explicitly rejecting the stifling royal
protocol that came with her title. She went so
far as to refuse official British police protection
in her final years, believing it helped her distance
herself from the royal family, gave her more
freedom. A freedom she craved. So what does her
singular, iconic and ultimately tragic story
suggest about the true cost, the personal cost,
the psychological cost, maybe even the physical
price of using that kind of intense global celebrity
as a necessary tool for driving genuine humanitarian
change? It's a profound question, isn't it? It
really hangs over her memory. It forces us, I
think, to consider whether the immense good she
undoubtedly did could possibly have been achieved
without paying that ultimate terrible sacrifice
for the very freedom and impact she sought. A
difficult balance. A very difficult balance indeed.
Thank you for joining us for this deep dive into
the complex life and the enduring legacy of Diana,
Princess of Wales. A fascinating figure. We'll
see you next time on The Deep Dive.