WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.140 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today we are undertaking, 00:00:03.359 --> 00:00:06.099 well, a really monumental deep dive into the 00:00:06.099 --> 00:00:08.480 life of a figure who didn't just capture global 00:00:08.480 --> 00:00:11.820 attention. She fundamentally redefined what it 00:00:11.820 --> 00:00:15.009 meant to be royal in the modern era. diana princess 00:00:15.009 --> 00:00:17.250 of wales absolutely we're looking at her not 00:00:17.250 --> 00:00:20.390 just uh as this tragic royal figure but really 00:00:20.390 --> 00:00:23.350 as an international phenomenon an activist who's 00:00:23.350 --> 00:00:26.589 well whose short life and enduring legacy permanently 00:00:26.589 --> 00:00:28.570 shifted the whole balance you know between the 00:00:28.570 --> 00:00:31.030 monarchy and the media we really did and the 00:00:31.030 --> 00:00:33.829 sources we have gosh there are so many personal 00:00:33.829 --> 00:00:37.090 accounts official biographies journalistic exposés 00:00:37.090 --> 00:00:40.109 public records they paint this really intense 00:00:40.109 --> 00:00:42.909 portrait of paradox you have the shy noble woman 00:00:42.909 --> 00:00:45.429 who becomes arguably the most photographed woman 00:00:45.429 --> 00:00:47.689 in the world. That paradox is exactly what makes 00:00:47.689 --> 00:00:50.850 her story so, so compelling, isn't it? Our mission 00:00:50.850 --> 00:00:52.810 today is really to move beyond those sensational 00:00:52.810 --> 00:00:55.390 tabloid headlines and try to understand, using 00:00:55.390 --> 00:00:56.969 the facts we've got from our source material, 00:00:57.189 --> 00:01:00.130 how Diana evolved, how she went from this relatively 00:01:00.130 --> 00:01:03.890 unknown aristocratic girl into, well, the global 00:01:03.890 --> 00:01:06.409 force that Tony Blair famously called the people's 00:01:06.409 --> 00:01:09.530 princess. We want a thorough, clear understanding 00:01:09.530 --> 00:01:12.969 of her profound influence. Indeed. We are tracking 00:01:12.969 --> 00:01:16.530 a life lived at, like, full throttle. Born Diana 00:01:16.530 --> 00:01:19.109 Frances Spencer in 1961. She was, of course, 00:01:19.189 --> 00:01:22.569 the first wife of Charles III, the devoted mother 00:01:22.569 --> 00:01:25.349 of Princes William and Harry. And she died so 00:01:25.349 --> 00:01:28.489 young, age 36, in that terrible crash in 1997. 00:01:29.290 --> 00:01:31.189 It's hard to believe it's been that long. It 00:01:31.189 --> 00:01:33.730 is. Her charisma, her struggles, her glamour, 00:01:33.730 --> 00:01:37.750 and her unwavering focus on humanitarian work 00:01:37.750 --> 00:01:39.969 that really defined her time in the spotlight. 00:01:40.599 --> 00:01:42.480 So let's unpack the roots of that remarkable 00:01:42.480 --> 00:01:46.159 yet, well... Deeply troubled personality. Okay, 00:01:46.200 --> 00:01:48.019 to do that, we absolutely have to start right 00:01:48.019 --> 00:01:50.060 at the beginning. Let's jump into part one. Early 00:01:50.060 --> 00:01:52.760 life and her sort of non -traditional path to 00:01:52.760 --> 00:01:54.739 the palace. Now, the Spencer name carries some 00:01:54.739 --> 00:01:56.319 serious weight in British history, doesn't it? 00:01:56.400 --> 00:01:59.400 What was the context of her entry into the world? 00:01:59.640 --> 00:02:01.739 Well, the context was pure British nobility, 00:02:01.879 --> 00:02:05.219 top tier. But internally, things were messy. 00:02:05.400 --> 00:02:07.340 The Spencer family was, you know, intimately 00:02:07.340 --> 00:02:09.039 connected to the royal household for generations. 00:02:09.400 --> 00:02:11.759 Her grandmothers both served as ladies -in -waiting 00:02:11.759 --> 00:02:14.879 to the Queen Mother. Diana herself was born at 00:02:14.879 --> 00:02:16.680 Park House, which is literally right there on 00:02:16.680 --> 00:02:19.360 the Sandringham estate. It just reinforces that 00:02:19.360 --> 00:02:21.539 tight, almost sort of feudal connection to the 00:02:21.539 --> 00:02:23.780 very core of the monarchy. So she was basically 00:02:23.780 --> 00:02:26.099 born next door to the crown. Hmm. Literally. 00:02:26.539 --> 00:02:30.460 Yet, despite this high society pedigree, her 00:02:30.460 --> 00:02:33.219 childhood was marked by really deep instability. 00:02:34.560 --> 00:02:36.639 Our sources suggest there was immense disappointment 00:02:36.639 --> 00:02:39.419 when she was born. Yeah, that's right. Primarily 00:02:39.419 --> 00:02:41.240 because her parents had desperately hoped for 00:02:41.240 --> 00:02:45.020 a boy to secure the family lineage. And that 00:02:45.020 --> 00:02:47.219 pressure only intensified after the death of 00:02:47.219 --> 00:02:49.860 her infant brother, John, just before she was 00:02:49.860 --> 00:02:53.219 born. That parental strain, it just became too 00:02:53.219 --> 00:02:55.219 much. Her parents divorced when Diana was only 00:02:55.219 --> 00:02:57.819 seven. She later described her childhood as... 00:02:58.159 --> 00:03:01.460 very unhappy and very unstable. This profound 00:03:01.460 --> 00:03:03.960 family fracturing obviously left deep emotional 00:03:03.960 --> 00:03:06.240 scars. It must have. Her younger brother, Charles 00:03:06.240 --> 00:03:08.620 Spencer, has described the whole thing as dreadful 00:03:08.620 --> 00:03:11.199 and likely a root cause of their subsequent emotional 00:03:11.199 --> 00:03:13.879 struggles. And that background, that sort of 00:03:13.879 --> 00:03:16.099 emotional volatility, it became even more visible 00:03:16.099 --> 00:03:19.259 after her father remarried in 1976, didn't it? 00:03:19.849 --> 00:03:22.990 To Rain, Countess of Dartmouth. Oh, yes. Diana's 00:03:22.990 --> 00:03:25.150 immediate hostility toward her stepmother, Rain, 00:03:25.370 --> 00:03:27.750 whom she famously called a bully. It's really 00:03:27.750 --> 00:03:30.389 well documented, including that, well, astonishing 00:03:30.389 --> 00:03:33.229 anecdote where Diana reportedly pushed Rain down 00:03:33.229 --> 00:03:35.310 the stairs during an argument. Pushed her down 00:03:35.310 --> 00:03:37.590 the stairs. Apparently so. It's shocking, right? 00:03:37.710 --> 00:03:40.650 And it speaks volumes, I think, about the level 00:03:40.650 --> 00:03:43.490 of maybe uncontrolled emotional reaction just 00:03:43.490 --> 00:03:46.189 simmering beneath that polite aristocratic facade. 00:03:46.650 --> 00:03:48.870 It's an incident that kind of foreshadows the 00:03:48.870 --> 00:03:51.430 intensity. of her internal struggles later on 00:03:51.430 --> 00:03:53.830 and the difficulty she had containing her emotions 00:03:53.830 --> 00:03:56.750 within, you know, restrictive environments like 00:03:56.750 --> 00:03:59.650 the palace. It really does. This unstable home 00:03:59.650 --> 00:04:02.189 life, contrasted with the rigid expectations 00:04:02.189 --> 00:04:05.009 of her class, it seems to have led her down a 00:04:05.009 --> 00:04:07.409 surprisingly non -traditional academic path, 00:04:07.590 --> 00:04:10.409 especially for a future royal spouse. Absolutely. 00:04:10.710 --> 00:04:13.550 Academics just weren't her strong suit. She failed 00:04:13.550 --> 00:04:16.470 her O -levels twice, left West Heath Girls' School 00:04:16.470 --> 00:04:20.379 at 16. That's quite an unconventional path for 00:04:20.379 --> 00:04:22.600 someone who would eventually marry the future 00:04:22.600 --> 00:04:25.199 king. Definitely not the usual road. No. And 00:04:25.199 --> 00:04:27.620 her brother recalls her being incredibly shy 00:04:27.620 --> 00:04:30.420 during this period, despite her aristocratic 00:04:30.420 --> 00:04:33.110 lineage. But she certainly wasn't without talent. 00:04:33.310 --> 00:04:37.269 We see this strong creative and physical intelligence 00:04:37.269 --> 00:04:40.629 sort of emerging. She excelled in swimming and 00:04:40.629 --> 00:04:42.949 diving. She was an accomplished pianist and she 00:04:42.949 --> 00:04:45.410 trained in ballet and tap dance. Right. These 00:04:45.410 --> 00:04:48.009 are activities that require discipline, expression, 00:04:48.389 --> 00:04:51.170 commitment, a different kind of focus maybe than 00:04:51.170 --> 00:04:53.129 she found in formal skilling. And that desire 00:04:53.129 --> 00:04:55.670 for a nontraditional existence, it seems to have 00:04:55.670 --> 00:04:57.790 manifested in her work before the engagement. 00:04:58.240 --> 00:05:00.300 After coming back from a Swiss finishing school, 00:05:00.560 --> 00:05:03.180 she took on genuinely low -paying jobs in London. 00:05:03.379 --> 00:05:05.480 She really did. She was a dance instructor for 00:05:05.480 --> 00:05:07.819 a bit until a skiing accident sidelined her. 00:05:07.959 --> 00:05:10.439 She did cleaning work, believe it or not. And 00:05:10.439 --> 00:05:13.079 she worked as a nursery teacher's assistant at 00:05:13.079 --> 00:05:15.800 the Young England School in Pimlico. And that 00:05:15.800 --> 00:05:18.519 nursery job, that's so crucial to her narrative, 00:05:18.579 --> 00:05:20.639 isn't it? It really is. She was the first royal 00:05:20.639 --> 00:05:23.819 bride to the heir apparent who had ever held 00:05:23.819 --> 00:05:27.180 a proper, consistent -paying job before marriage. 00:05:27.810 --> 00:05:30.110 It immediately gave the press and the public 00:05:30.110 --> 00:05:32.550 something relatable to latch on to, didn't it? 00:05:32.610 --> 00:05:34.790 Something that hinted at a, well, a non -guilded 00:05:34.790 --> 00:05:37.149 existence, even though her roots were pure blue 00:05:37.149 --> 00:05:40.529 blood. Exactly. It helped cement that image of 00:05:40.529 --> 00:05:43.089 the sort of commoner who caught the prince, even 00:05:43.089 --> 00:05:45.089 though, as you say, she was far from a commoner. 00:05:45.370 --> 00:05:48.129 The courtship itself, well. It was a whirlwind. 00:05:48.250 --> 00:05:50.709 How did it start? She actually first met Charles 00:05:50.709 --> 00:05:53.649 way back in 1977. She was only 16, and he was 00:05:53.649 --> 00:05:56.610 29, dating her older sister, Sarah, at the time. 00:05:56.670 --> 00:05:59.310 Oh, right, her sister. Yeah. The dynamic really 00:05:59.310 --> 00:06:01.589 shifted in the summer of 1980. They were at a 00:06:01.589 --> 00:06:03.670 weekend gathering in the country. Their paths 00:06:03.670 --> 00:06:06.129 crossed again, and things just clicked. And the 00:06:06.129 --> 00:06:08.250 relationship accelerated pretty rapidly after 00:06:08.250 --> 00:06:11.490 that weekend, leading to the critical invitation 00:06:11.490 --> 00:06:14.069 to Balmoral, the ultimate royal test, basically. 00:06:14.269 --> 00:06:17.279 That's right, the Balmoral test. Our sources 00:06:17.279 --> 00:06:19.800 confirm she was well -received by the entire 00:06:19.800 --> 00:06:22.360 inner circle, the Queen, Prince Philip, the Queen 00:06:22.360 --> 00:06:26.139 Mother. That signaled official approval. And 00:06:26.139 --> 00:06:28.519 Charles proposed not long after, on February 00:06:28.519 --> 00:06:32.220 6, 1981, at Windsor Castle. They kept the secret 00:06:32.220 --> 00:06:34.639 for about two and a half weeks. And right there, 00:06:34.779 --> 00:06:37.699 even before the world knew, Diana gave us this 00:06:37.699 --> 00:06:40.139 little insight into her future independent streak, 00:06:40.240 --> 00:06:42.660 didn't she? How so? She chose her own engagement 00:06:42.660 --> 00:06:45.720 ring. From a Gerard catalog, rather than accepting 00:06:45.720 --> 00:06:49.079 a custom piece or a family heirloom. Ah, yes, 00:06:49.240 --> 00:06:51.519 the sapphire and diamond cluster. It was a choice, 00:06:51.600 --> 00:06:53.920 wasn't it? It sort of symbolized a new kind of 00:06:53.920 --> 00:06:56.800 royal bride, someone who maybe prioritized personal 00:06:56.800 --> 00:06:59.620 preference over pure tradition, even then. Exactly. 00:06:59.660 --> 00:07:01.600 A little hint of what was to come. That choice 00:07:01.600 --> 00:07:05.620 was perhaps the first small step in a whole series 00:07:05.620 --> 00:07:07.339 of steps away from protocol that would really 00:07:07.339 --> 00:07:10.019 define her brief and ultimately tumultuous tenure 00:07:10.019 --> 00:07:12.660 as the Princess of Wales. Which moves us perfectly 00:07:12.660 --> 00:07:15.259 into part two. The fairy tale fades marriage, 00:07:15.620 --> 00:07:19.699 public exposure, and eventually divorce. The 00:07:19.699 --> 00:07:22.079 wedding itself was magnificent, wasn't it? Held 00:07:22.079 --> 00:07:25.759 at St. Paul's Cathedral, July 1981. Chosen specifically 00:07:25.759 --> 00:07:28.459 for its sheer capacity, allowing for this huge, 00:07:28.500 --> 00:07:31.720 grand spectacle. Oh, the scale was immense. And 00:07:31.720 --> 00:07:34.800 the global reaction, Dianamania. It was instantaneous. 00:07:35.220 --> 00:07:38.560 An estimated 750 million people watched worldwide. 00:07:38.879 --> 00:07:41.480 It was marketed globally as the fairy tale wedding. 00:07:41.639 --> 00:07:44.839 750 million people. just staggering it really 00:07:44.839 --> 00:07:46.860 is yeah but what's interesting i think is that 00:07:46.860 --> 00:07:49.100 even amidst the vows right there in the ceremony 00:07:49.100 --> 00:07:51.879 she was already pushing back subtly against the 00:07:51.879 --> 00:07:54.279 establishment she certainly did there was a small 00:07:54.279 --> 00:07:56.879 matter of her inadvertently reversing charles's 00:07:56.879 --> 00:07:59.540 first two names during the vows yeah yes a little 00:07:59.540 --> 00:08:02.439 slip but the major really comment worthy deviation 00:08:02.439 --> 00:08:05.360 was that she and charles together chose to omit 00:08:05.360 --> 00:08:07.000 the traditional vow where the bride promised 00:08:07.000 --> 00:08:09.470 to obeyed her husband. That was significant. 00:08:09.689 --> 00:08:11.629 For a 20 year old marrying the heir to the throne, 00:08:11.730 --> 00:08:14.050 that was a very overt, highly visible declaration 00:08:14.050 --> 00:08:17.089 of, well, perhaps equality or at least partnership. 00:08:17.329 --> 00:08:20.769 It's definitely a statement. Yet behind the scenes, 00:08:21.009 --> 00:08:23.129 the private reality seems to have been crushing 00:08:23.129 --> 00:08:26.060 almost immediately. She became the Princess of 00:08:26.060 --> 00:08:29.579 Wales at just 20, facing instant, immense global 00:08:29.579 --> 00:08:31.620 pressure. And it showed quite quickly, didn't 00:08:31.620 --> 00:08:34.240 it? It did. Her struggle was so intense that 00:08:34.240 --> 00:08:37.700 by 1983, during a royal tour to Canada, she was 00:08:37.700 --> 00:08:40.200 already confiding in Brian Peckford, the premier 00:08:40.200 --> 00:08:42.700 of Newfoundland at the time. She told him she 00:08:42.700 --> 00:08:45.090 was finding it... Very difficult to cope with 00:08:45.090 --> 00:08:48.070 the pressures. Just two years in. And that difficulty, 00:08:48.110 --> 00:08:51.029 it manifested internally with, well, horrific 00:08:51.029 --> 00:08:54.750 clarity. She suffered profoundly from postpartum 00:08:54.750 --> 00:08:57.590 depression after William's birth in 1982. Yes, 00:08:57.669 --> 00:08:59.470 which was not widely understood or discussed 00:08:59.470 --> 00:09:02.100 back then. Not at all. But the most chilling 00:09:02.100 --> 00:09:04.779 detail, revealed much later in tapes she recorded, 00:09:05.000 --> 00:09:07.340 was her confession that she'd intentionally thrown 00:09:07.340 --> 00:09:09.440 herself down a flight of stairs while pregnant 00:09:09.440 --> 00:09:11.799 with William. It's just awful to contemplate. 00:09:11.820 --> 00:09:14.279 She said she felt so inadequate and was desperate 00:09:14.279 --> 00:09:16.919 for attention, a cry for help, that she felt 00:09:16.919 --> 00:09:19.379 the palace, the system, was completely ignoring. 00:09:19.740 --> 00:09:22.500 That level of psychological distress is just 00:09:22.500 --> 00:09:25.259 staggering. It speaks to the profound loneliness 00:09:25.259 --> 00:09:28.580 she must have felt inside that gilded cage. And 00:09:28.580 --> 00:09:30.960 she also struggled intensely with bulimia nervosa 00:09:30.960 --> 00:09:34.320 and engaged in self -harm. Yes. And it's important 00:09:34.320 --> 00:09:36.860 to note, as the sources do, that biographers 00:09:36.860 --> 00:09:39.039 frequently cite these struggles, the emotional 00:09:39.039 --> 00:09:42.539 volatility, the self -harm, the perhaps compulsive 00:09:42.539 --> 00:09:45.120 behaviors as potential indicators of something 00:09:45.120 --> 00:09:47.700 like borderline personality disorder. It reflects 00:09:47.700 --> 00:09:49.980 a personality that really struggled to stabilize 00:09:49.980 --> 00:09:53.340 under that intense, unrelenting spotlight. It's 00:09:53.340 --> 00:09:56.340 a complex picture. But the silver lining, if 00:09:56.340 --> 00:09:58.259 you can call it that, in that immense struggle 00:09:58.259 --> 00:10:00.740 was her absolute dedication to her children. 00:10:01.120 --> 00:10:03.399 She fundamentally altered the tradition of royal 00:10:03.399 --> 00:10:06.220 parenting. That's where her resolve truly shone, 00:10:06.220 --> 00:10:08.259 wasn't it? She was intransigent on this. She 00:10:08.259 --> 00:10:10.399 chose their names, William and Harry. She chose 00:10:10.399 --> 00:10:12.940 their schools. She famously dismissed the traditional 00:10:12.940 --> 00:10:15.200 royal nannies for staff she handpicked herself. 00:10:15.559 --> 00:10:17.840 And she structured her public duties around their 00:10:17.840 --> 00:10:20.559 timetables, didn't she? Completely. She made 00:10:20.559 --> 00:10:22.960 sure William and Harry had experiences far beyond 00:10:22.960 --> 00:10:25.519 the usual royal bubble, like those private visits 00:10:25.519 --> 00:10:28.039 she took them on to homeless shelters and hospitals. 00:10:28.399 --> 00:10:30.620 She was determined to keep them grounded, to 00:10:30.620 --> 00:10:32.500 give them a glimpse of, you know, real life. 00:10:32.799 --> 00:10:35.440 Despite that dedication, the marriage itself 00:10:35.440 --> 00:10:39.220 was visibly crumbling pretty quickly. Due to, 00:10:39.379 --> 00:10:42.480 well, fundamental incompatibility, that significant 00:10:42.480 --> 00:10:45.659 13 -year age difference. Yeah, all of it. By 00:10:45.659 --> 00:10:49.100 1986, just five years in, their mutual unhappiness 00:10:49.100 --> 00:10:52.159 was so stark, so obvious, that the media had 00:10:52.159 --> 00:10:54.519 already dubbed them the glums. You'd see these 00:10:54.519 --> 00:10:56.559 photos of them looking utterly miserable together. 00:10:56.840 --> 00:10:59.879 The glums. I remember that. And 1986 really marks 00:10:59.879 --> 00:11:03.620 the point of no return, it seems. Charles, disillusioned, 00:11:03.620 --> 00:11:06.019 rekindled his longstanding relationship with 00:11:06.019 --> 00:11:08.399 Camilla Parker Bowles. And almost simultaneously, 00:11:08.919 --> 00:11:11.399 Diana began her own serious affair with James 00:11:11.399 --> 00:11:14.059 Hewitt, the family's writing instructor. The 00:11:14.059 --> 00:11:16.259 marital lines were irrevocably broken by them. 00:11:16.419 --> 00:11:18.679 And the pressure cooker finally blew in 1989, 00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:21.759 didn't it? When Diana famously confronted Camilla 00:11:21.759 --> 00:11:24.399 Parker Bowles at a private birthday party, that 00:11:24.399 --> 00:11:26.980 confrontation became the stuff of legend almost 00:11:26.980 --> 00:11:30.759 instantly. It did. A very direct move. But the 00:11:30.759 --> 00:11:32.980 real war moved decisively into the public sphere 00:11:32.980 --> 00:11:37.399 in 1992. Ah, 1992. The queen called it her annus 00:11:37.399 --> 00:11:40.179 horribilis, her horrible year. And for good reason. 00:11:40.669 --> 00:11:43.649 andrew morton's explosive book diana her true 00:11:43.649 --> 00:11:47.129 story was released it revealed diana's bulimia 00:11:47.129 --> 00:11:50.389 her deep unhappiness her suicide attempts and 00:11:50.389 --> 00:11:52.690 the existence of extramarital affairs it was 00:11:52.690 --> 00:11:55.529 a bombshell and it became an even bigger scandal 00:11:55.529 --> 00:11:57.269 when it was later revealed that diana herself 00:11:57.269 --> 00:11:59.529 had secretly provided the material for the book 00:11:59.529 --> 00:12:01.950 hadn't she through recorded tapes delivered via 00:12:01.950 --> 00:12:04.750 a third party james colthurst exactly she was 00:12:04.750 --> 00:12:06.889 actively collaborating fighting back using the 00:12:06.889 --> 00:12:09.529 media and the tapes just kept coming the infamous 00:12:09.529 --> 00:12:11.759 squid G -Gate tapes featuring an intimate phone 00:12:11.759 --> 00:12:14.360 call between Diana and James Gilby were leaked 00:12:14.360 --> 00:12:16.940 that same year. Huge embarrassment. But arguably 00:12:16.940 --> 00:12:19.759 the truly damaging public humiliation came with 00:12:19.759 --> 00:12:22.320 the Camilla Gate or Tampong Gate tapes in 1993. 00:12:22.759 --> 00:12:24.700 Oh, that was something else. It really was. They 00:12:24.700 --> 00:12:27.559 contained this intensely intimate, frankly vulgar 00:12:27.559 --> 00:12:29.360 and just shocking phone conversation between 00:12:29.360 --> 00:12:31.899 Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles recorded years 00:12:31.899 --> 00:12:35.059 earlier but leaked then. Tampong Gate was seismic, 00:12:35.059 --> 00:12:37.360 wasn't it? The sheer detail of their longing 00:12:37.360 --> 00:12:42.080 for each other. the really crude language, it 00:12:42.080 --> 00:12:44.320 just destroyed any remaining pretense of dignity 00:12:44.320 --> 00:12:46.399 the palace was trying to project. Absolutely. 00:12:46.639 --> 00:12:49.480 The public was reading raw, intimate transcripts 00:12:49.480 --> 00:12:52.019 involving their future king. It was an unprecedented 00:12:52.019 --> 00:12:55.639 violation of privacy and a massive, massive constitutional 00:12:55.639 --> 00:12:58.750 embarrassment. And all this public exposure only 00:12:58.750 --> 00:13:01.210 seemed to fuel Diana's private fears and her 00:13:01.210 --> 00:13:04.789 desire for maybe an escape hatch. It seemed so. 00:13:04.870 --> 00:13:07.409 She confessed on videotape to her voice coach, 00:13:07.570 --> 00:13:09.470 Peter Settle, in tapes that also emerged later 00:13:09.470 --> 00:13:11.830 that she had been deeply in love with her bodyguard, 00:13:11.950 --> 00:13:15.470 Barry Manichie, between 1984 and 1986. Manichie, 00:13:15.529 --> 00:13:18.309 right. Yeah. She even stated she was quite happy 00:13:18.309 --> 00:13:20.350 to give all this up royal life just to go off 00:13:20.350 --> 00:13:22.870 and live with him. It shows a real depth of feeling 00:13:22.870 --> 00:13:25.710 or perhaps desperation. Such vulnerability in 00:13:25.710 --> 00:13:27.809 that statement. Mannequin was moved from her 00:13:27.809 --> 00:13:30.490 protection detail in 86 after suspicions arose 00:13:30.490 --> 00:13:33.029 about their closeness, wasn't he? He was chucked 00:13:33.029 --> 00:13:35.970 out, as Diana put it. And then he died in a motorcycle 00:13:35.970 --> 00:13:39.809 accident shortly after, in 1987. Diana became 00:13:39.809 --> 00:13:42.149 convinced, or at least expressed the suspicion, 00:13:42.450 --> 00:13:45.350 that he was killed deliberately. This fed into 00:13:45.350 --> 00:13:48.090 her growing sense of paranoia and feeling unsafe 00:13:48.090 --> 00:13:51.110 within the palace walls. And that paranoia reached 00:13:51.110 --> 00:13:53.990 this really chilling climax in October 1993. 00:13:54.820 --> 00:13:57.379 She wrote a note to her butler, Paul Burrell. 00:13:57.519 --> 00:14:00.019 The infamous Burrell note. Alleging that Charles 00:14:00.019 --> 00:14:03.139 was actively planning an accident for her, specifically 00:14:03.139 --> 00:14:05.500 involving brake failure and serious head injury, 00:14:05.700 --> 00:14:08.159 so he could marry Tiggy Legberg, who was then 00:14:08.159 --> 00:14:10.039 his personal assistant and nanny to the princess. 00:14:10.480 --> 00:14:12.940 Whether those fears were based in reality or 00:14:12.940 --> 00:14:15.759 were a product of her isolation and perhaps paranoia, 00:14:15.899 --> 00:14:17.919 the fact that she believed this and wrote it 00:14:17.919 --> 00:14:20.259 down profoundly suggests the level of danger 00:14:20.259 --> 00:14:22.620 and betrayal she felt surrounded by. It's a very 00:14:22.620 --> 00:14:25.289 dark place to be. And this dark internal atmosphere 00:14:25.289 --> 00:14:28.169 provided the backdrop for Charles' own big TV 00:14:28.169 --> 00:14:31.090 interview in 1994 with Jonathan Dimbleby. Right, 00:14:31.190 --> 00:14:33.929 where he admitted resuming his relationship with 00:14:33.929 --> 00:14:36.870 Camilla, but only, he insisted, after his marriage 00:14:36.870 --> 00:14:40.409 to Diana had irretrievably broken down. It was 00:14:40.409 --> 00:14:42.570 his attempt to control the narrative. But Diana 00:14:42.570 --> 00:14:45.289 wasn't having it. And that set the stage for 00:14:45.289 --> 00:14:49.590 her ultimate mic drop moment, the 1995 BBC Panorama 00:14:49.590 --> 00:14:52.110 interview with Martin Bashir. Oh, that was the 00:14:52.110 --> 00:14:54.590 absolute tipping point, a self -inflicted wound 00:14:54.590 --> 00:14:57.309 on the monarchy, really, orchestrated by Diana. 00:14:57.610 --> 00:15:00.029 She dropped that instantly unforgettable line 00:15:00.029 --> 00:15:01.789 about the marriage. Well, there were three of 00:15:01.789 --> 00:15:03.610 us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded. 00:15:03.690 --> 00:15:05.929 Instantly iconic. And she spoke with shocking 00:15:05.929 --> 00:15:08.230 openness about her bulimia, her depression, her 00:15:08.230 --> 00:15:10.929 self -harm. She masterfully used her vulnerability 00:15:10.929 --> 00:15:13.269 to gain global sympathy and position. herself 00:15:13.269 --> 00:15:16.110 not just as a victim of the press, but as a victim 00:15:16.110 --> 00:15:18.690 of the palace establishment itself. But a huge 00:15:18.690 --> 00:15:20.649 shadow hangs over that interview now, doesn't 00:15:20.649 --> 00:15:23.730 it? A massive one. We now know, thanks to inquiries, 00:15:23.809 --> 00:15:26.289 that the journalist Martin Bashir used deceitful 00:15:26.289 --> 00:15:29.190 methods, including forged bank statements, and 00:15:29.190 --> 00:15:31.649 actively played on Diana's paranoia, suggesting 00:15:31.649 --> 00:15:34.730 people close to her were spying on her specifically 00:15:34.730 --> 00:15:37.450 to secure that interview. It's quite damning. 00:15:37.690 --> 00:15:40.110 It is. And the source material reveals that both 00:15:40.110 --> 00:15:42.950 William and Harry concluded years later that 00:15:42.950 --> 00:15:45.049 the unethical way the interview was obtained 00:15:45.049 --> 00:15:47.870 and the interview itself directly contributed 00:15:47.870 --> 00:15:49.649 to the breakdown of their parents' relationship, 00:15:50.029 --> 00:15:52.470 the divorce, and ultimately, they believe, played 00:15:52.470 --> 00:15:54.509 a part in the circumstances leading to her death. 00:15:54.730 --> 00:15:57.789 Wow. That's a heavy conclusion from her own sons. 00:15:58.009 --> 00:16:00.669 Very heavy. The fallout was swift. The Queen 00:16:00.669 --> 00:16:03.029 advised Charles and Diana to divorce in December 00:16:03.029 --> 00:16:06.649 1995, just weeks after the interview aired. The 00:16:06.649 --> 00:16:10.789 divorce was finalized in August 1996. The negotiation 00:16:10.789 --> 00:16:13.570 was complex, but the emotional cost was perhaps 00:16:13.570 --> 00:16:15.950 most visible in the handling of her title. Right. 00:16:15.990 --> 00:16:18.690 She lost the official style, Her Royal Highness 00:16:18.690 --> 00:16:22.570 the HRH, but she retained the title, Diana, Princess 00:16:22.570 --> 00:16:25.809 of Wales. That distinction, while seeming maybe 00:16:25.809 --> 00:16:28.289 small to outsiders, meant everything within that 00:16:28.289 --> 00:16:30.870 world. It defined her remaining somewhat ambiguous 00:16:30.870 --> 00:16:33.570 links to the institution. And it led to that 00:16:33.570 --> 00:16:36.009 incredibly poignant, almost heartbreaking promise 00:16:36.009 --> 00:16:37.970 from young Prince William. Oh, what was that? 00:16:38.169 --> 00:16:40.889 He reportedly told her after she lost the HRH 00:16:40.889 --> 00:16:42.929 something like, don't worry, mommy, I will give 00:16:42.929 --> 00:16:45.429 it back to you one day when I am king. Oh, bless 00:16:45.429 --> 00:16:48.429 him. Wow. Shows the depth of his feeling even 00:16:48.429 --> 00:16:51.679 then. Post -divorce, Diana fought hard to maintain 00:16:51.679 --> 00:16:54.340 her independence while still leveraging her unique 00:16:54.340 --> 00:16:56.779 status. She kept her apartment at Kensington 00:16:56.779 --> 00:16:59.139 Palace. She retained access to royal air travel 00:16:59.139 --> 00:17:01.899 and her amazing collection of jewels. But crucially, 00:17:01.940 --> 00:17:03.860 she made a decision about security, didn't she? 00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:06.920 Yes. She refused Metropolitan Police protection 00:17:06.920 --> 00:17:09.920 in her final years. She reportedly felt it was 00:17:09.920 --> 00:17:12.160 a measure of control used by the royal family 00:17:12.160 --> 00:17:15.380 or the firm, and she wanted absolute distance 00:17:15.380 --> 00:17:17.799 and freedom from that. A decision with obviously 00:17:17.799 --> 00:17:20.680 tragic consequences later on. She was also actively 00:17:20.680 --> 00:17:23.039 trying to redefine her public life, wasn't she? 00:17:23.059 --> 00:17:26.349 Beyond just charity work. She was. She was engaging 00:17:26.349 --> 00:17:28.650 in talks with the then new prime minister, Tony 00:17:28.650 --> 00:17:31.210 Blair, about potentially taking on a special 00:17:31.210 --> 00:17:34.210 sort of non -royal ambassadorial role, promoting 00:17:34.210 --> 00:17:36.609 Britain's interests overseas. She was clearly 00:17:36.609 --> 00:17:38.930 carving out an independent, influential platform 00:17:38.930 --> 00:17:41.049 for herself, totally outside the constraints 00:17:41.049 --> 00:17:43.589 of official court duty. And her personal life 00:17:43.589 --> 00:17:46.509 reflected this desire for, well, normal freedom, 00:17:46.589 --> 00:17:49.170 perhaps an intense connection. Absolutely. She 00:17:49.170 --> 00:17:52.150 maintained a highly secretive, very serious relationship 00:17:52.150 --> 00:17:54.849 with the British Pakistani heart. surgeon has 00:17:54.849 --> 00:17:57.250 not conned. Friends have referred to him as the 00:17:57.250 --> 00:17:59.890 love of her life and her Mr. Wonderful. A very 00:17:59.890 --> 00:18:02.490 private relationship. Incredibly so, given her 00:18:02.490 --> 00:18:05.470 fame. It lasted nearly two years, apparently 00:18:05.470 --> 00:18:08.289 very intense, until it ended rather abruptly 00:18:08.289 --> 00:18:12.039 in the summer of 1997. Sources suggest her mother, 00:18:12.220 --> 00:18:15.299 Frances Shandkid, strongly disapproved of her 00:18:15.299 --> 00:18:17.400 relationship with a Muslim man, leading to a 00:18:17.400 --> 00:18:20.059 profound and lasting rift between Diana and her 00:18:20.059 --> 00:18:22.779 mother. That's sad. And it was just a month after 00:18:22.779 --> 00:18:25.500 that devastating breakup with Khan that she began 00:18:25.500 --> 00:18:28.279 dating Dodi Fayed, the son of the Harrods owner, 00:18:28.460 --> 00:18:31.240 Mohamed El Fayed. Yes. And the sources reveal 00:18:31.240 --> 00:18:34.079 a sort of practical, almost reactive reason for 00:18:34.079 --> 00:18:36.920 this choice initially. She had intended to take 00:18:36.920 --> 00:18:38.720 William and Harry to the Hamptons in New York 00:18:38.720 --> 00:18:41.299 that summer, but was apparently prevented by 00:18:41.299 --> 00:18:43.839 security concerns. So Fade offered an alternative. 00:18:44.220 --> 00:18:47.400 He did. She accepted Dodi's father, Mohamed Al 00:18:47.400 --> 00:18:49.859 Fade's, invitation to join them at his massive, 00:18:49.900 --> 00:18:52.160 securely guarded compound in the south of France 00:18:52.160 --> 00:18:54.819 because it offered a kind of sanctuary, a level 00:18:54.819 --> 00:18:57.220 of private security that British royal protection 00:18:57.220 --> 00:18:59.019 officials wouldn't object to for the princes. 00:18:59.339 --> 00:19:02.220 So ironically, she was seeking privacy and security, 00:19:02.400 --> 00:19:05.019 but ended up under the most intense paparazzi 00:19:05.019 --> 00:19:08.460 scrutiny imaginable. A terrible irony. This push 00:19:08.460 --> 00:19:10.359 for self -determination, both personally and 00:19:10.359 --> 00:19:12.599 through her work, brings us neatly to part three, 00:19:12.720 --> 00:19:16.180 the humanitarian dynamo redefining royal duty. 00:19:16.400 --> 00:19:18.240 Yes, and this is the part of her legacy that 00:19:18.240 --> 00:19:20.900 remains, I think, unquestionably positive and 00:19:20.900 --> 00:19:23.579 deeply effective. Diana was celebrated precisely 00:19:23.579 --> 00:19:26.119 because she rejected those traditional, often 00:19:26.119 --> 00:19:29.140 quite staid, royal patronages. She consciously 00:19:29.140 --> 00:19:32.119 moved her focus to serious, often stigmatized 00:19:32.119 --> 00:19:34.400 issues, things like AIDS, leprosy, homelessness, 00:19:34.559 --> 00:19:36.680 and landmines. She wasn't just lending her name 00:19:36.680 --> 00:20:01.799 either, was she? Not at all. That's a huge statement. 00:20:07.609 --> 00:20:09.930 desperately needed them, and her pioneering work 00:20:09.930 --> 00:20:12.380 in championing the IVAIDS cause. particularly 00:20:12.380 --> 00:20:15.460 in the mid to late 80s, remains arguably her 00:20:15.460 --> 00:20:18.400 defining humanitarian moment. I'd agree. In 1987, 00:20:18.779 --> 00:20:20.779 right at the height of the AIDS crisis, when 00:20:20.779 --> 00:20:23.140 public fear, ignorance, and misinformation were 00:20:23.140 --> 00:20:25.819 absolutely rampant, she visited a London hospital, 00:20:26.180 --> 00:20:28.720 the Middlesex Hospital, and famously shook the 00:20:28.720 --> 00:20:31.440 hand of a man suffering from AIDS without gloves. 00:20:31.519 --> 00:20:33.839 Such a simple gesture, but revolutionary at the 00:20:33.839 --> 00:20:37.160 time. Completely. That physical contact, being 00:20:37.160 --> 00:20:39.819 the first British royal to do it so publicly, 00:20:39.960 --> 00:20:43.369 was revolutionary. It actively and visually debunked 00:20:43.369 --> 00:20:45.710 the terrifying widespread myth that the disease 00:20:45.710 --> 00:20:48.609 could be transmitted by casual touch. The images 00:20:48.609 --> 00:20:51.029 went global and instantly started breaking down 00:20:51.029 --> 00:20:54.009 massive barriers of stigma and fear. And her 00:20:54.009 --> 00:20:56.049 quote from that time is still so powerful, isn't 00:20:56.049 --> 00:20:59.150 it? HIV does not make people dangerous to know. 00:20:59.269 --> 00:21:01.150 You can shake their hands and give them a hug. 00:21:01.309 --> 00:21:03.789 Heaven knows they need it. It perfectly captured 00:21:03.789 --> 00:21:06.279 her empathetic approach. That work earned her 00:21:06.279 --> 00:21:08.380 recognition like Time magazine's Woman of the 00:21:08.380 --> 00:21:11.920 Year in 1987. And later, Nelson Mandela himself, 00:21:12.319 --> 00:21:15.480 another huge moral authority, praised her specifically 00:21:15.480 --> 00:21:17.500 for transforming public attitudes toward the 00:21:17.500 --> 00:21:20.180 disease. Her influence truly transcended borders 00:21:20.180 --> 00:21:22.940 and politics. And that courage, that willingness 00:21:22.940 --> 00:21:25.160 to tackle tough issues, transferred directly 00:21:25.160 --> 00:21:27.640 to her high -risk activism with the Global Landmines 00:21:27.640 --> 00:21:30.960 Campaign in 1997. This arguably brought her into 00:21:30.960 --> 00:21:32.900 the most direct political conflict with the British 00:21:32.900 --> 00:21:36.059 establishment. Indeed. Those iconic pictures 00:21:36.059 --> 00:21:38.420 of her in Angola, walking through a partially 00:21:38.420 --> 00:21:41.059 cleared minefield, wearing a ballistic helmet 00:21:41.059 --> 00:21:44.559 and a flak jacket. They were incredibly potent. 00:21:44.740 --> 00:21:47.480 She was intentionally using her unparalleled 00:21:47.480 --> 00:21:49.599 celebrity to force the world to pay attention 00:21:49.599 --> 00:21:53.140 to a deadly, insidious, invisible killer. But 00:21:53.140 --> 00:21:55.519 she wasn't just posing for photos, was she? No, 00:21:55.539 --> 00:21:57.819 she was actively campaigning for an international 00:21:57.819 --> 00:22:01.140 ban, which drew intense political heat back home. 00:22:01.299 --> 00:22:04.009 The political backlash was... Pretty swift and 00:22:04.009 --> 00:22:06.869 fierce, as I recall. She was criticized for meddling 00:22:06.869 --> 00:22:09.529 in politics, wasn't she? And infamously called 00:22:09.529 --> 00:22:12.309 a loose cannon by conservative junior defense 00:22:12.309 --> 00:22:15.369 minister Earl Howe. Yes, that loose cannon comment 00:22:15.369 --> 00:22:18.109 stuck. It was a clear sign that parts of the 00:22:18.109 --> 00:22:20.970 establishment saw her activism as a direct constitutional 00:22:20.970 --> 00:22:23.650 threat. She was using her celebrity platform 00:22:23.650 --> 00:22:26.049 to influence foreign policy completely outside 00:22:26.049 --> 00:22:28.109 of official government channels. They didn't 00:22:28.109 --> 00:22:30.869 like that one bit. Yet the tangible results of 00:22:30.869 --> 00:22:33.880 her efforts really speak for them. They absolutely 00:22:33.880 --> 00:22:37.680 do. Her high profile awareness campaign was instrumental, 00:22:38.019 --> 00:22:40.279 many believe, in building momentum towards the 00:22:40.279 --> 00:22:43.880 Ottawa Treaty later that same year, 1997, which 00:22:43.880 --> 00:22:45.799 brought about the international ban on the production 00:22:45.799 --> 00:22:48.619 and use of anti -personnel landmines. And the 00:22:48.619 --> 00:22:50.839 international campaign to ban landmines actually 00:22:50.839 --> 00:22:53.420 won the Nobel Peace Prize that year, too. Exactly. 00:22:53.480 --> 00:22:56.380 A massive recognition of the gravity and impact 00:22:56.380 --> 00:22:58.759 of the cause she had so powerfully championed 00:22:58.759 --> 00:23:01.539 just months before her death. Beyond these huge 00:23:01.539 --> 00:23:04.240 global issues, she maintained a steadfast focus 00:23:04.240 --> 00:23:06.839 on the vulnerable closer to home as well. She 00:23:06.839 --> 00:23:09.039 became patron of the leprosy mission. Yes. And 00:23:09.039 --> 00:23:11.079 again, she made a point of deliberately touching 00:23:11.079 --> 00:23:13.839 those afflicted by leprosy, reinforcing her message 00:23:13.839 --> 00:23:16.059 that they are not reviled, that they deserve 00:23:16.059 --> 00:23:19.079 compassion and human contact, challenging centuries 00:23:19.079 --> 00:23:22.160 of stigma. Her focus also extended strongly to 00:23:22.160 --> 00:23:24.839 mental illness and homelessness, areas that often 00:23:24.839 --> 00:23:27.519 suffered from severe public neglect and misunderstanding. 00:23:28.359 --> 00:23:30.779 That's right. She was a longtime, very active 00:23:30.779 --> 00:23:32.859 supporter of Centerpoint, the youth homelessness 00:23:32.859 --> 00:23:36.119 charity. And she famously took William and Harry 00:23:36.119 --> 00:23:39.039 on those private, unpublicized visits to homeless 00:23:39.039 --> 00:23:41.539 shelters, ensuring they understood poverty and 00:23:41.539 --> 00:23:44.500 vulnerability firsthand. She argued passionately 00:23:44.500 --> 00:23:46.660 that society had a duty to ensure young people 00:23:46.660 --> 00:23:49.619 are given the chance they deserve. And her specific, 00:23:49.859 --> 00:23:52.960 often intense patronages, like being president 00:23:52.960 --> 00:23:55.059 of the Royal Marsden Hospital, which focuses 00:23:55.059 --> 00:23:57.480 on cancer research, or visiting psychiatric facilities. 00:23:57.710 --> 00:23:59.670 like Broadmoor gave her this perfect platform. 00:23:59.890 --> 00:24:03.470 She could bring legitimacy, funding, and huge 00:24:03.470 --> 00:24:05.710 visibility to issues that were often deliberately 00:24:05.710 --> 00:24:08.009 kept hidden from public view. She really did 00:24:08.009 --> 00:24:10.930 create a new, modern campaigning model for royal 00:24:10.930 --> 00:24:13.789 duty. Less ribbon -cutting, more direct engagement 00:24:13.789 --> 00:24:16.289 with difficult realities. The contrast between 00:24:16.289 --> 00:24:18.549 her incredible public success in this humanitarian 00:24:18.549 --> 00:24:21.589 work in Part 3 and the tragic personal turmoil 00:24:21.589 --> 00:24:24.109 we discussed in Part 2, it's just so jarring. 00:24:24.329 --> 00:24:27.410 And that contrast ultimately defined her end, 00:24:27.490 --> 00:24:29.890 didn't it? Which brings us to part four, the 00:24:29.890 --> 00:24:32.609 tragic end and her enduring legacy. It does. 00:24:33.099 --> 00:24:35.680 The context of her death remains absolutely crucial 00:24:35.680 --> 00:24:38.640 to understanding her legacy. She died, as we 00:24:38.640 --> 00:24:42.339 know, on August 31st, 1997, after that devastating 00:24:42.339 --> 00:24:45.019 car crash in the Pont de L 'Homme tunnel in Paris. 00:24:45.299 --> 00:24:47.079 And the circumstances were just horrific. The 00:24:47.079 --> 00:24:49.700 car was traveling at high speed, actively fleeing, 00:24:49.859 --> 00:24:52.859 pursuing paparazzi on motorcycles. Exactly. Dodie 00:24:52.859 --> 00:24:55.200 Fade, her companion, and the driver, Henri Paul, 00:24:55.400 --> 00:24:57.380 who was the acting security manager of the Ritz 00:24:57.380 --> 00:25:00.660 -Paris, were also killed instantly. Her bodyguard, 00:25:00.880 --> 00:25:06.500 Trevor Reese Jones, part of the... The public 00:25:06.500 --> 00:25:09.539 response was... Well, it was like nothing anyone 00:25:09.539 --> 00:25:11.559 had ever seen before in modern British history, 00:25:11.640 --> 00:25:14.299 wasn't it? Completely unprecedented. The sea 00:25:14.299 --> 00:25:16.819 of flowers, the messages, the sheer outpouring 00:25:16.819 --> 00:25:18.920 of collective grief outside Kensington Palace 00:25:18.920 --> 00:25:21.660 and Buckingham Palace. It transformed mourning 00:25:21.660 --> 00:25:24.359 into this massive, almost overwhelming national 00:25:24.359 --> 00:25:27.559 event. It triggered what many historians and 00:25:27.559 --> 00:25:30.119 commentators describe as a kind of constitutional 00:25:30.119 --> 00:25:33.140 crisis for the monarchy. Because the royal family 00:25:33.140 --> 00:25:36.700 initially seemed so aloof. So cold in comparison 00:25:36.700 --> 00:25:39.799 to the public's profound sorrow. Precisely. There 00:25:39.799 --> 00:25:42.440 was this huge disconnect. The public demanded 00:25:42.440 --> 00:25:45.859 a response, a recognition of Diana's unique place 00:25:45.859 --> 00:25:48.720 that the traditional royal protocols just weren't 00:25:48.720 --> 00:25:51.279 equipped to handle. The funeral itself on September 00:25:51.279 --> 00:25:54.559 6th was watched by an estimated 2 .5 billion 00:25:54.559 --> 00:25:58.220 people worldwide. A truly global event. And it 00:25:58.220 --> 00:26:00.960 forced the monarchy into a massive historic shift 00:26:00.960 --> 00:26:03.529 in protocol, didn't it? It really did, responding 00:26:03.529 --> 00:26:06.029 directly to public pressure and arguably Tony 00:26:06.029 --> 00:26:08.970 Blair's advice for the first time ever. The royal 00:26:08.970 --> 00:26:11.589 standard, the monarch's personal flag, was lowered 00:26:11.589 --> 00:26:13.950 to half -mast over Buckingham Palace on the day 00:26:13.950 --> 00:26:16.509 of the funeral. This set a completely new historic 00:26:16.509 --> 00:26:19.490 precedent for royal mourning protocol. It was 00:26:19.490 --> 00:26:21.990 a clear sign that the palace recognized the sheer 00:26:21.990 --> 00:26:24.309 magnitude of Diana's public identity and the 00:26:24.309 --> 00:26:26.109 depth of public feeling. And at the funeral, 00:26:26.210 --> 00:26:28.549 her brother, Charles Spencer, delivered that 00:26:28.549 --> 00:26:31.210 devastatingly memorable tribute, didn't he? Famously 00:26:31.210 --> 00:26:33.480 saying, saying she needed no royal title to continue 00:26:33.480 --> 00:26:36.180 to generate her particular brand of magic. A 00:26:36.180 --> 00:26:38.660 powerful eulogy. He framed her death not just 00:26:38.660 --> 00:26:41.759 as a personal tragedy, but as a casualty, implicitly, 00:26:41.759 --> 00:26:44.480 of both the monarchy's rigidity and the media's 00:26:44.480 --> 00:26:47.019 relentless intrusion. It was quite pointed. And 00:26:47.019 --> 00:26:49.680 the musical tribute was equally iconic, Elton 00:26:49.680 --> 00:26:52.220 John performing the rewritten Candle in the Wind, 00:26:52.339 --> 00:26:56.170 1997. Yes, originally about Marilyn Monroe. Rewritten 00:26:56.170 --> 00:26:58.329 for Diana. It became the best -selling single 00:26:58.329 --> 00:27:00.990 of all time, with all the global proceeds channeled 00:27:00.990 --> 00:27:03.950 directly to the charitable causes Diana had championed 00:27:03.950 --> 00:27:05.609 through the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial 00:27:05.609 --> 00:27:08.809 Fund. A fitting tribute. She was later buried 00:27:08.809 --> 00:27:11.130 privately at Althorp, the Spencer family estate, 00:27:11.430 --> 00:27:13.990 on a small island in the middle of a lake called 00:27:13.990 --> 00:27:16.589 the Round Oval, chosen specifically by her brother 00:27:16.589 --> 00:27:19.690 for absolute privacy and security away from the 00:27:19.690 --> 00:27:21.920 crowds. Of course, the dramatic circumstances 00:27:21.920 --> 00:27:24.599 of her death inevitably led to years of intense 00:27:24.599 --> 00:27:27.380 speculation, investigation, and numerous conspiracy 00:27:27.380 --> 00:27:30.079 theories. Oh, inevitably. The initial French 00:27:30.079 --> 00:27:32.339 investigation concluded quite quickly that the 00:27:32.339 --> 00:27:35.420 primary cause was the driver, Henri Paul's, high 00:27:35.420 --> 00:27:37.480 level of intoxication alcohol and prescription 00:27:37.480 --> 00:27:39.859 drugs, combined with reckless driving at high 00:27:39.859 --> 00:27:42.000 speed while trying to evade the paparazzi. But 00:27:42.000 --> 00:27:44.319 Donny Fade's father, Mohamed Al -Faid, never 00:27:44.319 --> 00:27:47.559 accepted that, did he? No, he publicly and persistently 00:27:47.559 --> 00:27:50.160 maintained for years that the crash was not an 00:27:50.160 --> 00:27:52.799 accident but a planned murder, orchestrated by 00:27:52.799 --> 00:27:55.720 British intelligence services, MI6, possibly 00:27:55.720 --> 00:27:58.359 on the orders of the Duke of Edinburgh. He targeted 00:27:58.359 --> 00:28:01.259 both Diana and Dodi, he claimed, perhaps because 00:28:01.259 --> 00:28:03.599 Diana was pregnant with Dodi's child and planned 00:28:03.599 --> 00:28:05.880 to marry him claims which were later disproven. 00:28:05.980 --> 00:28:09.140 He accused MI6 and Prince Philip. Those are huge 00:28:09.140 --> 00:28:11.819 allegations. Massive allegations. He pursued 00:28:11.819 --> 00:28:13.940 them relentlessly, funding private investigations 00:28:13.940 --> 00:28:16.859 and legal challenges. He eventually dropped the 00:28:16.859 --> 00:28:19.200 specific claims against Prince Philip and MI6. 00:28:19.359 --> 00:28:21.799 But the sheer scale of the global scrutiny meant 00:28:21.799 --> 00:28:24.119 these conspiracy theories persisted for years 00:28:24.119 --> 00:28:26.420 and still linger in some quarters. But the final 00:28:26.420 --> 00:28:28.599 decisive conclusion came much later from the 00:28:28.599 --> 00:28:31.940 massive multimillion pound British inquest Operation 00:28:31.940 --> 00:28:35.160 Paget, which reported in 2006 and a subsequent 00:28:35.160 --> 00:28:38.380 jury inquest in 2008. That's right. After hearing 00:28:38.380 --> 00:28:40.859 from hundreds of witnesses over six months, the 00:28:40.859 --> 00:28:43.599 2008 inquest jury returned a definitive verdict 00:28:43.599 --> 00:28:46.420 of unlawful killing. Crucially, though, this 00:28:46.420 --> 00:28:48.960 verdict attributed the cause equally to two factors, 00:28:49.119 --> 00:28:52.480 the grossly negligent driving of the chauffeur 00:28:52.480 --> 00:28:55.299 Henri Paul and the speed and manner of driving 00:28:55.299 --> 00:28:58.619 of the pursuing vehicles, the paparazzi. So shared 00:28:58.619 --> 00:29:01.599 blame, both the driver's condition and actions 00:29:01.599 --> 00:29:04.660 and the media pursuit. Exactly. It placed shared 00:29:04.660 --> 00:29:07.420 legal and moral blame squarely on the media intrusion 00:29:07.420 --> 00:29:10.200 that Diana had spent years trying, often ambivalently, 00:29:10.319 --> 00:29:13.349 to manage and escape. And this brings us right 00:29:13.349 --> 00:29:16.029 back to the complex, deeply complex nature of 00:29:16.029 --> 00:29:18.109 her relationship with the media. She remains 00:29:18.109 --> 00:29:20.670 one of the most popular royal figures ever, doesn't 00:29:20.670 --> 00:29:23.569 she? Voted third, amazingly, in the BBC's poll, 00:29:23.690 --> 00:29:26.410 the 100 Greatest Britons back in 2002. Higher 00:29:26.410 --> 00:29:28.529 than most monarchs. It's extraordinary. Tony 00:29:28.529 --> 00:29:30.430 Blair coined that phrase, the people's princess, 00:29:30.529 --> 00:29:32.950 in the hours after her death. And it stuck precisely 00:29:32.950 --> 00:29:35.529 because she felt relatable, accessible, warm, 00:29:35.650 --> 00:29:37.549 vulnerable qualities not typically associated 00:29:37.549 --> 00:29:41.349 with royalty. Yet her actual dance with the... 00:29:41.390 --> 00:29:44.650 was utterly ambivalent, as our sources confirm, 00:29:44.869 --> 00:29:48.769 and as her life showed. She complained bitterly, 00:29:48.769 --> 00:29:52.309 oft justifiably, about the constant intrusion 00:29:52.309 --> 00:29:55.859 into her privacy. But simultaneously, she absolutely 00:29:55.859 --> 00:29:59.140 leveraged the press, often brilliantly, for her 00:29:59.140 --> 00:30:01.480 own narrative control and to promote her causes. 00:30:01.900 --> 00:30:04.380 We know, for example, that she reportedly leaked 00:30:04.380 --> 00:30:07.039 that confidential directory of royal household 00:30:07.039 --> 00:30:09.099 phone numbers and addresses to the News of the 00:30:09.099 --> 00:30:11.980 World newspaper back in 1992. Why did she do 00:30:11.980 --> 00:30:15.039 that? Apparently, specifically to spite Charles 00:30:15.039 --> 00:30:17.240 and cause internal chaos within the palace structure 00:30:17.240 --> 00:30:19.400 during the height of their conflict, it was a 00:30:19.400 --> 00:30:21.759 calculated move. That contradiction is just fascinating. 00:30:21.900 --> 00:30:24.380 It's her genius. Maybe her flaw all rolled into 00:30:24.380 --> 00:30:26.920 one. I think that's fair. Critics then and now 00:30:26.920 --> 00:30:29.460 often labeled her self -indulgent or manipulative 00:30:29.460 --> 00:30:31.339 because of these leaks, the panorama interview, 00:30:31.539 --> 00:30:33.640 the constant courting of attention, even while 00:30:33.640 --> 00:30:36.339 complaining about it. But her admirers saw it 00:30:36.339 --> 00:30:39.809 differently. Completely. Admirers like her biographer, 00:30:39.930 --> 00:30:42.269 Tina Brown, for instance, argued she was far 00:30:42.269 --> 00:30:45.269 from just a vulnerable victim. She was canny. 00:30:45.269 --> 00:30:47.849 She was resourceful. She actively learned how 00:30:47.849 --> 00:30:50.430 to use the massive media machine as a weapon, 00:30:50.549 --> 00:30:53.029 really, against the rigid establishment that 00:30:53.029 --> 00:30:54.970 she felt was trying to crush her. She was also 00:30:54.970 --> 00:30:58.170 resourceful enough and smart enough to use fashion 00:30:58.170 --> 00:31:02.109 as a sophisticated tool, even a weapon. Diana 00:31:02.109 --> 00:31:04.450 remains one of Time Magazine's all -time 100 00:31:04.450 --> 00:31:07.950 fashion icons. Deservedly so. Her style evolution 00:31:07.950 --> 00:31:11.210 was remarkable and, importantly, entirely deliberate. 00:31:11.509 --> 00:31:14.089 She went from those romantic, almost frilly, 00:31:14.210 --> 00:31:16.930 traditional Sloan Ranger looks in the early marriage 00:31:16.930 --> 00:31:20.150 years. The shy dye phase. Exactly. To much bolder, 00:31:20.150 --> 00:31:22.589 more structured, business -like, even glamorous 00:31:22.589 --> 00:31:25.630 outfits, particularly post -separation. And this 00:31:25.630 --> 00:31:27.269 wasn't just about looking good, it was strategic. 00:31:27.730 --> 00:31:30.250 How so? She consciously used her fashion choices 00:31:30.250 --> 00:31:40.880 to produce... We definitely remember the famous 00:31:40.880 --> 00:31:43.960 looks. That elegant off -the -shoulder velvet 00:31:43.960 --> 00:31:46.460 gown, the Travolta dress she wore when dancing 00:31:46.460 --> 00:31:48.519 with John Travolta at the White House. A huge 00:31:48.519 --> 00:31:51.460 fashion moment. But perhaps the single most powerful 00:31:51.460 --> 00:31:54.099 fashion statement she ever made was that black, 00:31:54.180 --> 00:31:56.579 off -the -shoulder Christina Stambolian dress. 00:31:57.259 --> 00:32:00.000 The revenge dress. Ah, yes, the revenge dress. 00:32:00.220 --> 00:32:02.619 Worn the very night Charles publicly admitted 00:32:02.619 --> 00:32:05.059 his adultery with Camilla in that Dembleby interview. 00:32:05.420 --> 00:32:07.779 Precisely. That dress wasn't just clothing. It 00:32:07.779 --> 00:32:10.460 was a nonverbal act of defiant independence and 00:32:10.460 --> 00:32:13.720 glamour. It instantly launched her new, post 00:32:13.720 --> 00:32:16.740 -royal, confident image. It was bold. It was 00:32:16.740 --> 00:32:19.539 sleek. It was utterly commanding. It sent a crystal 00:32:19.539 --> 00:32:21.819 clear message to the world and perhaps to the 00:32:21.819 --> 00:32:24.500 palace. She was moving on and she was stronger 00:32:24.500 --> 00:32:26.680 than ever. Her impact is just woven into the 00:32:26.680 --> 00:32:29.079 fabric of the modern monarchy and British public 00:32:29.079 --> 00:32:32.059 life, isn't it? Undeniably. The Diana Princess 00:32:32.059 --> 00:32:34.559 of Wales Memorial Fountain in Hyde Park, the 00:32:34.559 --> 00:32:37.099 Memorial Playground in Kensington Gardens. These 00:32:37.099 --> 00:32:40.059 stand as lasting public tributes in London. The 00:32:40.059 --> 00:32:42.940 Diana Award, established in 1999, continues her 00:32:42.940 --> 00:32:44.980 humanitarian mission by honoring young people 00:32:44.980 --> 00:32:47.460 who inspire positive change. And perhaps most 00:32:47.460 --> 00:32:50.420 personally, her spirit lives on quite literally 00:32:50.420 --> 00:32:53.420 within the royal family itself. through her granddaughters. 00:32:54.359 --> 00:32:56.440 Princess Charlotte's full name is Charlotte Elizabeth 00:32:56.440 --> 00:32:58.740 Diana, and Prince Harry's daughter is Little 00:32:58.740 --> 00:33:01.680 Bit Diana. Carrying her name forward, she introduced, 00:33:01.880 --> 00:33:04.420 I think, a vulnerability, a relatability, and 00:33:04.420 --> 00:33:06.740 certainly a campaigning spirit into royal life 00:33:06.740 --> 00:33:09.960 that simply cannot be erased, even if the institution 00:33:09.960 --> 00:33:12.240 has perhaps tried to contain it at times. Her 00:33:12.240 --> 00:33:14.940 legacy is definitely complicated, multi -layered, 00:33:15.000 --> 00:33:17.500 but her methods, particularly in humanitarian 00:33:17.500 --> 00:33:20.480 work, were undeniably effective, weren't they? 00:33:20.720 --> 00:33:23.240 Incredibly effective. She showed perhaps more 00:33:23.240 --> 00:33:25.890 powerful... than anyone before or since, that 00:33:25.890 --> 00:33:28.430 global celebrity could be used as a blunt, powerful 00:33:28.430 --> 00:33:31.309 instrument for genuine humanitarian change, even 00:33:31.309 --> 00:33:33.650 if, and this is key, even if it meant risking 00:33:33.650 --> 00:33:35.630 the right confrontation with both government 00:33:35.630 --> 00:33:37.890 and the monarchy itself. Which brings us right 00:33:37.890 --> 00:33:40.190 back to that ultimate, maybe provocative question 00:33:40.190 --> 00:33:43.089 that her life, and especially her death, raises 00:33:43.089 --> 00:33:46.849 for us. Diana was famous, celebrated, for utilizing 00:33:46.849 --> 00:33:49.569 her enormous visibility for these global causes, 00:33:49.769 --> 00:33:52.990 and for explicitly rejecting the stifling royal 00:33:52.990 --> 00:33:55.990 protocol that came with her title. She went so 00:33:55.990 --> 00:33:58.589 far as to refuse official British police protection 00:33:58.589 --> 00:34:01.250 in her final years, believing it helped her distance 00:34:01.250 --> 00:34:03.650 herself from the royal family, gave her more 00:34:03.650 --> 00:34:06.549 freedom. A freedom she craved. So what does her 00:34:06.549 --> 00:34:09.150 singular, iconic and ultimately tragic story 00:34:09.150 --> 00:34:12.550 suggest about the true cost, the personal cost, 00:34:12.690 --> 00:34:15.090 the psychological cost, maybe even the physical 00:34:15.090 --> 00:34:18.190 price of using that kind of intense global celebrity 00:34:18.190 --> 00:34:21.269 as a necessary tool for driving genuine humanitarian 00:34:21.269 --> 00:34:23.849 change? It's a profound question, isn't it? It 00:34:23.849 --> 00:34:25.909 really hangs over her memory. It forces us, I 00:34:25.909 --> 00:34:28.190 think, to consider whether the immense good she 00:34:28.190 --> 00:34:30.809 undoubtedly did could possibly have been achieved 00:34:30.809 --> 00:34:33.170 without paying that ultimate terrible sacrifice 00:34:33.170 --> 00:34:36.170 for the very freedom and impact she sought. A 00:34:36.170 --> 00:34:38.369 difficult balance. A very difficult balance indeed. 00:34:38.550 --> 00:34:40.610 Thank you for joining us for this deep dive into 00:34:40.610 --> 00:34:43.030 the complex life and the enduring legacy of Diana, 00:34:43.289 --> 00:34:46.030 Princess of Wales. A fascinating figure. We'll 00:34:46.030 --> 00:34:48.150 see you next time on The Deep Dive.