How Diana damaged William

A controversial new book says her mental illness hurt her son and has even affected his relationship with Kate

by Ken MacQueen

Diana’s damage

Tim Graham/Getty Images

On the day of the funeral of Diana, princess of Wales—a sunny Saturday in September 1997—there was one small item that broke a million hearts in a city, and a nation, already awash in grief. A bouquet of white freesias sat atop her coffin as it rode on a gun carriage to Westminster Abbey. Nestled in the flowers was an envelope with a single word—“MUMMY”—printed in a child’s hand. Walking behind were its authors, princes William, 15, and Harry, 12, accompanied by their father, Prince Charles, their grandfather, Prince Philip, and their embittered uncle, Charles Spencer, Diana’s brother. At the time, those of us covering the funeral, and millions more watching on London’s streets and on televisions around the world, wondered what these wounded young lads could possibly have said to make sense of the tragedy that befell their mother, and the circus of grief it spawned.

That note also touched a deep chord with Penny Junor, a veteran royal watcher and the author of the newly published Prince William: Born to be King, which manages to be both a sympathetic portrait of the future king and a controversial examination of an upbringing that was scarred by tumult, loss and Diana’s mental fragility. “I thought it was incredibly touching,” she said of the note. It was only through the wise intervention of Sandy Henney, Prince Charles’s press secretary at the time, that the boys’ farewell words to their mother were sealed in an envelope, protected from the reach of the hundreds of telephoto lenses lining the funeral route. “Their lives had been so intruded upon by the media,” Junor said in an interview with Maclean’s. “That would have been the end of their world if their little note to their mother had been picked up by those lenses.”

In fact, the privacy of William and Harry’s lives had been trammelled from birth. Long before their mother’s death, they endured the loss of loved ones who fell out of favour with their parents, and the rage, tears and public humiliation of the marriage breakup that left them caught between the warring camps of mother and father. “He would be superhuman if he didn’t have demons,” Junor writes of William. “But he keeps them to himself; he is one of the most intensely private people you could meet.”

The release of her book in Britain last week triggered a storm of controversy due to Junor’s assessment of Diana as a loving mother, but one whose mental illness caused enormous pain to her children. Her claim has generated a storm of criticism from a pro-Diana camp that remains steadfastly loyal almost 15 years after her death. This week, Hasnat Khan, the Pakistani heart surgeon who had a two-year relationship with the princess that ended shortly before her death, spoke out in her defence. “There is no way at all that Diana was mentally unstable,” he told the Mail on Sunday. “There is nothing wrong with expecting your husband to be faithful, and being angry when he isn’t.”

Yet by Diana’s own admission, she suffered from bulimia, cut herself on her arms and legs, and made half-hearted attempts at suicide. “I can’t understand how people got so hysterical about it,” Junor said. “Anybody who understands eating disorders, anorexia, bulimia, they are serious mental illnesses. I’m a trustee of our national charity for eating disorders, so I do know how dangerous these things are. People die of them.” Junor said she could have gone further. A psychologist she consulted said Diana exhibited narcissistic tendencies. “That’s exactly what she was, but I thought the word [narcissist] would be so inflammatory. God, what would the Daily Mail have done with that?”

Junor made similar claims about Diana’s mental health in a book, Charles: Victim or Villain, published a year after Diana’s death. “I had death threats. I was nearly run out of the country. People spat at me in the streets.” Briefly, she hired a bodyguard. Even today, “there are people who can’t accept who she was,” Junor said. “She was wonderful in many ways. I’m absolutely not wanting to desecrate her memory, but the facts are William had a very difficult time growing up.” Her latest book casts Charles in a more sympathetic light, as a sensitive, caring parent and as a worthy future monarch. But both parents, in her view, have much to answer for in the rearing of their sons.

William as a young child rightly earned Diana’s affectionate nickname as “Your Royal Naughtiness.” Junor described William, age 4, wandering into a meeting his father was having with Bob Geldof, the perpetually scruffy singer and humanitarian. “Why do you have to talk to that man?” William asked. “Because we have work to do,” Charles replied. “He’s all dirty,” said William. “Shut up, you horrible boy,” said Geldof. “He’s got scruffy hair and wet shoes,” William said, undaunted. “Don’t be rude,” was about all his mortified father could muster. Both parents were soft touches when it came to discipline. It was the Queen, a doting grandmother and latter-day role model, who signalled that young William’s behaviour was unacceptable.

The marriage was already in trouble by the time of Harry’s arrival in 1984, some 27 months after William’s birth. Charles grew frustrated and depressed as he failed to win the respect and support of his young wife. Diana had wild mood swings: carefree and compassionate one moment, brooding, insecure and sarcastic the next. Much of it, Junor believes, was rooted in Diana’s difficult childhood. Her home life was marked with unhappiness and there were frequent violent arguments between her parents. Her mother fled the marriage for another man and lost custody of the children when Diana was six. “In [Diana’s] mind, the matter was simple,” Junor writes. “Her mother didn’t want her, therefore she must be worthless.”

For all the love Diana showered on her boys, her insecurities were never far from the surface. Barbara Barnes was the children’s beloved nanny. Each morning William would climb into bed with her before they got up for breakfast. Diana began to feel threatened by William’s bond with Barnes, and the nanny was dismissed on the flimsiest of excuses. William, just 4, was hurt and bewildered at the loss of his “Baba,” as he called her. “He became less outgoing, less trusting, less inclined to make himself vulnerable,” wrote Junor. Over the phone from London, there is an edge of anger in Junor’s voice. “The only explanation is she was so tied up with her own feelings that she couldn’t look beyond them to see what this would do to her sons,” she said. “It’s so weird, given that she herself was abandoned and knew how painful that was.” Notably, nanny Barnes was one of the names William added to his personal wedding guest list 24 years after she vanished from his life.

Charles for a time was something of a stoic punching bag as the marriage disintegrated. Diana would rearrange the boys’ schedules to take away his custody time, while tipping photographers to the boys’ visits to, say, a water park—trading their privacy for chances to cast herself in a good light. She went to war against Tiggy Legge-Bourke, a fun-loving young aristocrat the boys adored and who often minded them under Charles’s watch. Diana started false rumours she was sleeping with Charles. In this case, she failed to get Legge-Bourke fired.

Diana didn’t hide her distress from the boys. She told a TV interviewer the tale of William at 10 playing a parenting role as she wailed inconsolably behind a locked bathroom after a fight with Charles. William crouched outside, saying, “I hate to see you sad,” and stuffed paper tissues under the door. “She gave away her children’s privacy,” said Junor. “It was extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary. If she was sane, if her mind had been totally fine, I don’t believe she would have behaved in the way she did. I think it was all a symptom of her condition.”

Things got worse with the boys away in boarding schools. Both parents turned to sympathetic media figures to tell their stories, and neither came off well with their cringeworthy tales of angst and infidelity. Charles did his best to guard the boys’ privacy and to speak respectfully of their mother. However, in a 1994 documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby seen by 14 million people, and in a subsequent book, he admitted to his infidelity with Camilla Parker Bowles after the marriage “was irretrievably broken.” William was 12. Life the next day in boarding school must have been hell.

A year later, Diana responded with a devastating interview on the TV program Panorama. It was here she talked about her bulimia and self-harm, suggested Charles was a dubious prospect as king, admitted to an infidelity or two, and fired that memorable broadside across Camilla’s bow: “There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.” Diana had to be prodded to travel to Eton, where 13-year-old William had recently enrolled, to tell him in advance that the program was running. “She told William that [it] would contain nothing controversial and that he would be proud of her,” Junor writes. William watched the program in the study of his Eton housemaster, angry, aghast and no doubt humiliated at the family secrets she laid bare before some 20 million viewers. Shortly afterwards the Queen told the warring couple to get on with a divorce. Sensing a deep need, the Queen encouraged William to make regular visits to Windsor Castle, just across the bridge from Eton, for tea and sympathy. The bond they already shared has only grown stronger in the years since.

It is little wonder that William grew increasingly insular, never quite certain who to trust, who might abandon him, who might betray what little privacy he had. Harry was the one constant: the brother who experienced the same losses, sorrows, humiliations, and the undeniable love both parents lavished on them. “Only they had experienced the full nightmare of life within the Wales household,” Junor writes. “Only they had known what it was like to be at an all-boys school when the newspapers were full of their parents’ infidelities; only they had known what it was like to grieve for their mother while millions of strangers took ownership of her death.” As young adults, when his and Harry’s cellphone messages were hacked in the News of the World scandal and used as fodder for stories, the brothers reacted with predictable rage, but also a measure of relief. They knew with final certainty that the media leaks were not coming from their tight circle of friends.

Perhaps understandably, the William who arrived at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland was cautious, insecure and a bit bereft. He hid under the bill of a baseball cap, was unduly quiet in lectures, often wrote his essays at the local police station, away from prying eyes, and steered clear of the American girls who threw themselves at his feet. He gravitated to familiar faces in his residence, among them Kate Middleton, one of the “least pushy girls he met in that first year,” Junor writes, quoting a friend of the couple. She, too, was away from her family and comfort zone. Like him, she had volunteered in Chile during her gap year with the same charitable group, though at different times.

By second year he felt comfortable enough with Kate and two other friends to share an apartment together, and his confidence grew after seriously questioning in first year if he would drop out. It was sometime during that year that their romance blossomed, a secret they kept for a remarkably long time, until a photographer captured a stolen kiss between them during a ski holiday. While Kate was obviously the prime attraction, the fun-loving Middleton family in semi-rural Berkshire offered a welcoming middle-class normal that was new to William. There were no butlers, no lurking photographers, Junor writes. They could grab a pint at the pub, “and they clattered about the kitchen and sat down to chatty, friendly, family meals together.”

As much as William found a home with the Middletons, it would take eight years, and one brief breakup with Kate in 2007, before he asked her to marry him. William did not agree to be interviewed for Junor’s book (although he gave permission for friends, staff and many of the charities he is patron of to share their views), so she can only speculate about his commitment issues. Part of it, she believes, was a question he had to resolve for himself: could he remain faithful to one woman after the betrayals that scarred his upbringing? She also admitted to “playing amateur psychologist.” He lost his nanny, he lost the trustworthy Sandy Henney when she was forced to resign as press secretary for a mistake not of her making. His mother’s death was the “ultimate abandonment,” said Junor. “I think he was possibly testing Kate to see if she would also abandon him. I think that’s why he waited eight years before finally asking her to marry him.” She did not. During their breakup, she maintained her dignity and discretion, while looking stunning as she stepped out on the town with friends. William soon realized what he had lost.

Junor was among the journalists who followed William and Catherine on their first official visit to Canada last year. Three decades earlier she’d watched Charles and Diana’s first visit to Wales as a married couple. Both women had a rare gift of putting an adoring public at ease. But that’s where the similarity ends. In William and Catherine she saw a connection, and a trust that Charles and Diana never shared. There were whispered asides and secret smiles, he guided her through events with a protective hand on her back. “There was such obvious love between the two of them,” she said.

With one woman, and perhaps the Queen, he can let down his guard. His model is his grandmother, who shares her private self with only her spouse. She knew what William learned from the painful experience of his parents: if you allow it, a fame-obsessed world will feed on you until you’re picked clean. As he approaches his 30th birthday on June 21, he sees himself not as a celebrity, but as a future monarch, in for the long haul. He has a duty to give his time, talent and energy, said Junor, “but he won’t give his soul.”

In many respects that MUMMY note, written at a time of aching loss for the young princes, is a metaphor for the man William has become. He can walk before millions behind his mother’s coffin, or into the enthusiastic embrace of a Canadian crowd, but we’ll never really know what he keeps sealed inside. And why should we?




Browse

How Diana damaged William

  1. When I saw “How Diana damaged William” and the terrible photos
    splashed all over the front page today I thought I was looking at the Tattler or Inquisitor. I was rather taken aback to see that it was Macleans. Appalling. Have you hired Piers Morgan as editor or something?

  2. Excellent article:)

    • Excellent how, exactly? What insight does this book provide? Women should not divorce adulterous husbands? Shy teachers should not marry older princes? Mothers should hide hurt and crying from their children? Children whose mummies die suddenly have to cope?

      Or is it that women should not marry men whose mothers have died young? Or women should not marry princes whose mothers have died young? Or simply that men whose mothers died young are also mentally ill.

      Frankly the whole premise just sounds silly and hurtful and a way to try to bank a liitle coin on the back of a woman who’s now been dead more than a decade. I fail to see how calling a dead woman a narcissist is helpful to anyone, anywhere.

      • Clearly, the purpose of this article was not to help, but to hurt. And the people it will hurt the worst are the ones this article purports to be concerned about.

        • Obviously you are a staunch Diana fan that relies on fairy tales and brain washing provided by media. This is a great article, that actually sheds a lot of light on real Diana and not the pretty picture in the magazine!

      • Diana suffered from having borderline personality disorder. Only those closest to that kind of person knows what hell it is. It’s difficult to live with someone who is so tormented.

  3. I think Junor is mentally unstable. She is unhealthily obsessed with the royals.

  4. she was just a human like all of us and had melt downs like all of us. only difference is ppl watched her every move and drew conclusions. she was killed. and thats the games of throne.

  5. How ironic. Maclean’s runs this smear story at the same time as Prince Charles and his mistress-wife, two people who are indirectly responsible for Diana’s death, have a free vacation on our dime.
    The vast majority of Canadians loathe Charles and Camilla and will likely demand we sever all ties with the crown once the beloved Queen passes. That’s the real story here.
    Oh, and by the way, surely one of the most searing wounds inflicted on William and Harry is articles like this, trashing their beloved mother when she’s no longer here to defend herself.

    • Please speak for yourself and not for “majority of Canadians”!I personally loathed Diana from a very early stage! It’s only admirable that Charles carried his love for Camila through all those years, even though he could have had almost any woman! Diana was never a saint, more of trouble maker, with a very poor judgement. Get back to Earth, the fairy tale didn’t happen on July 1, 1981 rather what Charles and Camila have is a fairy tale. Leave that poor chap alone, he’s a decent individual that was vilified by a mentally unstable woman and the press that she lied to and relied on.

      • Charles and Camilla have…a fairy tale? What dimension are you from – the land of truthful parenting? Since when does “loathing” bring any insight or credibility to judging a life? The criticism is not whether or not Diana was mentally unbalanced, it is whether being an unbalanced parent actually damages a child’s life. Clearly, that escaped your notice due to your excellent upbringing or (perhaps) superior child-rearing.

        • Charles and Camila met 40 years ago and are still together, can you dispute that? Certainly not a children’s book fairy tale, but a love story, if you cannot see it – pity, parenting has nothing to do with it. Well, it’s a no brainer that mentally unstable parents damage their children. So loathing Charles is OK but Diana should be viewed as a someone completely beyond reproach, another words – a saint? Right! Well, the new generation is completely uninterested in this whole “Diana” subject and story, thanks God!

  6. Wow – looks like your journalists need to read the Mental Health Commission of Canada’s newly released Mental Health Strategy. Clearly they need some training on how not to stigmatize mentally ill people. That headline was ripped straight from an earlier, less enlightened age.

  7. this article is completely hypocritical: your arguing that Diana hurt the boys by betraying their privacy and yet you write an article speculating about their psyche, telling very private stories about their lives, and calling their mother mentally unstable? The truth is that everyone has issues and no one has any business judging her or their family problems. And the cherry on top of the hypocrisy pie you just serve was ending your article with “we’ll never really know what he keeps sealed inside. And why should we?”
    Right. So maybe stop writing stories claiming to understand how he was affected by his childhood, or what his personal issues are.

    • Yeah, let’s hope Diana doesn’t read this or she might get into a car with a drunk chaffeur and something terrible will happen.

  8. I don’t agree with penny, nonsense!

    For those real Diana fans;

    Search Amazon for “Princess Diana The Day She Didn’t Die.” It’s a fantastic read.

  9. Narcissist? In the age of Facebook, YouTube and twitter, it’s still a crime to be vain and selfish – well, that IS news!

  10. Oh wow, what a bunch of crap. Maybe we shoul psychoanalyze this Junor person and her infatuation with Charles.

  11. Junor seems to have skipped over Charles’ lonely childhood, and his issues with absent, withholding parents who objectified him; stretches in harsh boarding schools, and his vanity which was at the root of his problems with Dianna.

  12. Would you have still used the headline “How Diana Damaged Her Son” if her sickness had been diabetes or cancer, rather than mental illness?

    • Considering how the royal family treated her, her condition was royal-family induced.

  13. The May 28 issue of Macleans hit a new low. “How Diana Damaged Her Son” is disgusting and serves no redemptive value other than straight tabloid journalism in an attempt to sell the magazine. We chucked it in disgust and do not intend to renew our subscription.

  14. LEAVE THIS POOR WOMEN ALONE AND LET HER REST IN PEACE!!!!!!! I have been a subscriber to MACLEANS for many many years but that is going to change because I am discussed with the direction your magazine is going, if the latest front cover is any indication. If I wanted smut I would subscribe to the National Inquirer or Star Magazine.

  15. The Royals have been damaged for generations. She was a breath of fresh air. Lied to. Charles is ok? His mother greets him with a handshake after months away – when he’s 4 or 5?! This is ok?

  16. Why is this gossipy yellow journalism book so highlighted?

  17. Congratulations. You succeeded in one more magazine copy to be bought…your need to sell your rhetoric outstrips your ethics. Shame on you. Please consider Boris Cyrulnik’s thought from his book, Resilience. And re-examine how the media and society has damaged millions of mothers over the years.
    “A trauma born of a social representation aggravates the direct effects of the trauma itself. The only difference being that, whatever our culture now tells us, a trauma’s biological effects can often be repaired because the brain is so plastic. In contrast, the effects that can be attributed to an academic discourse can only be repaired if our social discourse can be changed, and that can take several years or even several centuries.”

  18. Oh God, lets just continue making a saint of of this woman!
    Unfortunately most of you missed the point of this article, which is quite good into looking into the true Diana as she was: a mentally ill, uneducated individual, that was immersed in her own little world, constantly looking for attention, forsaking her children’s privacy and mental stability for the sake of her own petty things. She would have been unhappy with a simple Joe, or anyone else, that’s just the way she was.
    And what kind of person would air her dirty laundry on TV???
    She was splashed all over media because she wanted it, recklessly getting into the car driven by a drunk and in the relationship with a playboy. “Great”, “wonderful” role model, “worthy” of admiration!
    And btw, we don’t see much of William and Kate, why? Because they don’t want attention, which proves one more time, you’ll be haunted by media only if want it and Diana did!
    Enough is enough! And frankly, there is not much interest in her anymore. Many thanks for the truthful article though.

    • If William and Kate have gained new insights on how to handle the public, looks to me as though Diana was a great parent after all and gave them both much to develop their resilience against absurdities. She probably also taught them how not to be afraid of love or show vulnerability or cover up some deep seated wish of being accepted, able to capture the hearts of millions or mourned by the world, while setting up a legacy of charities that make a heap of difference to real human beings. It would have been a travesty that William and Harry would not have been born at all to such an extraordinary heritage. And even more of a travesty for attention-seeking individuals with that much going for them to live out their miserable armchair existence and write petty commentaries. I can tell that your education has given you the edge to discern truth and distinguish between opinion and critical thought. Kudos for your intellect.

  19. …And every journalist keeps making a buck on troubles that every family has. Stop pretending being a psychiatric and talking about dead people that cannot argue. You keep killing Diana over and over again. being royal does not mean having a clean family record; everybody in a disfuctional family has to deal with ghosts sooner or later.

    • Dysfunctional is spelt with a y not an i. Just sayin’

  20. wow, i love the following readers’ comment more than the writer. The readers are much more humane and sympathetic as humans than the writer. Whoever getting into others’ privacy and claims she/he has authority to comment on a tragic struggling person, well, he/she is not objective but cruel. Would she be happy to be commented in a wrong way or imaginary way if she were in Diana’s position and tragic life?!

  21. God bless the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

  22. Bob Geldof told the future king of England to shut up and called him a horrible boy in front of the boy’s father (also the future king of England). This defies belief.

  23. Let her rest in peace, To assume anyone outside her family knows all is poppycock! Adult children have survived and become wise in millions of families, and absorbed miraculously the lessons and the joys of family life. Psychoanalyzing and presuming to have special insight is arrogant and ridiculous!

    • “Let her rest in peace.”. What does that mean? I see it often when people post responses to articles on Diana. Hello! She’s not resting… she’s dead, and beyond the concerns of the living. Nothing that is said now can touch her or harm her anymore. Anyone with a bone to pick with her should invest in psychiatric help.

  24. She didn’t damage her boys at all and she had emotions like everyone else–as well as an eating disorder…that doesn’t make her the mentally ill unstable lunatic you’ve painted–oh and by the way–that card with “MUMMY” on it was written by HARRY and had nothing to do with William AT ALL-get your facts straight! William kept his tribute secret and private.

  25. “It is
    jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist
    to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently
    institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul
    was strong, he said, and brave. That didn’t make her crazy. The doctor
    admonished the men: “Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.”"

  26. I think the big problem with Penny Junor’s work is that it comes from a royalist who seems to be on a mission to re-shape the public perception of Prince Charles. To be sure, people have been irrationally sympathetic of Diana. (This cult will have to stop some day). But people can also see through a hidden agenda.

  27. Does anyone really care about Diana – long dead and gone?

    William is now a man – he will do well

    We are all a product of our environments – he seems to be OK to me.

    The author needs a boot in the rear end

  28. Please spare us your sociological musings, magical thinking and suppositions.
    This is so lame and out of date.
    Author and psychologist Stephen Pinker was correct when he called sociology research “a rat’s nest of confounded variables”

  29. This is obviously part of a campaign to rehabilitate Charles in the public’s opinion, position him as a worthy future monarch and make Camilla look good. Diana may have come from a broken home, but her father loved her dearly, she had her siblings and her mother also loved her. Everyone just assumes that everyone from a broken home must be damaged. What an insult to all the single parents out there. I know more messed up kids with two parents than with one parent. Furthermore, Diana was very young when she got married and she didn’t know how to deal with her husband’s relationship with Camilla that he made very clear that he wasn’t going to end even if he was married. Who in their right mind could handle that? What support did she have within the palace? None. No wonder she was at her wit’s end at times. But she was not the mentally unstable freak she is made out to be in Junor’s assessment. Bulimic she was, but that doesn’t equal being insane. She carried out her duties with grace and dignity and she truly cared. What is really at issue here is Diana’s continued popularity after death. The palace obviously can’t get over that. Junor’s book is obviously palace-endorsed.

  30. ….reading this article and reading about that book is like watching a train wreck.

  31. As someone with a mother who had a DSM Axis II personality disorder, I can see the symptoms in what we are told about Princess Diana’s cutting, emotional splitting, etc.. I hope William has a good therapist, because once he has a family a lot of this may come back. Any child of 10 who is comforting his mother after a marital fight is acting in the parental role. This is not normal. Any child would learn to survive this by not trusting. If he grew up in poverty we would call his childhood one of chronic trauma. After 9 years he took a brave step towards trust and married someone who is loyal. What I see in the relationship with his wife is that she is a strong partner, and grew up in a normal middle class way–no nannies, working for the family business–and certainly no airing of dirty linen on international TV. Good for him for breaking a cycle. I wish them all the best Someone should send him a copy of Christine Lawson’s definitive “Surviving the Borderline Mother”. Hmmm–instead of buying Ms Junor’s book, perhaps I will do this!
    If Macleans wants to redeem itself from tabloid journalism, it might consider an article on children who grow up around mental illness and/or addiction.

  32. The writer points out the obvious – Diana was a loving mother, but had many, many issues and many of those issues were mental health issues!!! It doesn’t mean that she didn’t love her sons, but as a mother she was damaged and that harmed her sons.

    Let’s face it – we all know people like Diana, but they are not on the world stage so their problems are not exposed.

    People still love Diana (I personally was pretty much done with her by the time she died – her ‘issues’ were never going to be resolved because she was not interested in resolving them herself and those closest to her were more interested in using her). And I’m going to be hated for writing the following – the best thing that every happened for William and Harry was her death – she can be remembered as a beautiful, compassionate individual but flawed. Could anyone of us imagined how she would have ‘needed’ to upstage William and Kate in order to maintain her visibility? It would have been a disaster!

  33. If Diana were still alive today, Macleans magazine would be sued for printing Ken MacQueen’s article. Then again, maybe William will take offence with being label ‘damaged’.

  34. If Diana were still alive today, Macleans magazine would probably be sued for printing Ken MacQueen’s article. Then again, maybe William will take offence with being labelled ‘damaged’ and follow up with litigation.

  35. The person who wrote this article is an idiot. Or he is just a deciever who has twisted the story by blaming diana. There is more to this story that many do not want to look at because it will shake the very foundation of their sanity and rip a hole in their safety net in a world they have created in their minds. Wake up!!!!

  36. What a joke .. this woman is Charles official biographer .. and all her books are typically one sided. Reading her sycophantic drivel makes me wince.

  37. THIS REALLY ANGERS ME PRINCESS DIANA WAS NEVER MENTALLY ILL. PRINCESS DIANA GODESS THE WORLD STOPPED WHEN SHE SPOKE AND AT ONE POINT SHE WAS MORE FAMOUS THAN THE QUEEN. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE THERE TO KNOW THAT PRINCESS DIANA NEVER MENTALLY ILL. SHE WAS A WOMAN THAT HAD THE WORLD AT HER FEET AND PEOPLE HATED HER FOR IT, THEY WANTED HER DIE SO JEALOUS OF HER. THE PEOPLE SHE LOVED AND HELPED KNIFED HER BACK. JUST LIKE ME. BRITISH RETURNED CHILDREN SAID SORRY WHEN I GOT TO CANADA JUDGE SCHULTZ SAID MAKE YOUR SELF AVAILABLE. I WAS TOLD BY PAKI SOCIAL WORKER THAT I SHOULD DO WHAT I HAVE TO DO. THEY TOOK THREE BABIES LYING ON MY BACK THAN TRIED SAY I COULD NOT RAISE THEM CAUSE NOT AFRICAN OR A JEW. THIS IS FILED IN WELLS STREET COURT.I THINK PRINCE MADE MISTAKE. MIDDLETON IS PRINCES BEST FRIEND NOT HIS WOMAN. KATE VERY MIDDLE CLASS AND SHE BROUGHT DOWN THE MONARCHY.DIANA RAISED THE MONARCHY SHE WAS KILLED CAUSE NO ONE COULD GIVE FINGER TO THE BRITISH OR ENGLISH. SHE WAS JUST A PHENONMENAL FIGURE. SHE HAD POWER TO RULE ALL FIVE CONTINENTS YES PEOPLE AROUND HER JEALOUS AND THEY WANTED HER DIE. SOUNDS DRASTIC BUT SAME TO ME THEY BRITISH AFRICAN JEW WOMEN WANTED ME TO DIE. YOU CANT TAKE BABY VAGINAI THREE TIMES AND THINK I AM GOING TO BE IN GOOD MENTAL HEALTH. DIANA WAS NEVER ILL. DIANA WAS HURT CAUSE SHE WAS ON HER OWN.
    ME TOO I WAS ON MY OWN, MYOWN MOTHER WORKS FOR CANADIAN GOVERNMENT HARPER SUPPORT TURN HER BACK ON ME. AND YES I AM PROUD CANADIAN THAT TOOK IT LIKE A MAN AND DID NOT DIE, BUT CONTROL NEST BELONGED TO THE ENGLISH.
    IT NOW BELONGS TO THE AFRICAN COMMUNITY, VERY VERY SAD.
    BUT I DONT WANNA HEAR DAMAGED PRINCE, SHE LOVED HIM SOSOSOSOS MUCH. SHE LOVED BOTH BOYS.
    LIKE I LOVE MY CHILDREN
    CORELLIE BEATRICE MARLYN BONHOMME

  38. YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEE ALOVE AT THAT TIME TO KNOW. DIANA WAS IN HYDE PARK WHEN I WAS WORKING AT BODY ONE IN WESTMINESTER, CROWD THAT SHE DREW WAS UNBELIVEABLE, BUT DIANA HAD ENEMIES, POWER OLDER WOMEN. WHEN YOUR A YOUNG BIRD YOU DONT THINK SOMEONE PLANNING DEATH. WHEN YOUR YOUNG YOU THINK EVERYONE IS EQUAL AND WE ARE ALL ONE. AND WHEN YOU GROW UP FIND OUT THAT IS NOT TRUE. DIANA WAS YOUNG SPRIT. BUT DIANA WAS NEVER NEVER A MOTHER HURT HER SONS. PEOPLE JEALOUS,ITALINES ARABS HATED HER AND THEY WANTED SOMEONE THEY COULD CONTROL . DIANA COULD NOT CONTROL.
    PEOPLE ANGRY CAUSE SHE HAD SO MUCH POWER.NEVER ILL-SHAKEN YES. SCARED YES-NOT MENTALLY ILL

  39. Wow! Is Penny Junor a psychiatrist aswell as a journalist ? What Bullshit.

  40. The Truth is this: Diana was assassinated and it was orchestrated by David Spedding, Richard Dearlove and Sherad Cowper-Coles, and the authorisation came from the Queen.
    A study of Assassinations, published in the 1950`s by CIA: The manual reads:
    ” A further assassination type is caused by the need to conceal the fact that the subject was actually the victim of assassination rather than an accident or natural causes. If such concealment is desirable the operation will be called “Secret”……For secret assassinations the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated”. This is what occurred in Paris in 1997. This “secret” assassination of Princess Diana has been passed off by two police investigations in France and the UK as an “accident.”

    Corruption at Scotland Yard shows that Lord John Stevens, Lord Paul Condon and Sir David Veness colluded and lied repeatedly during their extensive inquest cross-examinations. Stevens presided over one of the largest sham investigations in the history of British policing – Operation Paget.An operation that the public believed was designed to investigate the Paris crash was instead used to cover up the truth of what occurred protecting the perpetrators of the assassination of Princess Diana

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *