Prince William is mad that Diana will be included in a BBC drama about Jimmy Savile

Jimmy Savile was one of Britain’s most prolific sexual predators. He was a celebrity known for his charitable work, often with kids’ charities, which he used as a hunting ground to groom, abuse and assault children. He wasn’t solely a pedophile – there are hundreds of credible stories about his sexual assault and rape of adults as well. The entire British establishment turned a blind eye to it. Savile went out of his way to befriend celebrities, royals and law enforcement. Savile died in 2011, and the bulk of the credible accusations against him came out post-2011. Now a BBC TV series is being made about him starring Steve Coogan, although they’re apparently not using Savile’s name. While I think Coogan is talented, he probably should have said no to this? Everybody should have said no to this. According to the Sun, Prince William is once again mad at the BBC because The Reckoning will have a scene where Savile meets Princess Diana in 1983.

Prince William faces new TV torment with Princess Diana featuring in a BBC drama about paedophile Jimmy Savile. Di, played by Kate Tickle, is expected to be seen meeting the monster, who is played by Steve Coogan. It was hoped the scene would not appear in the final cut of The Reckoning — which is due to air later this year.

TV and radio host Savile cosied up to people at the top of society while secretly sexually abusing youngsters.

A TV insider said: “Prince William would have preferred not to see his mother feature alongside this vile monster at all. But he would be particularly displeased that it’s in a BBC show — and one that’s proved so controversial. Although Diana was one of the important people who Savile ingratiated himself with, there were many others whose influence played a greater part in him getting access to young people and hiding in plain sight.”

William, 39, is still angered by how his mother was tricked into giving a BBC Panorama interview to Martin Bashir in 1995. The Reckoning has already upset survivors of Savile, who escaped justice from the 1950s until his death in 2011 at 84. Groups representing rape and sexual abuse victims have also voiced anger at the dramatisation of Savile’s crimes. The Survivors’ Network called it “deeply inappropriate and harmful”.

The BBC said: “Prince Charles and Princess Diana do not have speaking roles but are seen briefly.”

[From The Sun]

I mean, as so often with high-profile predators “hiding in plain sight,” they often protect themselves with layers of famous “friends” and acquaintances. While Diana did know Savile and they did some charitable work together, Charles was the one who was a lot closer to Savile. Which is kind of a separate conversation, and maybe even a separate investigation? There have been questions for years about how much Charles knew, given his closeness to Savile. As for William being mad at the BBC… not to give advice to He Who Incandescents, but William would have better luck if he approached this as “this show is deeply unfair to the victims of Savile’s crimes, that’s why it’s inappropriate.” As opposed to having a tunnel-visioned complaint about all things Diana. Just sayin’.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty, Avalon Red and Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

44 Responses to “Prince William is mad that Diana will be included in a BBC drama about Jimmy Savile”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Cessily says:

    So JS is PC’s Epstein..nice family values and great leaders for the CoE.

  2. Rapunzel says:

    Willyboy needs blood pressure medication or he’s going to stroke out from these rages. It is just fact Diana met Savile. It doesn’t seem like they’re implying anything nefarious. There’s no reason this should be so bothersome to him.

    • Megan says:

      I can’t think of a single reason why I would be upset my mom is being portrayed in a movie about a pedophile. /s

      • Em says:

        Wonder why he isn’t upset that his father was irl close friends with Saville. I find his incandescence very selective

      • Rapunzel says:

        They met. The movie is just recounting fact. Getting mad at a portrayal of fact is useless and dumb. I could see if they made it up, but it’s truth and a filmmaker shouldn’t get criticized for recounting fact.

      • teecee says:

        He can be upset all he wants, but from what it sound like, the show is telling the truth. Public figures don’t get the same privacy that we normals do, and public figures who live at taxpayer expense get even less.

        Let’s face it, the thing he’s most upset about is that it will remind people once again how grimy the royal family’s associations are. If that upsets him, maybe he should stop hanging out with Russian and Saudi billionaires to protect his own children from this experience (since the human atrocities those groups commit don’t seem to be reason enough.)

      • superashes says:

        Yeah, in his shoes I’d def be annoyed that in a movie about a pedophile they chose to show that one time he met my mother. I think that is a normal human response.

      • Kalana says:

        They more than met at one point. Saville was very close with Charles and was a sort of marriage counselor to Charles and Diana. He regularly went to Highgrove and also exchanged notes with Diana giving her advice.

      • Deering24 says:

        “ He regularly went to Highgrove and also exchanged notes with Diana giving her advice.”

        Ugh, really? I don’t want to know what he probably said.

      • superashes says:

        Whatever their relationship might have been, the project sounds exploitative AF.

        Setting that aside, regardless of what Diana’s relationship with Saville actualy entailed, I still don’t see why it isn’t natural for her son to be upset about a program highlighting his mother’s relationship with Saville, particularly if there is no evidence she had any clue he was a pedophile, and especially if presented in the context of how their relationship enabled his access to victims.

      • Kalana says:

        I think it’s very unlikely Charles didn’t know and Diana hadn’t at least heard the rumors that Saville was a predator. Staffers complained about Saville.

      • superashes says:

        Where is the link that shows it is something Diana would have known about? Did Diana know the staffers or did they complain publicly?

    • Christine says:

      Agreed, Rapunzel.

      “Prince William would have preferred not to see his mother feature alongside this vile monster at all. ”

      Hey, Wills, turn your head slightly to the left at any public moment of your life, and you will be staring at Pedo. Shut the hell up about what you and your family prefer about vile monsters. We can all see exactly how you feel. This isn’t about your mother, this is deflection.

  3. Chloe says:

    He’s upset that his mother will feature very briefly but not that his father was actually real life friends with him? And if william has so many problems with the bbc why doesn’t he take earthshot elsewhere? Itv perhaps?

    • BothSidesNow says:

      Excellent point! Though no one wants to cover his EarthSh!it program anyway. Baldimort should just sell it to iTV, or any other sucker!!

  4. Lorelei says:

    Serious question: is there ANYTHING that William isn’t angry about?

    Besides, it was his father who was all chummy with Saville, not Diana, so he should direct his wrath elsewhere.

    @Kaiser, he would never make a statement about how the show might negatively affect the survivors, because he doesn’t give one single sh!t about anything or anyone that doesn’t affect him personally, and they do not.

    Quite an inspirational leader he will be.

  5. Esmerelda says:

    In this one issue, I think he’s right. Diana sells – she’s being used to sell this docu, which is even contested by the victims. He’s right to point this out.
    (Not saying he’s always right in his comments re: Diana)

    • Rapunzel says:

      I don’t think a brief mention is using Diana to sell the film. But I do agree with you the whole thing is sleazy. Will should be addressing that, not just whining about mom’s factual meeting being recounted for 20 seconds.

  6. Polo says:

    Notice tv insider as the source….I actually don’t think this has anything to do with William but is about attacking the BBC in order to break it up like Boris and the tories have been doing all year.

    • Lizzie Bathory says:

      I agree. I don’t think any source relayed William’s feelings on this (if he even has any–he’d be well within his rights to ignore it) to the Sun. If they wrote this about Harry, we wouldn’t believe it. I don’t have to like William to see he’s being used here to attack the BBC.

      The Sun is also trolling Charles, knowing his relationship to Saville will be brought up: “there were many others whose influence played a greater part in him getting access to young people and hiding in plain sight.”

    • Well Wisher says:

      May I add that Boris was ordered to destroy the BBC by his selector Murdoch.
      Murdoch’s recent launch in the UK has not performed as expected, so he wants the BBC news department gutted.
      The BBC replied that it will incorporate all the independent news websites selling local news instead.
      The question is why William is once more inserting himself in this?
      It is apparent, he is on the outs with his father.
      But why is he associating with the news company whose owner promised to destroy the very institution he will one day be its head?
      Murdoch’s disdain for the monarchy is no secret yet William allows himself to be their useful ..iot.

  7. MaryContrary says:

    I wonder what the victims think of this? I personally think (after reading about the horrific things he did) that making a movie or series about it is really unnecessary.

    • Emma says:

      At least some of the survivors have spoken out against it and said it’s harmful. That’s in the article quoted here.

      “The Reckoning has already upset survivors of Savile, who escaped justice from the 1950s until his death in 2011 at 84. Groups representing rape and sexual abuse victims have also voiced anger at the dramatisation of Savile’s crimes. The Survivors’ Network called it “deeply inappropriate and harmful”.”

      • teecee says:

        This is a more reasonable argument against the project, but I still don’t agree with it. News stories are public record – they don’t belong to the perpetrators, the accomplices, or even the victims. News stories get made into films and tv shows. Unless they tell harmful lies about you, you have to suck it up and ignore it. Using any other standard is too complicated to figure out, and would ultimately be used as a cudgel to control journalism.

  8. Lady Digby says:

    Charles allegedly took advice from Saville about his marital problems, I mean WTF?! No one in BRF wants to be reminded that the next king was so close to another paedo so I suspect this scene will be scrapped. Separately I agree that a sensationalist drama on this horrible man is just revolting for his many victims.
    However a serious documentary explaining how he got away with his crimes for decades would be preferable and obviously the victim survivors need to be consulted and give their approval to it being made.

  9. Amy Bee says:

    This is the press using William to attack the BBC again. The BBC is not blameless in the Saville case. They knew what was going on and did nothing. But I do think it is relevant to include Charles and Diana in the drama because he was very close friends with Charles and apparently gave marriage advice. It’s interesting that William is upset about Diana being included in the drama but not his father.

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      Exactly the BBC knew what was going on but he was a big earner for them so did nothing. Although to correct myself the BBC did do something, they banned The Sex Pistols from being broadcast as Jonny Rotten said what Saville was up to on air in an interview in the late 1970’s. The clip is still on YouTube I think.

  10. Jay says:

    Reportedly, Charles was the one more closely connected to Savile, so I wonder if this is sort of a smokescreen for him to get Charles’ portrayal removed? It definitely sounds more plausible for William to complain publicly about his mother’s image being harmed.

    I wonder what would happen if the BBC said “Fine, we’ll remove any references to Diana, but we’re keeping Chuck in. And here’s lots of photos of the two together for your trouble.”

    If memory serves, Savile is not even Charles’ only close friend who has been revealed as a predator. So I imagine he appreciates William taking the point on this one.

    As for the drama itself – it depends on whether it leverages the trauma inflicted for shock value, or whether it’s more of an examination of how such a predator was able to hide in plain sight with money and connections. But I highly doubt that will be the case.

    • Jaded says:

      Let’s not forget Charles’ friendship and support for the disgraced bishop Peter Ball. He was convicted of molesting more than a dozen boys. A report into the handling of the case was published last year, and found that Prince Charles’ friendship with Ball was “misguided” and could have been interpreted as trying to lobby in Ball’s favor. You can find a 2 part documentary about him on YouTube. Why isn’t William incandescent about that?

      • Mslove says:

        Chuck is just as bad as Andrew, if not worse. The only thing that sets them apart is Chuck is future king and gets away with everything.

  11. ScarcasmQueen says:

    This is stupid. No one is going to watch this and think Diana was enabling a pedophile.

    The simple plain truth is that this man used his connections to prey on children and make himself look good and Diana is merely included to further illustrate how far he went to put a nice veneer on his rancid behavior.

    If William wants to be mad over royals given coverage to abusers, he’s got plenty in his own house to keep him busy.

  12. YaGotMe says:

    I would be pissed too. I’ll bet Harry is pissed as well.
    It doesn’t matter if she “in fact” met him, it matters that she is being used to promote this crap. Let’s not pretend that isn’t the purpose because we wouldn’t be discussing it at all if it weren’t for the Diana angle.

    • Misskitten says:

      I completely disagree about Harry being pissed about Diana’s brief featuring in this movie. I absolutely think that the only thing Harry MAYBE, MIGHT, COULD BE annoyed about is that it SEEMS that the film downplays Seviles close relationship w/ Charles, althewhile making a point to show that he met Di. But its more likely that, being that Harry is NOT a perpetually angry person, and that he has YET to complain about his mother being portrayed in ANY TV show/film, plus the fact that Harry is simply a very busy person and probably does not have TIME to give to griping about such things, I seriously doubt that Harry is mad about ANYTHING in this film, I doubt it’s even on his radar.
      Also I love run on sentences, love them love them.

      • Lady D says:

        I must admit, you are quite skilled in run on:)

      • YaGotMe says:

        Eh, Willy didn’t complain about this either.
        It isn’t a stretch to think … oh, film about a sexual predator , no I wouldn’t want my mother linked to it no matter how tenuous. As to the rest of that 😂😂😂

  13. Lemons says:

    William just wants to remind us that he is Diana’s son and that he is somehow the SOLE protector of her good name.

    He just uses her to get more press mentions, and it’s getting obvious and starting to get gross.

  14. Sue says:

    I feel like most headlines about Prince William could just be cut down to “Prince William is Mad.” He’s an angry dude.

    • Lady D says:

      No kidding. Incandescent has been his state of mind for 4 freaking years straight. He probably has ulcers from his constant rage. I wonder if his kids are afraid of him yet?

  15. BeanieBean says:

    I just came here to say ‘He Who Incandescents’ is a delightful phrase. That Kaiser is quite the wordsmith.