25 years after Princess Diana’s death, we really should know more about her security

Today is the 25th anniversary of Princess Diana’s passing. She died in the early morning hours of August 31, 1997 following a car crash in L’Alma tunnel in Paris. Diana still haunts the British monarchy, much as they try to claim and twist her legacy and work. I’m not expecting anything from Clarence House or Buckingham Palace today – Charles and the Queen are both in Scotland right now, and they won’t make any statements. We’ve heard that Diana’s sons will not make any joint statements and they clearly won’t make any joint appearances, given that William is in Windsor or London and Harry is in Montecito. I’m including some nice photos of Diana in this post. She was so iconic, she still IS the moment, even 25 years after her death.

We’ve gotten a lot of stories about Diana this summer, as many people are still trying to profit from her. One of those people is Lee Sansum, a bodyguard who worked for the Al-Fayeds in the summer of 1997. Sansum spent a lot of time with Diana, as Diana was being protected that summer by Al-Fayed’s security team. We were told at the time (and in the years since) that Diana “rejected” her royal protection because she (correctly) believed they were spying on her. What’s fascinating is that Sansum now claims that Diana was being watched that summer – watched by MI6, watched by British intelligence and God knows who else. Sansum said they were being openly monitored that entire summer. Well, Sansum was asked about Prince Harry’s security situation (where Harry is suing to get protection and pay for it himself) and he had some thoughts:

Princess Diana’s former bodyguard, Lee Sansum is making the rounds talking to press to promote his new book, Protecting Diana: A Bodyguard’s Story, so ofc he’s being asked to weigh in on Harry’s super public dispute about protection (/lack thereof) for his family when they visit the United Kingdom. As a person who has professionally protected members of the royal family, Sansum seems to think Harry’s request is entirely reasonable.

“I don’t know what the stumbling block is there….I totally get it when he is back in the U.K.,” Sansum told Us Weekly. “He should have protection. I don’t get why he isn’t given it.”

Sansum’s work in royal bodyguarding started after Diana’s divorce from Prince Charles, when he was assigned to the security team for Dodi al-Fayed, who Diana was dating at the time of her death. Diana actually didn’t have official royal protection at this time, and Sansum said he’s honestly not sure if she refused royal protection or was denied it.

“A lot of people say she didn’t want it. People are saying that she couldn’t have it — I don’t really know. I can’t comment on that,” he said, stressing that Dodi’s security team was “the best security teams I’ve ever worked with, so she just happened to get security.”

And, FWIW, Sansum points out that Diana definitely needed plenty of security even after she had divorced Charles because even just being related to key working royals can be a risk factor.

“She was the mother of the heir to our throne and you could just think … sometimes I contemplate what would’ve happened. Say she’d have been kidnapped or say something would’ve happened to her …which quite easily happened to her,” he explained. “It was a difficult situation all around, but we had two policemen with us from the British police. [I would say] ‘Look at the guys around you — we’ll protect you. Nothing can happen to you.’ I was just trying to calm her down and it had a calming effect on her.”

[From Yahoo]

More and more, I find myself questioning the story we’ve been fed for 25 years, that Diana rejected royal protection completely. Seeing this fight being waged by Harry to protect his family, I think Diana’s security should be a bigger talking point. I believe Harry is trying to figure it out too, and he’s actively looking into what really happened with his mother’s royal protection.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

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

35 Responses to “25 years after Princess Diana’s death, we really should know more about her security”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    I think its clear that there’s a lot we don’t know about diana and her security. Given Harry’s situation, I’m inclined to believe that her security was taken from her; she did not refuse it. But, we just don’t know for sure. I wonder if Harry has learned the truth.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      If Charles had NO compunction about removing security from his own son and grand-child, why would he have any compunction about removing security from his estranged ex-wife?

      • C-Shell says:

        His estranged ex-wife whom he openly loathed. I don’t doubt it for a moment.

      • Jais says:

        Exactly. Why would he give his ex-wife security when he won’t give it to his son?
        I think the story about her refusing protection came out after her death. Up until then, the agreement was that she would get security only if she was with the boys bc they actually had security. But she did not. Tried looking this up a while back and that was my conclusion. It was only through “sources” that it was ever said that she refused security, which mostly came out after her death. TB was one of the people saying this and her sources are palace people and monarchists looking to protect themselves.

  2. equality says:

    She may have been afraid that the officers were spying on her, but wouldn’t she have been more afraid of what could happen without security? I don’t think she would have refused it.

  3. C-Shell says:

    I appreciate Sansum doing the rounds lately and shedding more light on Diana’s security and the accident. I might have dreamed it, but I think I read where Sansum also said that he knew Henri Paul very well and that, not only wasn’t he a big drinker, but he absolutely was not drunk for that final trip into the tunnel. The questions just keep piling up. God I wish Diana had been wearing her seatbelt, but I’ve also read recently that they might not have been operational. It might have been Sansum who said she always wore her seatbelt and he also would remind her and Dodi to do so. It’s SO TRAGIC.

    Thanks, Sansum, for telling it like it is re: Harry’s need for protection in the UK.

    • Jan90067 says:

      Her sisters said Diana was FANATICAL about wearing a seatbelt. If it’d been working, she’d have worn it. Didn’t it come out after that the seatbelt did NOT work? I’d swear I read that.

      • C-Shell says:

        That’s what I remember, too, but am too lazy to try to track it down. 😩

      • C says:

        The car was recovered from a French junkyard after being totaled. It was repaired and sold to Etoile Limousines who leased to the Ritz as a brand-new car. It was faulty even before the first crash and the back seatbelts were reported to be faulty too. Technical experts stated it should not have been put to road use after its first crash.
        It is now in the hands of the French government.

    • Nynthlyfe9 says:

      One of my degrees is in biology,and my last employers were the ABG labs of Cedars and Good Samaritan.
      The blood work presented by the French as Henri-Paul’s could not have been accurate. The carboxyTHB was so elevated the person with the sample could not have been walking.

  4. Amy Bee says:

    It was when Charles pulled Harry’s security that I started questioning the story that Diana rejected royal protection.

    • Becky Mae says:

      Absolutely 200%

      • swaz says:

        And if Harry hadn’t said that we would have never known the truth. That’s why it’s important for Meghan and Harry to have their say. The British Media is trying everything to shut them up.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ swaz, the BM is acting on behalf of CH and the rest of the royal vipers. Charles certainly doesn’t want people to know that he actively swiped Harry, Meghan and little baby Archie’s security while they were in Canada, no more than he released their whereabouts to the media.

        The BM is playing cover up for the inadequacies of the BRF. We all know what Charles, QEII and PP were capable of at the time of Diana’s death and it’s an ugly, nasty truth as to who they truly are in private.

    • Geegee says:

      Ya it always sounded sketchy to me.

    • Lexistential says:

      1000%. I never thought it was a huge issue until Harry lost his.

  5. Becky Mae says:

    I was an Aussie living in London when she died, I went to the funeral processional along with thousands of others. It was such a strange time, something wasn’t right with all of it. The whole nation came together in collective grief, angry at the paparazzi who, honestly were AWFUL in the 90’s. But this was beyond that, I’m certain she was targeted, 100%…..I just feel for her boys who were robbed of so, so much….Bill is now just Angry but there’s hope with Harry….

  6. SussexWatcher says:

    I don’t believe a word that lying, corrupt family says. In fact, the opposite is probably the truth for whatever they say. So I’m fully convinced now that her security was stripped by the BRF as punishment and, possibly even more sinister, they wanted something to happen to her.

    Didn’t she say in a letter to a friend that she believed they would cut her brakes? So clearly she felt her life was at risk…and if that was the case why would she have rejected security?

    That “family” really is monstrous.

    • Liz in A says:

      Her rejection of The Firm’s security would make absolute perfect sense, if she saw The Firm as her biggest risk.

      Even without death threats, just having their people privy to everything in her life would have been horrible.

  7. YeahRight says:

    They stripped her of her security. They hated Diana, if Charles can strip his own son of security and leak his location just imagine what he did to an ex-wife he was competing in the press with.

    All of William’s evil tricks he learned from his daddy. Many of the things Charles did to Diana William pulled with Meghan.

  8. Mslove says:

    The RF stripped Diana of her HRH title, travel budget, etc, so it would not surprise me if they pulled her security too.

    She knew something was going to happen to her, that’s why the RF are trying to rewrite history, to portray her as paranoid.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      And William, her own son, is complicit in describing Diana as paranoid!

      He’s such a terrible person — but then, that makes him the perfect heir to this royal family.

  9. Christine says:

    Diana’s legacy is just so large. It’s amazing to me how breathtakingly tragic her death is 25 years after the fact. She was one of a kind. We see that more as others come up behind her and just don’t live up. It’s not their fault, it’s just impossible to be like her. Her flaws and her strengths. Her death is still a mystery. They never looked after her. From the beginning. It’s easy to believe that they removed her security. Or that the security were so corrupt that it made her impossible for her. Every year around this time I just keep thinking. What a damn shame. I still have a little bit of sympathy for Will. I know that is not popular here but what those boys went through even with all their privilege is horrific. I hope more truth comes out. As MM said, It didn’t have to be that way. Those are probably the most poignant words I have heard from her because it’s so true. They didn’t have to do Diana like they did. They can operate in a different way. Charles to me is the absolute worse. How does he sleep at night? I will never understand it.

  10. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Clearly they pulled her security. Given how flippantly they did it with Harry, there must have been precedent. She probably also did the Jackie Kennedy thing and got with someone who had his own security, knowing she’d be a target of those she knew any secrets about (the Windsors).

  11. Over it says:

    Gone too soon.

  12. Denise says:

    All I know is that Diana said multiple times, on record, that she is in danger and thinks she will be killed. If I recall correctly she also said how she thinks Charles wants her gone

  13. Sunday says:

    I don’t believe anything the firm has to say about Diana, and “she refused security” is such a gaslight-y, manipulative way to put it that it just smacks of their usual coverups. If she did refuse security, it was probably because those security officers were actively spying on her, or because she didn’t trust them to actually protect her. I’m glad Harry is suing, but I honestly have the same thoughts about the Sussexes having royal protection – can you really feel secure knowing you basically forced people to protect you? Knowing who they really work for? And, in the case of the Sussexes, knowing the disgusting conversations they’ve had about your wife?

    I just watched The Princess and it was horrifying, I can’t imagine what it was like to actually live it. The worst part is seeing the clear parallels to how they’re treating Meghan and Harry. The British press has learned absolutely nothing, it’s truly vile.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Sunday, I too do not believe one word out of the mouth of anyone in the BRF regarding their conditions with personal family members. I do believe that the BRF refused to provide Diana with security and they were instrumental in her decision to take solace with Al-Fayed’s expansive and well trained detail. I too appreciate that Sansum is being vocal about the last few weeks about his conversations with Diana. He, and Diana, were aware that she was being spied upon. You know that Charles wanted to know every movement she made as she was seen as a threat to him.

      I agree with you in regards to the parallel treatment of Diana and Meghan. They are both threats to not only the BM, but most importantly the BRF. We can see that in their daily articles gong from unhinged to out right delusions of grandeur.

      Bullyiam, as well as Charles, are both especially fearful of Meghan dropping receipts as she has stated that she has them. Which resulted in their commentary after she made those statements, which they are still hoping mad about!! Claiming she is out to destroy the Monarchy. Hell, I can see Charles starting to destroy it starting with his rein and Bullyiam causing it to implode. They won’t need Meghans help whatsoever, which is quite comical too!!

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        BothSidesNow, ITA about the treatment of Diana and Meghan being very much alike–add in the racism and xenophobia and I think we’ve got it.

        What is the most interesting thing is that Harry completely overshadows the other members of the brf, too.

        So, they refuse security for Harry and his family? Well, isn’t that interesting. I do hope that there is someone on that island that figures out they have to provide security for the Sussexes (and H will pay). Do they want to have the world asking questions about the brf and UK government if something happens to any of them on their soil?

        I continue to be happy that Princess Di is remembered for all of the good that she did in the world. No matter what those little royals do she will continue to be the spector in their house.

  14. Nlopez says:

    I believe they stripped her of her security. What I don’t understand is William’s behavior. Harry is his brother. William doesn’t seem concerned about his brother and his brother’s family at all. In fact, I think William had a hand in stripping Harry of his security(along with Charles et al..)

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Nlopez, I think W is much like Chuck. He can’t stand that Harry overshadows him. I wonder if Chuck has figured that out?

  15. Nlopez says:

    Good points SAUCY AND SASSY. William & Charles will turn on each other again if one of them starts getting more attention than the other one. Like father like son.

  16. Christine says:

    “so she just happened to get security”

    This is the hard stop. Keep lying, British media and royal family, it will only get worse for you.