Jephson: Princess Diana might not have died if she hadn’t given the BBC interview

This year is the 30th anniversary of Princess Diana’s infamous Panorama interview, the one where she spoke publicly about her husband’s adultery, how she believed Charles was unfit for the job of king, and how she knew she would never be queen consort. When the interview aired in 1995, Diana’s private secretary Patrick Jephson resigned. He was upset that Diana cut him out of the discussions for the interview, and he repeatedly told Diana not to give any interviews. In years past, Jephson was painted as someone more loyal to the crown than Diana, and that he resigned because he couldn’t deal with Diana specifically. But I think there’s more nuance to it. Jephson recently spoke to The T Podcast, the Telegraph’s in-house pod, and he says in so many words that once Panorama came out, he felt like Diana sealed her own fate. Which is a huge f–king deal to say out loud, that he believes Diana would still be alive if she had never talked on camera. He also said some interesting stuff about how the left-behind royals are giant dumbasses who have tanked the monarchy’s popularity.

The Panorama interview is the reason why Diana died: Those closest to her, including Jephson, now believe that she may not have died less than two years later in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris if she hadn’t given the interview that prompted her divorce from Prince Charles and alienated her from those who had dedicated their careers to protecting her. Jephson : “She was going to be the next queen, but for Bashir, it’s not impossible that she would still have been the next queen. There is therefore everything for her sons to regret in not being able to observe at firsthand how she handled the responsibilities and demands of her life as a princess and future consort. They never had the benefit of her guidance as they grew through their teenage years or into adulthood. I do hope that they understand that there was far more to her life than the rather simplistic image we have in the statue in the grounds of Kensington Palace. The great shame to me is that the family she married into failed to take her seriously and, as a result, denied the country a priceless asset. They let her slip through their fingers and we’ve all been the poorer as a result.”

The declining popularity of the Windsors: “I think that when all the history books are written about this period, there will be criticism for those who have been responsible for the management of the royal brand, of the royal institution generally. There has been a succession of poor decisions and there isn’t space for many more. There was a bottomless reservoir of goodwill towards the monarchy. British people express their patriotism through this family. That puts an extra burden on them to be worthy of that trust and there’s a lot of damage that has been done to that relationship; I think that it’s going to be an uphill job to repair it. The future of the monarchy now comes down essentially to the Prince and Princess of Wales.”

The briefing campaign against Diana: “[In the early 1990s] It was a very unpleasant period that the media came to refer to as the Battle of the Waleses, when I became aware that some in her husband’s camp were briefing against her.” It was a political-style campaign, he says, and extremely stressful for those on the receiving end.

The Panorama interview: Jephson became aware that Diana was “taking her PR into her own hands”, but he had no idea she had recorded the interview with Bashir until it was “in the can”. “She did feel that the establishment media was ranged against her and this was something which the Prince’s advisers took full advantage of. I was aware that she was keen for her side of things to be known. My belief was that her best argument was to carry on doing her job and be photographed doing it. She just needed to get on with working hard and being herself. She didn’t need fancy spin-doctoring.”

The what-ifs: “It’s easy to get into lots of what-ifs, but I think some of them are legitimate now. I do believe that by listening to Bashir, by believing the lies he told not just about me but about a number of people close to her, she lost confidence in the wider aspects of the royal machine, which she found irksome sometimes. It’s easy to make fun of things like protocol and proper organisation, but they are there for a purpose. They have the simple intention of keeping them safe and able to do their job. The visit to Paris in 1997 was a private visit, but I’d been there many times with Diana. There were particular hazards involved, particularly the paparazzi, and we had dealt with them in the past. I have no doubt we would have dealt with them again, but by putting herself in the hands of people who were not competent to look after her, Diana hugely increased the risk of something bad happening. And indeed it did.”

Smearing a dead woman: When “the forces that had been hostile to Diana redoubled their efforts after she died”, Jephson was determined to set the record straight. “There were very systematic attempts to paint her as having been in some way mentally not up to the job.” He cites Penny Junor’s 1998 book Charles: Victim or Villain, which suggested that the princess had been mentally ill. “All sorts of untrue and very hurtful things were being written about my late boss; I felt it was right for me to do something to redress the imbalance so that whatever was written about Diana in the rest of history, they would find my little tuppenceworth in the pile there somewhere.”

[From The Telegraph]

“She was going to be the next queen, but for Bashir, it’s not impossible that she would still have been the next queen.” Hard disagree – Diana wanted to give an interview and tell her side of the story. Jephson and many others act as if she was a confused little girl – while Bashir manipulated her and fed her lies, Diana spoke her truth and she wanted to get everything out there before she was placed under a gag order from the divorce. She waited to speak until her marriage was irretrievably broken and she waited until knew that she and Charles would divorce. Diana understood something fundamental: she had to get her story out, lest Charles’s version of events become the sole narrative. Charles has spent the past 30 years trying to delegitimize Diana and her own words, that’s how important her interview was. Jephson even acknowledges that Charles was waging a full-blown campaign against Diana as well.

As for what Jephson skirts around for this current generation of left-behinds… it sounds like he doesn’t think much of Charles’s reign, and he doesn’t think there will be much support for the monarchy left for William and Waity. Oh well!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images. Screencap from Panorama.

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

43 Responses to “Jephson: Princess Diana might not have died if she hadn’t given the BBC interview”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Inge says:

    That is a hugely offensive thing to say, victim shaming remains rife.

    And as usual everyone stays silent on Charles biography

    • Happy Peregrine says:

      How about “if Charles had not waged such a smear campaign against her, she might still be alive”.

      Diana spoke out because of Charles’s actions and the violence she experienced at the hands of the institution she married into and the press who were set upon her by her husband.

      The interview did not result in her death. She was right not to trust the palace and its minions. People seem to forget how untouchable and powerful they were and, in many ways, still are. She had been betrayed by more people that most of us can imagine and been let down in every way imaginable by the people she was supposed to be able to turn to for help and comfort and support.

      Yet everyone is still trying to stop her words from being heard 30 years after her death. She was and is a powerful woman to have people trying to silence her so long after her death.

  2. Tessa says:

    Diana never would have become queen. Even without the interview.Camilla and her first husband got divorced after Charles named her. Charles treated Diana with contempt. She was looking to possibly remarry.

    • OriginalMich says:

      Yep. As he says, Charles had already launched a campaign against her in the press. He had no intention of staying married to her.

      • Happy Peregrine says:

        Frankly, he probably had started one when he saw how well people responded to her. Because he didn’t want to be a part of a beloved philanthropic couple. He wanted all the love for himself. And he wrongly felt love and admiration for anyone else close to him was stealing love that was clearly meant for him instead.

        Charles views love as conditional and finite. Because he doesn’t understand it. Love and respect and admiration are things owed to him by the people as their duty. Any time any is shunted off to another person, it’s stealing from him, the true intended recipient of that love.

        He’s a horrific human being who has consistently made the lives of the people around him poorer by his actions and choices.

  3. So again if she would have kept her mouth shut and not told her side of the story she would be her today? Wow!! Then seeing that she did tell her story who does that leave for them to want her unalived? Is he in a small stupid way telling us something a lot of people already believe? I say yes he is. Also show the danger that Harry and Meg are in because they told their side of the story but Harry and Meg told it from the USA!

    • Bings says:

      Sinister isn’t it.

      I have always maintained that the Oprah interview was done to save their lives. Harry and Meghan had a deep understanding of what could happen to them in the fallout of them leaving the Firm. They went to Oprah to have some protection. Spare was protection. It is why the royalists are is angry. Everything Meghan and Harry has done, they did with the understanding that they were in grave danger. So we really have to thank God and his angels for watching over them.

    • DK says:

      Yeah, I think he’s asking us to read between the lines.

  4. Tessa says:

    Penny gaslit Diana. After Diana died. And she said she had c and c cooperation. Ingrid trashed Diana also and still does today.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Sally Bedell Smith also trashed Diana in her biography, writing that she had borderline personality disorder.

      • Happy Peregrine says:

        The borderline personality diagnosis has really stuck around. And has never seemed to be remotely accurate.

        CPTSD presents similarly to borderline personality in some areas. And that diagnosis makes legitimate sense.

      • Tessa says:

        Be dell smith gaslit diana. She got the so called diagnosis from a textbook diagnosis by dimbleby who was considering putting this in charles authorized biography. Since diana was still alive he did not put this in his book. Diana would have sued him. The spencers should have sued be dell smith.

  5. Ginger says:

    These people really don’t want woman to talk at all. It’s sickening.

  6. OriginalMich says:

    I feel like some people commenting did not read what he actually said. His motivations are from a good place. He specifically says that amongst the smear campaigns against her, he wants his two cents out there to act as a counterbalance.

    I don’t think he needs to worry about how she will be seen by the writers of history books. The focus will absolutely be on what a miserable family she married into.

    He’s got the right of it with this: “The great shame to me is that the family she married into failed to take her seriously and, as a result, denied the country a priceless asset. They let her slip through their fingers and we’ve all been the poorer as a result.”

    • Happy Peregrine says:

      I thought that was a brilliant quote because of how well it immediately brought Meghan to mind as well. How Diana was persecuted and how Meghan is now.

    • jais says:

      There were some good parts to what he said for sure. But he drops the ball at saying Diana shouldn’t have done an interview and that had she not, she would have been alive. He has all the dots there but he doesn’t connect them. He admits that Charles was running a political-style smear campaign against her at the time, which good. Put the blame there and keep the blame there. Diana wanting to share her side after her husband had been running a smear campaign on her shouldn’t be a place of blame. The fact that she didn’t stay silent should not be a source of blame for her death.

      • Bings says:

        Actually he is stating the reason for her demise. He is drawing the dotted line.

      • Happy Peregrine says:

        I agree with you that this man is problematic and seems to hold toxic views. He could have just said that her giving that interview was so important to her regardless of the manipulation used to convince her settle on that specific journalist. She gave voice to her side of the story and her real feelings even if the person she spoke to was not acting in a remotely ethical manner.

        He can say that he felt that once she gave that interview that her life was in genuine danger and that’s what had made him so upset. Not that she had said what she needed to say, but the clear danger she now faced. The unfairness of it. The wrongness.

        But he acts as if she had just pretended everything was fine, ignored the mistress in her bed, been inauthentic to who she was and if she had BETRAYED HERSELF by keeping calm and carrying on in the face of character assassination and a soul destroying smear campaign – then maybe she would still be alive.

        The only thing she did was tell the truth. Death should not be an inevitable result of that.

      • OriginalMich says:

        @Happy Peregrine.

        Did you read the outtake of the interview? That is not what he said: “I do believe that by listening to Bashir, by believing the lies he [told her] … she lost confidence in the wider aspects of the royal machine… It’s easy to make fun of things like protocol and proper organisation, but they are there for a purpose. …. by putting herself in the hands of people who were not competent to look after her, Diana hugely increased the risk of something bad happening.”

        I cried as much as anyone when she died, but that is absolutely true. The Fayeds had zero experience with the kind of attention Diana garnered or the aggressiveness of the Parisian paparazzi.

      • Happy Peregrine says:

        I read it. And I dont think it changes or contradicts anything that I said.

        He says the interview led to her death. Not that man’s manipulation and lies.

        And frankly, she was absolutely right not to trust the palace and its minions to protect her. They were the source of all of her pain. Why on earth would they be the source of her protection and peace? I think that’s wildly naive to think she wouldn’t have died if she had palace protection when she died from the Palace’s media attacks and attention.
        Also. She wasn’t dating Dodi until almost two years after her interview and she was fully divorced. The Royal Family didn’t even want to give her a royal funeral. But you think they would have happily given her Royal protection?

        Also. It has never ever been confirmed that Diana refused security. It was out there by the palace. Remind me again what kind of lies and spin they have played with the Sussexes promised security?

      • jais says:

        Yeah, I don’t believe that Diana was given full blanket security after the divorce. I think she was only given security for palace approved work events. I can believe she didn’t want an RPO once or twice at these events. But I think that narrative is mostly used to shield the fact that she was never given full security in the first place. If she just wanted to go out to dinner then she wouldn’t have security bc it wasn’t a work event. And obviously she wanted to live her life. From what I can tell, what’s being said here, by Jephsen, is that by giving an interview, Diana caused the divorce and created her own lack of security. If she’d stayed quiet and married to Charles, then she would be safe. Nevermind the fact that Charles was cheating and smearing her in the press which is what led her to do the interview. He and his family should be to blame. And no I don’t believe the Windsors gave her full security after the divorce. They were using the security to try and control her.

    • Sherry says:

      Agreed. And, as much as it seems like the British public accepted Camilla and Charles being together, for me, it is forever tainted by how badly Diana was manipulated and mistreated by the entire royal family.

      • kelleybelle says:

        I will never consider that miserable cur a queen by any stretch of the imagination. She’s a boozing female boor.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Eurydice, don’t worry, absolutely no one thinks of her as the Queen and never will. “The Queen” will always be Elizabeth. (and the PoW will always be Diana)

  7. Amy Bee says:

    I think the interview would have happened regardleas because BP was smearing her so much. She wanted her side of story out and it would seem the Royal Family still hasn’t learned from what happened to Diana. Ultimately the blame for her death lies with the Palace and the press not the BBC interview.

  8. IdlesAtCranky says:

    “If only she’d kept her mouth shut and done what I told her, she’d be alive today and she’d be Queen! IT’S NOT MY FAULT!”

    What a lot of self-serving misogynistic bullshit.

    • MsIam says:

      Jephson seems to think that Diana was raised in the shadow of the Victorian age where women looked the other way and accepted cheating like the queen did. “Shut up and be happy with the clothes and jewelry and your occasional lover on the side.” Yes, she MIGHT still be alive but is that really living?

  9. Maja says:

    Absolute bullshit🤢

  10. Paula Ziegler says:

    Death should not be a result of telling the truth but it often is.
    Diana was no match for Camilla and Charles and their minions.
    She could have waited to be in a safer place before doing her interview.
    Harry learned from her experience. And seems to have escaped successfully.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      I agree that Harry learned from Diana’s experience. Speaking out from California was so much safer than speaking out in London, so close to the vipers’ nest.

      But Diana was years away from making her escape. She probably didn’t think she had any choice.

      • Blubb says:

        Yes, Harry could leave with his family to Meghan’s home. If Diana left for the US, she might have lost her children.

      • Tessa says:

        Diana could have had a home on the us that she could retreat to. She could not have moved out of the UK and left her sons.

  11. Saucy&Sassy says:

    “She did feel that the establishment media was ranged against her and this was something which the Prince’s advisers took full advantage of. I was aware that she was keen for her side of things to be known. ”

    That’s really the story here. Diana did the interview because she wanted to. Did she choose Bashir because of his lies? Probably. That doesn’t make the interview any less real and truthful. Her story will be part of the history books. There was a transcript of that interview which many people have (I do), so it will never be forgotten.

  12. JudyB says:

    Since when is telling the truth, “fancy spin-doctoring?”

    The author of the article makes it sound as if Diana was responsible, not only for her own death, but for all the problems of the royal family, and possibly the British economy!!

    Maybe she would not have died in a horrible accident if she had not married an unfeeling, lying, manipulating, ignorant, and self-justifying person!!

    • FancyPants says:

      If you are not wearing a seatbelt in a car with a drunk driver, you could die no matter who you married or what interview you gave.

      • Happy Peregrine says:

        There are massive holes in both claims. That Diana chose not to wear her seatbelt. And that her driver was drunk. Neither of these seem to be the truth.

      • Tessa says:

        The paparazzi car chase. The ambulance bypassing a hospital 10 minutes away. The deploying of a car which had been stolen. Reports of seatbelts malfunctioning. Diana had always buckled up according to her sisters. If driver drunk why was he allowed to take wheel. Sole survivor the security guard has amnesia. Passing it off as Diana and the seatbelt and driver is to me wrong on many levels.

      • Tessa says:

        Diana was not careless about seatbelts. Her sisters who actually went with her on automobile trips said she always buckled up. The seatbelts malfunctioned. Diana would have reached for a seatbelt in a car chase .they did not work. And how come the scene of the accident was cleared up so fast.

  13. bisynaptic says:

    I feel for this guy. It sounds like he was rightly very fond of Diana.

  14. phlyfiremanai says:

    Are they REALLY trying to blame Princess Diana for her own death?? What a….choice. A horrible choice. HOW is this going to embiggen Wills & Charles?! Because…ummm… or is this just a poorly veiled threat to Harry & Meghan, instead?? Again, that is a…choice.