Diana_Her True Story_In Her Own Words_25th Anniversary Edition

by Andrew Morton

  A children’s playground and a memorial Diana walkway in Kensington Gardens fared better and are both still enjoyed by the public. Noticeably no member of the royal family, not even William or Harry, was present when the projects were opened by Earl Spencer and the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, respectively. The royal family seemed all too happy to let Diana rest in peace, her memory unobserved, her life and achievements forgotten. They were conspicuous in their absence at any event relating to the late Princess. So it was that a hospice outside Cardiff, a hospital in Grimsby, a community nursing home for sick children and other projects, all named after the late Princess, were dedicated without remark or appearance from the House of Windsor.

  The huge public turnout for the Queen Mother’s funeral in March 2002 and the warm response to the Queen’s Golden Jubilee later that year demonstrated that the Queen still enjoyed the affection of the nation in spite of the friction during the week of Diana’s funeral. At a parade which formed the centrepiece of the Golden Jubilee celebrations Diana was relegated to a drive-on part, appearing as a cut-out figure on one of the convoy of floats that paraded down the Mall past the royal party, which included Camilla Parker Bowles. As novelist Robert Harris observed: ‘Not since Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1929 has a prominent public figure been so comprehensively airbrushed out of the nation’s public life.’

  What then of her living legacy, Princes William and Harry? Their interventions during the great Diana debate had been sporadic, in 1998 urging the public to stop grieving and move on and then accusing their mother’s butler Paul Burrell of a ‘cold and overt’ betrayal when he published his memoirs. There were other reasons for their considered silence. Their father had been buoyed and gratified by a huge surge of sympathy as he was now viewed as a single parent bringing up two teenage sons on his own. Instinctively the boys didn’t want to do anything that would rock the family boat and so they tiptoed around the whole issue of what to say and how to remember their mother.

  There was also the Camilla issue to contend with. Though William was unhappy about being used to help rehabilitate her in the public mind, his alternative options were limited. Put simply, he didn’t want to upset his dad. As the Prince’s biographer Penny Junor remarked: ‘While they love their father he is a complex man who is difficult to be the son of. They are very careful of his sensitivities and dance around them a lot.’

  Nor were they at all comfortable about giving vent to private grief in public. Of the two brothers, it was William in particular who had a visceral loathing of the media for their perceived role in his mother’s death. He was certainly not willing to reflect on his loss in public. In what became a mini crisis for the monarchy, in the immediate aftermath of Diana’s death William even considered withdrawing from public life altogether. He needed much convincing to stay on course and recommit to his lifelong destiny. Prince Philip was the guiding hand here. In the week of Diana’s death, William’s grandfather was deeply concerned about the emotional state of the future king. During a conference call between Balmoral and Downing Street he butted in and told the shocked listeners: ‘Our worry at the moment is William. He’s run away up the hill and we can’t find him.’ He was eventually coaxed down by his sympathetic grandfather. As the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, later commented in his memoir: ‘He knew now if he didn’t before what being a prince and a king meant. For all the sense of duty, the prison walls of hereditary tradition must have seemed too high a price to pay.’

  Worse still, the two princes seemed to have no privacy even when they were off duty. Uncannily, their every movement and plan was monitored by the media. Personal arrangements, plans for birthday presents and even medical visits were all known by one newspaper in particular, the News of the World, and its royal correspondent Clive Goodman. It appeared to William and Harry that there were numerous so-called friends inside their different circles tipping off the media about their movements. For a young man who likes to be in control of his life, William felt under siege. It became all-consuming, the brothers distrusting everyone, a feeling that communicated itself to William’s then girlfriend, Catherine Middleton, who doubtless worried that her family and friends could be thought to be leaking information. In November 2005, by a stroke of luck, they discovered that their telephone messages were being intercepted by Goodman and others. Their story would go on to become a key thread in the infamous phone tapping scandal, eventually leading to the closure of the News of the World, the jailing of Goodman and others, as well as the Leveson inquiry into press freedom and ethics.

  Though the public implications were considerable, in personal terms the realization that their friends were not routinely betraying their confidences was both a release and a revelation for the young princes. ‘It was a transformative moment in their dealings with the outside world,’ comments a friend who was present during the original police investigation. ‘From then on they were able to relax; at last they were able to distinguish between their private and public lives.’

  Brothers grim no longer, they emerged as jaunty and jovial impresarios, organizing a pop concert held in July 2007 at Wembley Stadium in memory of their mother to mark the tenth anniversary of her death. William’s sunny mood may have had something to do with his reconciliation with Catherine following a brief break-up. Fondly remembering their mother dancing barefoot to Michael Jackson in her sitting room, the princes wanted to convey her love of life, sense of fun and passion for dance and musicals. Not only did the concert raise £1.2 million for charities supported by Diana, it marked a major public step change: from then on, the princes would actively and consistently honour her legacy.

  As boys they had toed the royal family line and had spoken, if at all, in hushed tones about their mother. As mature young men they made their own decisions, defying perhaps the wishes of the Queen and certainly their father, to honour their mother in the way that they felt she should be remembered. Their careful tiptoeing through the minefield that is Diana’s legacy would have amused their mother. When she died she was no longer part of the royal family but her values had resonated with modern Britain and beyond. Her boys, now young men, wished to honour that. None more so than Prince Harry.

  During a service of remembrance held at London’s Guards’ Chapel in the presence of the Queen and the Spencer family, Harry spoke movingly about his mother. It was a tribute from the heart, the Prince saying that their lives were divided into two parts – when their mother was alive and the ten years since her tragic death. When she was alive they took for granted ‘her love of life, laughter, fun and folly. She was our guardian, friend and protector.’ Rescuing her from the mire of controversy, her memory in danger of being forgotten or misrepresented, Harry wanted the world to remember the mother he lost and thought of every day. It was a positive message about an extraordinary human being, ‘fun-loving, generous, down to earth, entirely genuine’, who had made them and many others happy. This is how he wanted his mother to be remembered. Years later Harry confessed that he wished that he had spoken about her much, much sooner. He admitted: ‘I never really dealt with what had happened. It was a lot of buried emotion. For a huge part of my life I didn’t really want to think about it.’

  Perhaps the moment that truly cemented Diana at the heart of the monarchy for generations to come took place in the Entrée Room at St James’s Palace on 16 November 2010, when Catherine Middleton and Prince William confronted the world on their engagement day. Comparisons between Diana, the woman who said she would never ascend the throne, and the girl who will one day be crowned Queen were inevitable – and plentiful. It was all eerily similar to Diana’s big day in 1981: the blue dress, the nervous voices, the hesitant body language. Taking pride of place was Catherine’s engagement ring, the same sapphire and diamond worn by William’s mother. It was the clearest signal yet that while Diana might be gone she was not forgotten. ‘This was my way of keeping her close to it all,’ William explained.

  Left unsaid was the fact
that the failure of his parents’ marriage had given William the latitude to spend plenty of time finding a partner who would be a lover, companion and supporter no matter her social class. Catherine became the first commoner in 400 years to marry into the royal family. The days when Prince Charles was under pressure to marry a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant aristocratic virgin, such as Diana, are gone for good. At the time of writing Harry is in a serious relationship with Meghan Markle, a divorced activist Hollywood actress three years his senior and with a black mother who lives in a down-at-heel Los Angeles community. Whether or not it ends in wedding bells, it is a sign of how far the royal family have come. Not so long ago Prince Andrew was discouraged from pursuing his suit with another American actress, Koo Stark, because of her appearance in a movie where clothing was an optional extra.

  If William’s engagement ensured that Diana stayed at the heart of his family, the wedding of the Prince and Catherine Middleton at Westminster Abbey on 29 April 2011 marked a genuine transition for the royal family and the public. While the memory of Diana was in the minds of many – one woman spectator remarked: ‘When the sun came out just as Kate reached the altar we knew it was Diana’ – the wedding marked a new chapter in the unfolding royal story. The memories of that September day in 1997 when William and Harry walked solemnly behind their mother’s funeral cortege were now overlaid by the sight of the smiling prince and his enchanting bride ready to begin a new life together. That he and Catherine named their second child Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana was an unmistakable gesture to the two women in William’s life whom he respected and loved above all others.

  William, Harry and now Catherine have all picked up the baton of charity work for which Diana is most admired. During its 16-year history, the Memorial Fund, in spite of its rocky inception, gave away a staggering £138 million to over 400 deserving charities, mainly to disadvantaged people on the margins of society, the very groups Diana had championed in her life. ‘Her probable effect on charity,’ according to one senior fund raiser, ‘is more significant than any other person’s in the twentieth century.’ As Andrew Purkis, the former chief executive, recalls: ‘I do think that the Princess was understood by many to be willing to reach out to stigmatized, marginalized groups like people who are dying, lepers, those suffering from HIV/Aids and so on.’

  Though the Fund closed in 2013, in March that year the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry took over legal ownership of the charity. More importantly, the trio have continued and developed her work; a new generation with new ideas but the same ethos. Thus, Harry visited minefields in Mozambique in 2010 and Angola in 2013 to see the work of HALO, the landmine clearance organization passionately backed by the late Princess. The image of her walking alone through a recently cleared minefield is one of the most vivid representations of her humanitarian mission. For Harry the trip was very much a chance to follow in his mother’s footsteps. His support of the National Aids Trust, and the Sentebale charity in Lesotho that helps orphan children, many suffering from AIDS, is testimony to his determination to keep his mother’s flame alive.

  Just as his mother reached out to those at the margins, so William has focused attention on the cyberbullying of young people on social media, especially those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. He hosted a meeting of LGBT youngsters at Kensington Palace and even appeared on the cover of the gay magazine Attitude. Harry, who served in the Army for a decade, undertaking two tours of duty in Afghanistan, has enthusiastically embraced the Help for Heroes charity, which supports wounded soldiers as they try to rebuild their lives. He has taken a leaf out of his mother’s playbook and spends time on private visits to the recovery unit at Headley Court where he meets wounded servicemen face to face on fact-finding missions. ‘It’s important to do stuff behind the scenes,’ he says. ‘It’s something that our mother did a lot of and that’s the time that you really get to learn and you actually get the honest truth out of people.’ The Prince is also the founder of the Invictus Games, an international multi-sport event in which wounded, injured or sick armed services personnel take part in a variety of competitive sports, including wheelchair basketball and indoor rowing. In 2017 the games take place in Toronto, Canada, where Harry first met his current flame, Meghan Markle.

  Like their mother, the two princes are willing to take on taboo or unpopular issues in order to provoke discussion and awareness. William, Harry and the Duchess of Cambridge joined together to found the Heads Together charity to help tackle the stigma of those suffering from depression and other unresolved mental illnesses. Their own willingness to speak out about their feelings towards their mother, their regrets and their memories has helped them engage and emotionally connect with others suffering from loss, bereavement and trauma.

  In the popular imagination, William and Harry are considered their mother’s rather than their father’s sons, continuing her work in a way that reflects her essence, young men who, like their mother, are open, frank and human. There are none of the strangled feelings of their father – ‘Whatever love means’ – or the impassive stoicism of the Queen, who is frequently described as ‘tightly wrapped’. In that regard Diana’s determination to raise her boys so that they weren’t afraid to express their feelings or show that they are human has paid off handsomely. Her friend Julia Samuel, co-founder of the Child Bereavement Trust, witnessed this at first hand, recalling being ‘incredibly moved and touched’ by William’s honesty about his own feelings when, in support of the charity, he wrote a few words about his mother: ‘Life has altered as you know it and not a day goes past without you thinking about the one you have lost. I know that over time it is possible to learn to live with what has happened and, with the passing of the years, to retain or rediscover cherished memories.’

  All the evidence suggests that Diana’s size-nine heels, what she called her ‘tart’s trotters’, will be firmly imprinted on the monarchy for several generations to come. When the Queen dies, Prince Charles’s reign will be something of an interregnum, rather like the brief reign of Edward Vll. He has had a lifetime to ponder on how to project the image and work of the monarchy. Given his constitutional interests, particularly in influencing politicians and his focus on architecture, the environment and organic farming, it will be very different in style and substance to the monarchy imagined by the late humanitarian Princess. Her impact will be with King William and through him, his heirs, Prince George and Princess Charlotte.

  In spite of the continuation of her work by her children, there are those, like Pulitzer-prize-winning writer Anne Applebaum among others, who have argued that the Princess’s legacy is pea sized and her impact transitory. In a historical comparison she is often viewed as a latter-day Princess Caroline of Brunswick, who was married to the Prince of Wales, later King George IV. Like Diana she was cast out of court and even barred from the Coronation of her husband in 1821, a victim of the devious royal family. Like Diana she was wildly popular, this first ‘People’s princess’ becoming a rallying point for dissent. When she died three weeks after the coronation, thousands lined the route of her funeral cortege. Now she is but an entertaining footnote in history. Unlike Diana, though, she left no living legacy to continue her work. Diana most surely did. Even when they were part-time royals – Harry as an Apache helicopter pilot, William an air ambulance pilot – it was evident that Diana’s legacy would be at the very heart of their charity work. Now that both princes have pledged themselves to work for the monarchy fulltime, that commitment will only expand.

  While it is true that her death did not change the country, it was a jolting wake-up call for the monarchy, forcing the Sovereign and her family to recognize that the country was changing and that the Windsors were not representing that transformation. It was clear that many, particularly those in the shadows of society, felt that they were represented more by Diana than by the House of Windsor. Many felt themselves excluded from the traditional model of monarchy which
, as historian Professor John Taylor has argued, is defined by household and family.

  If, as French sociologist Émile Durkheim reasons, society has a shared sense of values known as the collective conscience, then it could be said that Diana played a role in expanding it, or in Diana’s case the idea might be better phrased as the collective constituency. During her lifetime, and certainly after her death, she broadened what could be said and done and by whom. In the process she made the monarchy, or at least her version of that venerable institution, feel more inclusive.

  Psychotherapist Dr Nicole Gehl observed: ‘Her impact on the world has a lot to do with how people identified with her. They saw her as a rebel and a victim at the same time and she shook up the monarchy. In her fragility there was a lot of strength.’ During the historic and unruly funeral week Diana was remembered as embracing and approachable, the royal family viewed as exclusive, distant and aloof. In short Diana was seen as a noble outsider, the House of Windsor as ignoble insiders.

  The failure to fly the Union flag at half mast, the decision by the Queen to stay at Balmoral rather than heading to the nation’s capital, and the royal family’s failure to make any substantive statement about the Princess, had outraged many. At a time when leadership was needed, the House of Windsor dropped the baton, leaving others such as Prime Minister Tony Blair to articulate the nation’s profound sense of loss.