Princess Diana & Jimmy Savile: New Details & Analysis
This article is an extension of my article “The Princess & The Pedophile”, which should be read first. Here I will discuss two new areas of findings and analysis that help bolster the overall story.
Diana’s Cryptic Panorama Interview Answers: When Princess Diana sat down for the Panorama interview with Martin Bashir, she thought that Tiggy Legg-Bourke was the object of her husband’s affection. Bashir allegedly convinced Princess Diana that Charles had impregnated Legg-Bourke and there was an alleged fake receipt for an abortion that was among Bashir’s plethora of forged documents. When Princess Diana told her lawyer Lord Mishcon of the plot to kill or incapacitate her, she also expressed that she thought the same would happen to Camilla Parker-Bowles and that both of them were going to be “put aside” so that Charles was free to marry Legg-Bourke. She told Lord Mishcon that "Camilla was not really Charles's lover, but a decoy for his real favourite, the nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke". Due to the revelations of Bashir’s deceptive tactics, the BBC ended up directly paying Legge-Bourke a substantial yet undisclosed amount in damages.
And then when asked in the interview directly “ Do you think Mrs. Parker-Bowles was a factor in the breakdown of your marriage?”, Diana’s answer was that “Well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.”
She could’ve simply answered with a “yes”, but she went on to give the most remembered and resonant line of the entire interview. She clearly thought that Legg-Bourke was the problem, not Parker-Bowles. Her answer wasn’t just to wax poetic, it was to obscure the meaning and to thread the needle between her public concerns and her private concerns.
Andy Webb -the journalist that broke the story of Martin Bashir’s deceptive tactics- has said that “It is [the meeting with Lord Mishcon] where Diana actually lays out in a private context the picture as she really believes it to be. The Panorama interview was somewhat of a performative exercise. Diana had sort of worked out a gameplan whereby she would say this publicly whereby in fact this is what she believes privately. It is to handle what she believed privately to be the case, that she then goes on TV and says the things that she said.”
With all that in mind, let’s examine this exchange from the Panorama interview:
Diana: “People's agendas changed overnight. I was now separated wife of the Prince of Wales, I was a problem, I was a liability (seen as), and how are we going to deal with her? This hasn't happened before.
Bashir: “Who was asking those questions?
Diana: “People around me, people in this environment, and ...
Bashir: “The royal household?
Diana: “People in my environment, yes, yes.
Bashir: “And they began to see you as a problem?
Diana: “Yes, very much so, uh,uh.
Bashir: “How did that show itself?
Diana: “By visits abroad being blocked, by things that had come naturally my way being stopped, letters going, that got lost, and various things.
Bashir: “So despite the fact that your interest was always to continue with your duties, you found that your duties were being held from you?
Diana: “Yes. Everything changed after we separated, and life became very difficult then for me.
Bashir: “Who was behind that change?
Diana: “Well, my husband's side were very busy stopping me.
She describes being thwarted by “people in this environment” to which Bashir asks “The royal household?” but Diana stays firm and reiterates “people in my environment” as if those words were chosen very deliberately and carefully. “The royal household” of course refers to the collective departments of employees that support the royal family. In the interview she repeatedly uses the terms her “husband’s side” and her “husband’s department”, and one would assume that would refer to the official institution of employees around him. Who else would exist within Diana’s “environment” outside of “the royal household” that is capable of effecting the ongoings within Kensington Palace where Diana operated? Maybe the man who was able to show up unannounced and “would manage to persuade the police on the gate, who never let anyone in without an invitation, to walk in” so that he could “check in on her.” Diana says that “people in her environment” were calling her a problem, and as Charles would quip, “If there was a problem that needed sorting out, they'll get Jim to do it because 'Jim'll fix it'.”
Diana’s Handwritten Letters:
In 2023, a trove of letters from Princess Diana to her friends Susie & Tarek Kassem were sold off on Lay’s Auctioneers. The letters span the years of 1995 to 1997 and are incredibly friendly - lots of thanking for gifts and reminiscing on how lovely their recent get-together was. The letters are handwritten, which is a personal touch that Princess Diana was known for. There are dozens upon dozens of Diana’s handwritten letters to friends and loved ones out there. Articles have been written about this habit of hers, and after her wedding she reportedly “sat down to answer many of the 47,000 letters of congratulation and 10,000 gifts which the wedding generated.”
In the trove of handwritten letters to Susie & Tarek Kassem, she even wrote a letter on October 10th 1995 which is the same day she wrote to Jimmy Savile.
She had previously sent other letters to Jimmy Savile in 1987, 1990, and 1991 and each of these was written by hand with her signature personal touch.
But then on October 10th 1995 - after sending a personal handwritten letter to Susie Kassem - she switches over to her typewriter for the letter to Savile that has raised so many red flags in my research of this subject.
Diana’s personability and ability to connect with people was widely regarded as her super power. It gained her favorability with the public over the more traditionally distant members of the royal family and metaphorically crowned her as “The People’s Princess”.
On the surface, her October 10th 1995 letter to Savile was very friendly and fawning, and I have made my case that this cordiality seems to exist only at the surface. Why would she abstain from her signature handwritten touch in this seemingly friendly letter when she was already producing handwritten letters to her friends on that very same day?
Please subscribe to my Substack to stay up to date on this story. I am continuing to explore every avenue possible to build the story further.