Webb believes Diana might not have died in the way she did
Mon 9:34 am +00:00, 1 Dec 2025 2A darker lens on Diana’s panorama interview
Three decades after it first aired, the landmark BBC interview that reshaped public perceptions of Diana, Princess of Wales, is now being cast as something far more troubling—and potentially dangerous—in a new book by former BBC journalist Andy Webb.
Webb, who spoke to the Royalist this week, is the author of Dianarama: The Betrayal of Princess Diana. He argues that Martin Bashir’s 1995 Panorama interview was not only secured through deception but also contributed to the sequence of events that led to Diana’s death in Paris less than two years later.
Had the BBC not concealed how the interview was obtained, Webb believes Diana “might not have died in the way she did.”
His investigation draws on years of reporting and thousands of internal BBC emails obtained through Freedom of Information requests.
Webb details how Bashir produced forged bank statements suggesting people close to Earl Spencer were being paid by hostile media outlets and clandestine “intelligence” groups. Shown first to Spencer, these documents “hooked” Diana, convincing her that sinister forces were closing in.
Already wary of her husband’s circle, Diana was predisposed to believe Bashir’s claims that courtiers, security staff, and even her private secretary were betraying her.
According to Webb, the Panorama interview intensified the collapse of her marriage, hastened her divorce, and influenced her decision to dismiss police protection and trusted staff—people who might have urged caution on the night she died in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel.
Inside the BBC, Webb describes whistleblowers being ignored while senior executives accepted Bashir’s explanations. A 1996 internal review even declared Bashir “honest.”
Only in 2021 did the Dyson report conclude that Bashir had acted deceitfully and that the BBC had fallen “far short” of its own standards. Webb argues that even Dyson avoided fully exposing the depth of the cover-up.
The book arrives just as the BBC faces fresh controversies and as outgoing director-general Tim Davie ends his tenure, overshadowed by successive Panorama-related scandals.
Webb, who keeps a small photo of Diana taped to his computer, poses one stark question: if the corporation could treat the world’s most famous woman this way, why should anyone else trust it?
msn.com
MIles Mathis goes a lot further in the analysis of this famous event. He believes that DIana did not die at all.
If so that could explain why Charles is acting up to the extent that he is.
You can’t click through to the Mathis DIana article at the moment so load the link below into your own address bar.
Why are they blocking Mathis now? It’s been available for years.
Maybe they have become fearful that the real Royal story will finally leak out, and the fact that Diana cooperated with a death narrative as part of the divorce deal.
Harry’s preference to live in the US might indicate where his mother went to live, Bel Air in Los Angeles according to suggestions.
www.mileswmathis.com/diana.pdf
This is all a big clown show. I don’t believe any of the members of the present ‘royal family’ are the original ones, just masked actors. I don’t believe that Diana is dead either.
As for saying the BBC had fallen short of its own standards is really funny, because it doesn’t seem to have any, although whether it ever did is a moot point.
Spivey showed that Diana is a made up character played by several actors [with masks?]. Just a media confection if you like, to entertain and distract the masses
Like Belyi I don’t think that much, if anything, of what we are told about these “royals” is real. Including their genetic bloodline
DNA test anyone? Pigs might fly…. In this day and age a royal DNA test should surely be mandatory? They claim heredity and we cough up millions £ for them based on that claim. So a DNA test should be standard operating procedure for ALL royals, anyone of them who receives income out of our taxes, ie all of them