Thirty years after Princess Diana’s bombshell BBC Panorama interview, the revelations, repercussions, and regrets from that fateful night in 1995 show no signs of fading from public consciousness. As the anniversary passes, a new book titled Dianarama: The Betrayal of Princess Diana by Andy Webb lands on shelves, promising fresh insights and unsettling claims about how journalist Martin Bashir secured the interview—and how it may have altered the course of Diana’s life and the Royal Family itself.
Back in November 1995, the world watched as a vulnerable Diana, just 34 years old, sat with Martin Bashir for a 54-minute interview that would shake the monarchy. She spoke candidly about her struggles with bulimia, the loneliness of royal life, and, most famously, uttered the now-iconic line, “there were three of us in this marriage,” referencing Prince Charles’s relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles. According to HELLO! magazine, the interview marked a pivotal moment in royal history, exposing personal pain and institutional secrets to an audience of millions.
But as Andy Webb details in Dianarama, the interview’s origins were far from straightforward. Webb, who spent more than two decades investigating the episode, reveals that Bashir’s methods were not just unconventional—they were outright deceitful. To win Diana’s trust, Bashir first targeted her brother, Earl Spencer, presenting him with forged bank statements that suggested members of Diana’s inner circle were being paid by MI5. Webb reports that Bashir also spun a web of falsehoods, including claims that Prince Edward had AIDS and that William and Harry’s former nanny, Tiggy Legge-Bourke, had an affair with Charles and aborted his child. Diana believed these lies so deeply that she confronted Tiggy during a Christmas lunch, a moment recounted in detail by Webb.
Webb further describes Bashir as “pathologically, compellingly charming” and “ruthless” in his pursuit. He recounts how Bashir handed Earl Spencer a two-way earpiece device, supposedly to help him record conversations and protect against surveillance—a ploy that only deepened the paranoia within Diana’s circle. “He was trying to make me paranoid,” Spencer told Webb. “It was all sort of, ‘You’re in really dangerous waters here, and I’m your friend, Martin. I’m going to make it all OK. Here’s a gimmick that’ll help you.’”
Bashir’s ambitions, according to Webb, extended beyond television. Drawing inspiration from Andrew Morton’s best-selling biography of Diana, Bashir allegedly sought a £1.5 million book deal of his own, hoping to capitalize on his proximity to the princess. In emails obtained by Webb, Bashir boasted about his relationship with Diana, even claiming to have written her speeches and cooked pasta for her at Kensington Palace before the interview. “I may yet tell the story of my relationship to royalty and produce all of the documents that prove there was no deception,” Bashir wrote to a BBC executive, as cited by Webb.
Yet the deception ran even deeper. Days before the Panorama interview, Diana met with her lawyer, Lord Mishcon, and confided fears that she might be the victim of a staged car crash or other efforts to harm or discredit her. She believed, based on “reliable sources,” that Queen Elizabeth would soon abdicate, Charles would marry Tiggy Legge-Bourke, and that both she and Camilla would be “set aside.” Diana requested that this be recorded in a memo, a chilling prophecy in light of her death less than two years later.
Webb is not alone in drawing a direct line from Bashir’s deceit to Diana’s tragic end. In Dianarama, Diana’s therapist is quoted as saying, “I hold Bashir fully responsible for Diana’s death. Not partly responsible. Fully responsible. If it wasn’t for him, she would still be alive.” Prince Harry echoed this sentiment after a formal inquiry, stating, “Our mother lost her life because of this.”
The impact of the interview, and the circumstances surrounding it, continues to haunt Diana’s sons. Webb writes that Prince William views the Panorama episode as an “open wound which will not heal.” According to sources cited in the book, William believes the BBC’s management “looked the other way, rather than asking tough questions” about Bashir’s tactics. He’s reportedly “taking steps to discover” the full truth, convinced that the interview worsened his parents’ relationship and fueled his mother’s paranoia. Kensington Palace has not commented on these claims, but insiders suggest William remains a determined advocate for justice.
The BBC’s role in the affair has come under renewed scrutiny in recent years. In 2021, the Lord Dyson Report, an independent inquiry, concluded that Bashir used “deceitful behaviour” to secure the interview and that the BBC “fell short of the high standards of integrity and transparency” by failing to address his actions. The broadcaster has since paid substantial damages to Tiggy Legge-Bourke for the “false and malicious” claims used to obtain the interview. The BBC also apologized and compensated Matt Wiessler, the freelance designer who forged the bank statements at Bashir’s request and later attended Diana’s funeral out of guilt. “I was standing right by the gate at 4 a.m. because I felt very strongly that I did have a hand in it,” Wiessler is quoted as saying in Webb’s book.
Webb’s investigation, supported by Earl Spencer, also highlights the devastating practical consequences of the Panorama interview. As Diana’s brother told Webb, the princess became convinced that those closest to her—including her private secretary, Patrick Jephson—could not be trusted. She dismissed her official security and chauffeur, leading to her reliance on less reliable protection. Eighteen months later, Diana was in Paris, driven by a drunk driver, with tragic results. “Would Diana’s life have followed the course it followed? Would she have found herself with Dodi Fayed, for instance? Well, I think that’s probably vastly unlikely,” Spencer reflected. “The consequences of the Panorama interview were lethal—were lethal.”
For more than two decades, Earl Spencer kept his criticisms of Bashir private, fearing that speaking out would make his sister appear gullible. “To come out as a strong critic of Bashir would have been in effect to paint his sister as a gullible fool,” Webb writes. “Far better to say nothing than to open a family rift.” Eventually, Spencer went public in 2020, lending his support to Webb’s investigation and the Channel 4 documentary that preceded the book.
As Dianarama: The Betrayal of Princess Diana hits bookshelves, the story of the Panorama interview remains a cautionary tale about the power of media, the fragility of trust, and the enduring legacy of one of the twentieth century’s most beloved—and most betrayed—public figures.
