Television
Royal revenge
James Delingpole
Did any of you notice the leek-shaped thing stuck behind the picture frame just to the right of the Princess of Wales? You did? Damn! There goes my one original observation on the interview which divided the nation into two camps: those who watched the end of Cracker (ITV) and videoed the first 20 minutes of Panorama (BBC 1); and those who did it the other way round. Either way, you will probably have been too busy catching up with whichever bit it was you recorded to see the evening's juici- est contribution to the Diana v. Charles debate. I refer not to the Princess's disclo- sure that she had indeed slept with the cad Hewitt, nor her veiled prediction that her husband would never become king, but to Nicholas Soames's blustering post-match analysis on Newsnight (BBC 2). Up until that moment, I had found myself pretty much with the pro-Charles party. But Soames — normally such an affable fellow — did his cause few favours when he boomed that some of the Princess's performance had been 'toe- curlingly dreadful' and that she seemed to be 'in the advanced stages of paranoia'. It smacked of a Politburo denial: so brutally intolerant that you could not help thinking there had to be some truth in Diana's alle- gations about the sinister smear campaign supposedly orchestrated against her by her husband's retainers.
Yet Soames, for all his ogreishness, had a point. You might need a heart of steel not to sympathise with the Princess's predicament — trapped in a loveless mar- riage; dismissed as 'unstable' for having the temerity to suffer from post-natal depres- sion and 'rampant bulimia'; isolated by the Royal Household. But, you'd need a brain of cotton wool not to recognise that the Princess's decision to bare her soul to the camera betrayed a grievous lack of taste and judgment.
Last year, Jonathan Dimbleby's interview provided an invaluable service to the Prince of Wales by revealing the integrity, vulnerability and humanity which lay behind that crankish, remote public image. Diana, already elevated to near sainthood by an adoring nation, needed no such help from the Panorama team. And perhaps that's why so much of Monday's interview seemed sickly and unnatural. It was an attempt to paint the lily.
The less cynical may not have seen it that way. Here, some might think, was a wronged, noble woman finally daring to speak her mind despite attempts by Chazzer's cohorts (`the enemy', as she called them) to gag her. How bravely she responded to Martin Bashir's questioning (so much more adversarial than the respectful Mr Dimbleby's)! How self-effac- ing of her to allow her drawn features, her every facial tic, to be shot through an unflattering close-up lens (so much crueller than M. Demarchelier's)! And if you believe that you'll believe anything.
While I'm not saying that the Princess was being less than honest, nor that her responses were rehearsed down to the last sharp intake of breath, there was definitely an air of disingenuousness about her per- formance. The phrases — 'There are three people in this marriage so it's a bit crowd- ed' —were too pat; the delivery, too husky; and the make-up (designed to exaggerate those mournful blue eyes and blushing cheeks) somewhat overdone.
After almost 15 years of intense media scrutiny, the Princess has become an accomplished actress. Sometimes in her interview, she played Queen Elizabeth I (her line about being a 'Queen of people's hearts' was a dead ringer for Elizabeth's `Yet this I count the glory of my crown' speech); sometimes — useful on the eve of her Argentinian visit — the Tim Rice ver- sion of Eva Peron (I'd like to reassure all those people who've loved me ... that I've never let you down'); and sometimes the star of a sentimental soap opera (especially during her embarrassingly mawkish recol- lection of how William had told her on giv- ing her a box of chocolates, 'Mummy, I think you've been hurt. These are to make you smile again').
Of course, it all made for moving, impos- sibly watchable television. But neither the Princess's star quality, nor the injustices she has suffered during her marriage are quite enough to excuse the essential irresponsibili- ty of the Panorama interview. Never was this more apparent than in her ill-advised obser- vations as to her husband's suitability or oth- erwise as a successor to the throne.
It's all very well rubbing hubby's nose in it by revealing that, yes, you too are capa- ble of infidelity. It's quite another matter to allow your marital grievances to swell beyond the personal into a constitutional crisis which affects the whole nation. I'd like to think that Diana was merely being naive when she contradicted Charles's expressed intention that he would one day become king. But instinct tells me she was being rather more vindictive and calculat- ing than her star-struck admirers could ever credit.
Previous page
