In 2007, during the tenth anniversary of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Britain (and other countries around the world) was offered a plethora of documentaries and drama's about the last summer Diana spent alive.
In one of these documentaries, Myriah Daniels, Dodi Fayed's holistic healer spoke of her time healing both Dodi and Diana during the harassed last cruise around Sardinia. She spoke out saying due to her experience performing deep intestinal massage she could tell that Diana was not pregnant. She talked about how dangerously Henri Paul drove when ushering Ms Daniels and other staff around Paris. She talked about how 'invaluable' Dodi had told her she was, and that she was waiting at Dodi's Parisian flat for the Harrods heir and his new beau, Diana. Of course, they never made it back.
Fast forward five or so months. Myriah Daniels is being questioned for the official London inquest into Diana's death. During this official inquest, she was asked about the chances of Diana being pregnant. She talked about how Diana was constipated during that last trip on the Jonikal and that she had not long had her period. When the barrister continued this line of questioning, she snapped demanding that Diana, although dead for ten years and despite it being a official inquest, get some privacy and respect.
At the time I thought it odd that when the camera's were on her, and probably after being paid for her appearance on screen, Ms Daniels had no issue whatsoever talking about intimate things such as Diana's menstrual cycle and deep intestinal massage. Yet, when there are no cameras, no spotlights, no glory, Ms Daniels claims it's disrespectful to talk about such issues.
Now, it's been revealed that like Simone Simmons and Penny Thornton, who were both therapists in some configuration to the Princess, Ms Daniels has written a book about the time she spent with Dodi and Diana on their various holidays. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.
I would respect Ms Daniels for wanting to defend Diana's right to privacy if it were genuine. But it seems, when camera's or money is on offer, that right is taken away from Diana, by the very person who claims that they want to defend it.
It reminds me somewhat of the Paul Burrell vs Ken Wharfe argument. I have always liked Ken Wharfe. His 'tally-ho' attitude amuses me and he speaks truthfully about Diana. Both the good and bad side. When he published his book 'Closely Guarded Secret' which, in my opinion, was one of the most honest books about Diana, Paul Burrell the man who claims was Diana's 'rock' pulled the ex-police detective to shreds, talking about his disloyalty and his desire to make money out of his relationship with Diana.
Fast forward a few years Burrell himself published his memoirs, well as we would later discover the first volume of his memoirs. 'A Royal Duty' was a huge sell out. Burrell had done exactly what he criticised Ken Wharfe for doing. Later on Mr Burrell published a second volume 'The Way We Were: Remembering Diana'. This book featured exclusive photographs of Diana's apartment in Kensington Palace, taken in the days after her death in August 1997. So had Burrell taken the pictures to later sell? If so, then surely he would of known what he was doing, and therefore was criticising Ken Wharfe unfairly. Of course Mr Burrell has also published tomes on flower arranging and entertaining in style again dropping 'the Princess' into the books just for added spice (and higher sales figures). On the basis of knowing Diana closely he has also forged a television career and a career speaking on Cunard cruise ships about his life with Diana.
I see a common thread in those people who have claimed to have worked with, been friendly with or been intimate with Diana. They, for the first few years after her death, where her warriors. Defending her memory and protecting the real Diana. Then, as time whittled away and the lure of money was too hard to resist they all sold out, making more and more fantastic claims, such as Simone Simmons who was apparently told by Diana that she was taking a role in the Bodyguard 2, a confidence that Ms Simmons has broken on British TV several times.
But what about Rosa Monckton and Lucia Flecha De Lima? These two women were closer to Diana then any other person, even closer I suspect then Burrell (yes, he knows intimate things about Diana, but did he gain that knowledge from her, or from routing through her rubbish bin?) and yet, they have not spoken out or written a book. Yes, Rosa Monckton once talked publicly about Diana having her period, but that was only when rumours of a pregnancy were so strong that Prince's William and Harry were upset about it and she felt she had no other option but to speak out.
These woman gave evidence at the inquest, and have appeared in a couple of documentaries, but in 1992 Rosa was given permission to speak to ITN news by the Princess herself. Both Rosa and Lucia tell publicly the things only we need to know. The sheer amount of information they have on Diana would fill volumes but the women who really were her warriors and her rock have remained silent.
So, it seems even ten years after her death, Diana is still surrounded by lying, cheating people willing to make a quick buck out of her friendship.
Dodi's father, Mohammed Al Fayed talks constantly about wanting to protect the memory of his son and his partner, Diana. Can he not step up to the plate now, and prevent Ms Daniels publishing her book? Anyway, via Dodi she was on his payroll. This is a time when Mr Fayed can really prove that he wants to do the best by Diana and Dodi.
I hope he does do something. I'm sure that Ms Daniels will have a lot to reveal, even if it's not true. And the whole press frenzy will kick off again and Diana wont get the peace and respect that Ms Daniels demanded during her time in the dock in London.
No comments:
Post a Comment