WATCHING his boss delivering her historic broadside on the BBC's
Panorama, Patrick Jephson was appalled. "Groans and exasperated laughter
rose like nausea," he writes in his forthcoming account of his years at the side
of Diana, Princess of Wales.
"It was if a small child had stamped her foot and demanded that the adults pay
attention to what she was about to say, yet into the expectant hush she could
only venture the evidence of her own unfinished and frequently banal
thoughts."
The effect of the Panorama interview, he concludes, was to polarise public
opinion. Those who supported the Princess would support her all the more.
Those who did not had "all the evidence they needed to cut her loose".
Much the same could be said of Mr Jephson's book. There will be groans,
even nausea, among the Princess's family and friends if they bother to read it.
Its wider effect will probably be very similar. Those who would beatify the
Princess will regard it as further evidence of the perceived cruelty of the
Windsors. Those on the other extreme will feel vindicated by Mr Jephson's
forceful debunking of the Diana myth and his portrayal of a flawed and often
malicious character.
For the vast majority in between, however, this a project which adds little to
the sum of human knowledge while leaving a rather unpleasant aftertaste. On
the evidence of yesterday's opening serialisation, the two people who come
out worst are Mr Jephson and his subject.
Yesterday's Sunday Times presented the book in accordance with received
tabloid wisdom. "Cold-hearted Royals made Diana a rebel, reveals aide," ran
the headline. The subsequent extracts, however, create a very different picture
which might be summed up as "Cold-hearted Princess made aide a rebel."
The Queen, on the other hand, appears virtually blameless.
Mr Jephson depicts the Princess as so unpredictable and unpleasant that he
repeatedly likens his latter days of royal service to being locked in a cage with
a tigress. Occasional barbs are cast at the Palace and the establishment -
largely for sins of omission rather than commission - but the lasting impression
is of a Princess beyond help.
In an effort to defend his book, Mr Jephson writes: "No picture of the
Princess would be complete without, at least, an attempt to identify the
demons with which she wrestled. Only then, perhaps, is it possible fully to
appreciate the effort she made to conquer them and the remarkable extent to
which she succeeded."
On the basis of his observations yesterday, it was game, set and match to the
demons. In an accompanying interview, Mr Jephson gives the lie to his
allegedly honourable intent. "I don't claim to explain her behaviour," he says.
"I'm not a psychologist."
Such inconsistencies crop up throughout Mr Jephson's protracted
self-justification. There was, he says, "something essentially brutal" about
those lined up against the Princess while there was "something heroic about
her". A few paragraphs later, the Princess is the brutal one as Mr Jephson
describes how she sacked her colonic irrigation specialist "abruptly, even
brutally".
Elsewhere, he insists that this is a book which "needed to be written" to
preserve the truth. "I'm very much a product of my background, an
establishment keep-your-head-down guy who spent eight years being utterly
discreet," he says. "Because of my background, I agonised over doing this for
a long, long time. I decided that it is worth almost any risk. And because of
my background, I was open about it."
It is safe to say that this is not the action of the average product of Mr
Jephson's background - gentry family, minor public school, Cambridge, Royal
Navy, royal service. If it were, the memoirs of private secretaries would be
littering the bookshelves. But Mr Jephson is the first to have broken ranks.
Nor does the openness which he claims to have derived from his background
extend to any discussion of the sum which he will receive for his book. What
will rankle most with both the Windsors and the Spencers - who now find
themselves in total harmony in their responses to this book - is the effect it
may have on the Princess's sons. Mr Jephson insists that they have nothing to
fear. "For them, there will be nothing new to learn from this that's harmful -
and a lot of new stuff that's good."
At one point Mr Jephson describes the Princess's particularly spiteful remark
towards a royal employee on the subject of children. " 'Jesus Christ!' I said to
her, holding my head and thinking of my own two daughters." The reactions of
Prince William and Prince Harry to such disclosures can only be imagined. It
is safe to say that "good" will not feature in their verdicts.
~*~
Former Royal aide appears in court(BBC News)
The Duchess of York's former aide has been
remanded in custody after appearing in court,
charged with the murder of her boyfriend.
Sales consultant Jane Andrews, 33, was
arrested near Liskeard in Cornwall on
Wednesday, in connection with the death of
Thomas Cressman.
The 40-year-old
businessman was found
stabbed at his house in
Fulham, south west
London, last Monday.
Ms Andrews, who
appeared at West
London magistrates
court on Monday, was
a dresser for the
Duchess of York for
nine years until 1997.
She was based at Buckingham Palace and
accompanied the duke and duchess on foreign
tours.
Ms Andrews, originally from Grimsby in
Lincolnshire, stopped working for the duchess
three years ago and went on to work as a
jewellery sales consultant.
But she stayed in contact with her former
employer through birthday and Christmas
cards.
During the brief court hearing which was
attended by her parents June and David, Ms
Andrews spoke only to confirm her name, age
and address.
She has been remanded in custody for one
week.