All language subtitles for Princess.Diana.A.Life.After.Death.2018.1080p.WEBRip.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]ENG

[ Tires screeching ]

Downloaded from
YTS.MX

Official YIFY movies site:
YTS.MX

So, I was in bed, asleep,

and I woke up 'cause
my pager was going,

and it just said,
"Car crash in Paris. Dodi dead.

Di injured. In hospital.
This is not a joke."

And I heard it just coming back
into our bedroom on the radio,

and I went downstairs,
switched on the television

along with the nation
and was just transfixed.

I was in this room.

I remember it vividly.

I would say when she died
that everyone felt something.

I was asleep in bed, and one of
my editors rang me up and said,

"Diana has been in a car crash."

♪♪

A lot of people felt that
when she died

that a light was extinguished,

a particular kind of light
which we've never had before,

and we actually
haven't had since.

♪♪

At the moment
that she was killed,

I think the British press,

the media were filled
with a sense of both shame

and regret and horror
because they felt,

"Is it what we have done
that has led to this?"

♪♪

I went into the office
via Buckingham Palace,

and people --
and it wasn't even light yet,

and people were already
gathering at Buckingham Palace,

this big, silent crowd.

And Mary, my wife,
being very sensible, said,

"Now, don't go over
the top, Jeffrey.

Be very calm and very quiet
and very dignified

in every interview you do."

So I said, "Fine. Good advice."

And then she watched Tony Blair

on television
first thing in the morning,

and she looked at me
just as I was leaving

and said, "It's impossible
to go over the top, Jeffrey."

[ Laughs ] So I realized
Tony Blair had changed the rules

when he called her
the people's princess, and...

They regarded her
as one of the people.

She was the people's princess.

And that's how she will stay,

how she will remain in our
hearts and in our memories.

♪♪

♪♪

♪♪

The thing about
the people's princess,

which has just become
one of those phrases

with which, you know, the whole
thing has become identified,

and I have no recollection
of the discussion

about that at all.

The only mention in my diary is

we agreed it was okay to
call her the people's princess.

Well, Tony Blair's speech
up in his constituency

when he heard the news about
Diana was absolutely excellent.

I mean, he was the one
who produced the phrase

"the people's princess,"

which completely described
how people felt about her.

Seldon: And these kind of
expressions have a resonance

where they really
strike the truth,

strike a chord in people.

Initially, there was a lot
of hostility towards the media.

In particular, the press,

the tabloid press were being
blamed for being the reason --

part of the reason
why she was dead

because we bought the
photographs

and the photographers
pursued her.

I think there were parts
of the press

that probably did feel
a sense of guilt,

possibly a sense
of responsibility

for what had happened.

Yes, well, I think it was
immediately seen as shameful,

the way the paparazzi actually
hounded her to her death,

didn't they?

And Diana's brother,
Charles Spencer,

called her the most
hunted woman in the world.

There is no doubt that she was
looking for a new direction

in her life at this time.

She talked endlessly of
getting away from England,

mainly because of the treatment

that she received
at the hands of the newspapers.

I don't think she ever
understood why her genuinely

good intentions
were sneered at by the media,

why there appeared to be
a permanent quest

on their behalf
to bring her down.

It is a point to remember
that of all the ironies

about Diana,
perhaps the greatest was this --

a girl given the name of the
ancient goddess of hunting was,

in the end, the most hunted
person of the modern age.

Lawson: In fact, I think it was
grief, not anger.

I mean, if you were to
say which of it --

I don't think
there was a huge anger,

but there was a lot of grief,

and the extent of it was beyond
what people had imagined.

Now, how much of it
was vicarious,

how much was the genuine grief

that you feel
if your own mother died

or your own sister died,
I mean, that's another matter.

In other words,
it could have become,

and some people saw it as,
a form of hysteria.

The public reaction
towards the queen

was quite uncharacteristic,
and in fact, at times,

it was absolutely chilling
in those initial days.

I've always thought
that was a bit unfair.

The problem with monarchy
is there are rules,

and the rules are
so set down in stone...

that those even at the very top,
even Her Majesty, obeys them,

so you can't have the flag
at half-mast

for someone who isn't royal.

Now, we now think now,

"How stupid.
Got that wrong, didn't you?"

Of course we do,
and it's easy to do that

sort of being clever
in hindsight.

Reporter: The absence of
a flag at half-mast

at Buckingham Palace
upset many people,

and the absence of
the royal family,

who have remained at Balmoral
throughout, has dismayed others.

What one needs to remember
is that this was a family.

Diana's sons were
up at Balmoral.

The Queen and the
Duke of Edinburgh were,

at that point,
just thinking of the boys,

and they had lost their mother,
and their focus was on that.

Campbell: William said at
one point in this interview --

he said that when they'd
been up in Balmoral,

and we were conscious
of this in London,

they were definitely
being protected

from knowing what
was happening in London

in terms of the public reaction.

Now, they'd have known it was,
like, a massive deal,

but he said he was genuinely
shocked when he came down

and saw these millions
of flowers

and tens of thousands of people
out in the streets.

Nicholl: By the point that she'd
got back to London from Scotland

and actually seen the capitol
in mourning,

you know, you couldn't help
but be moved by that,

and as a queen
who has always been

so in touch with her subjects,

I think she was able
to recognize

that the palace did need
to acknowledge

that there had been
mistakes made with Diana.

The queen felt that they should
learn from Diana

and that they should be
more human with people,

more in touch with people
than they had been.

Seldon:
The nation needed to feel --

This is what Diana
was sublimely good at.

The nation needed to feel
that the royal family

truly understood the
difficulties,

economic, social,
that they were going through.

Nicholl: It has changed.

It has modernized,

and it's had to do that in order
to keep up with the public

and in order to stay relevant.

I think, also, in order to
justify its existence.

And how much of that is Diana?

Some of it -- not all of it,
but certainly some of it.

Diana was almost not
of the royal family.

I think she was herself.

She had a kind of -- something
that rose above all that.

It was peculiar to her.

I'm not even sure people felt,

"Oh, this is a member
of the royal family."

Diana became, if you like,
something bigger,

and that was remarkable,
but it was,

in some ways, a problem
for the royal family

because there was something
there that was bigger than them,

at least in terms
of the public gaze.

No one had ever seen
anything like it.

You have to remember that,
you know,

Diana was an absolute icon
in the '80s and '90s.

I remember, as a little girl,
watching the royal wedding

and being completely
bewitched by her.

She was the ultimate princess,

and she was just this
constant presence in the media.

Many men,

politically, say, you know,
"She doesn't have to speak,

and I'll fall on my knees
and do as I'm told."

She had this unbelievable gift.

Very beautiful,

and she was very clever
at that, as well.

Clever women have where
they can make men do

as they're told,
and she knew she had it.

I mean, she was capricious
in that sense.

She knew she only had to ask
for something,

and it would happen.

But on balance,
I felt she used it for the good.

I think her charity work
was remarkable.

I have it on very good authority

that the quest for perfection
our society demands

can leave the individual gasping
for breath at every turn.

This pressure inevitably
extends into the way we look.

Eating disorders, whether
it be anorexia or bulimia,

show how an individual can turn
the nourishment of the body

into a painful attack
on themselves,

and they have at their core
a far deeper problem

than mere vanity.

She was a really interesting,
very complex,

very bright woman,
a much stronger woman,

a woman who talked openly about

things like eating disorders
and mental illness,

and in a way,

that also is an incredibly
important part of her legacy.

She both stood for a change
in the way

that we might be in public
and what we might talk about,

but she also facilitated
that change.

Campbell: She was not educated,
but she was very clever,

and she definitely
had a really --

I think quite a deep,
intense emotional intelligence.

I think she worked people out
very quickly,

and she worked situations out
quite quickly.

So I think that sense of her,

the world wanting to look
at her and say,

"You have the perfect life.

You are the perfect
fairy tale princess.

This is just wonderful,"
and actually her knowing,

"Mm, well, I'm a lot
of the times not,

and actually I've got
my own difficulties,"

and I think she did
have an understanding

of people's inner feelings
and inner torment.

I think she had quite a lot
of that herself.

Lawson: And she had a
peculiarly intense empathy

for people who were
afflicted or suffering.

I think it probably came
from her own sense

of her own suffering,
and she was, in some way,

drawn to people's suffering
to do something about it,

but that was
a deeply personal thing.

The age of homeless youngsters
is coming down.

Children as young as 11 have
called on Centrepoint this year.

Some had been running from
physical and emotional violence,

some from sexual abuse.

Somehow, she found a way
of truly understanding

how they felt,

and that's not something
you can manufacture.

It's just something you have,
and she had it.

That particular gene
was obviously

passed on to William and Harry

because whether it's their
work with veterans,

whether it's their work with
homeless people, AIDS victims,

they do have the most remarkable
ability to identify with people

that they would otherwise have
nothing in common with at all,

and there's nothing
fake about that.

You can't engineer that.

It is genuine.

I think it very much comes
from their mother,

and I think it very much
comes from the fact

that they were exposed to
so much of their mother's work.

I feel very closely linked
to Centrepoint.

It is a charity with which
both my mother and father

became passionately involved.

Indeed, it was while
my mother was patron

that Harry and I had our first
contact with Centrepoint.

I was much younger,
better-looking,

and more naive back then.

Thought that'd get
a little giggle.

But it began to open my eyes
to the world

that so many young
London people face.

Our visits with our mother
ignited a deep and growing

interest for the great work the
charity does for the homeless.

That example of selfless service

that Centrepoint represents
has stayed with me,

and that is why it was
the first charity

that I wanted
to be associated with.

Since becoming patron,
I've been privileged

to witness at firsthand
and with the utmost admiration

the great work
of its volunteers,

but I've seen
something else, too --

the extraordinary
courage of so many

of Centrepoint's young people
in rising to meet

such seemingly insurmountable
challenges in their lives.

I count myself
enormously privileged

to be associated
with such individuals

and with such an
organization as this.

She was happy to take her sons,
for example,

into homeless shelters

and expose them to issues
she really cared about,

open their eyes at a young age.

I think she showed them that
they had a unique position

which enabled them to
raise awareness of

situations like that but also to
bring comfort to people

and to be seen to be
doing something positive

to improve their situations,
and that's something

that they've
obviously carried forward

and is very much part
of their work today.

She was a complex young woman
in many ways.

Kay: She could be very
amusing and entertaining company

privately,
away from the cameras,

but she constantly felt herself
under extreme pressure

from within the royal family,

from within the wider public,
and, of course, from the media.

She found it very difficult
to try and balance

all these various aspects
of her life

to allow herself
some sort of privacy

and to fulfill the obligations
she felt she had.

She had a very close
relationship

with the editors
of the tabloid papers.

She would see them.
She would talk to them.

She wanted them on her side,
naturally.

She was very shrewd in the way
that she spoke to them.

She was very open to them,
and those that she felt

were on her side,
she was very, very helpful to.

Diana sometimes got a lot more
than she bargained for

when she tried to steer press.

She was phenomenally
gifted at doing it,

but the thing about press
and about press narratives

is the idea of control
as an illusion.

And it's maybe that awful cliché
about, you know,

if you try to ride the tiger,
you end up in its belly,

but there's no doubt
that she was

a very active participant
in what happened.

So it was bound to end badly.

She was so popular,
she was such a magnet

that her photographs
just sold papers,

and that's the secret,
really, of why

she was the most
hunted woman in the world.

I think she developed
a relationship with the public

and a relationship
with the media,

which was a bit different,

which was complicated and which,
along the way, I think,

got her into some difficult
places psychologically.

And then I think
if you throw into that mix

what was then became the
disintegration of the marriage

and the sense of people
taking sides,

I think it became
quite difficult for her.

There had been this idea that
Prince Charles was an older man

who had cynically gone out
to find a virginal bride

who he knew he didn't love.

He was in love with
somebody else.

He was doing this
for the monarchy.

In fact, I discovered that
this was completely untrue

in the sense that he was
as naive as his young bride

and as unprepared
for the marriage.

It had already been
quite well-known

that she had panicked
before the marriage

and thought about pulling out,

but I discovered that,
in fact, hehad done so.

Of course, as we know,
they went ahead with it

but both with deep misgivings,

both knowing that this was
quite possibly unlikely to work.

However, he did also try --

At the beginning, he tried
very hard to make it work,

and they probably had about two
decent years of marriage.

Well, I mean,
Prince Charles reacted

to the news of Diana's death

with actually a tremendous
compassion towards his sons.

He certainly put
the children first,

and that showed
all the way through

in the way he behaved going
to Paris to fetch Diana's body.

It wasn't a question of her
being carted back

by undertakers.

It was personal.
He went to collect the body.

And he showed enormous
consideration

for William and Harry in that.

♪♪

It was very moving.

It must have been so
difficult for them

with all those crowds
and noise,

throwing flowers
and weeping and shouting,

but they managed it beautifully.

It was Harry who said how
he had suffered years

of mental-health problems

which stemmed from
the loss of his mother,

that experience of losing
his mother at the age of 12,

of having to walk behind
her funeral cortege

and coming to terms
with her grief,

which he said had taken him,
essentially,

the best part of 20 years to do,

that he'd spent two decades
burying his head in the sand.

I think she represented
a kind of womanhood.

I suspect that she had a
much greater influence

on women than she did on men.

I think the difficulties
that she had in her marriage,

though in some ways exotic

because of who
she was married to

and the peculiar
circumstances of it,

but the idea of how a woman
who is somehow insecure

and may be condescended to

and may be
not treated seriously,

how that woman asserts
herself against obstacles

and people sneering
at her in some way.

I think her triumph,
if it was a triumph,

over that is something
which I suspect

that many women now
still look to and say,

"That is how a strong woman
can overcome difficulties

put in her way by bureaucracies,
by an establishment."

[ Camera shutters clicking ]

[ Indistinct chatter ]

♪♪

♪♪

Mayer: This notion of Diana
as a wronged woman,

I mean, she certainly
had a raw deal.

No woman should have
been brought into

that kind of public role
without the support systems,

without the press advice,

without some real insight
into what to expect,

and she was young,
and she was naive,

but she very quickly learned
to give as she got,

and she was -- she became
the master media manipulator,

something which he
never achieved.

[ Indistinct chatter ]

Hello. Hello.

Lawson: The Duke of Edinburgh
tried very hard.

As you know, there were those
letters that he wrote to her,

and he was trying his best
to help her

with the breakdown
of her marriage,

and I think in some ways,
she couldn't be helped.

I think it had almost
gone beyond that

because of the way she felt,

and to be honest,
there were also people

who maybe did not have her
best interests at heart

whom she listened to,
which was tragic.

I mean, she should never have
gotten involved with the Fayeds,

but, you know, she did,

and I personally tried
to warn her

not to get involved with them,
and I failed,

and in the end, you can't
stop someone if they're --

or it's very hard
to stop someone

if they're on a path
to their own destruction.

The relationship
with Dodi Fayed,

I don't think anybody
except for perhaps

Dodi and his family,
took seriously.

It may have been her having fun.

It may have been her saying,

"Look, I can get along
without you."

I don't think that it was

that much directed against
the royal family,

though she will have enjoyed
the fact that it upset people.

And I think Diana
probably knew full well

that the royal family
wouldn't like it.

Maybe that was one of
the reasons why she did agree

to go on that holiday
in '97 with the Fayeds

because she had offers
to go away with other people,

but she went with Mohamed
and his family.

You know, Diana was getting
herself into something

that had the potential, really,
to backfire quite badly for her,

and, you know,
at the end of the day,

that's exactly what happened.

I'm not sure that she really
had any solutions

in her personal life.

Her love for Hasnat Khan,

the doctor, a Pakistani doctor,
had come to nothing,

and Dodi Fayed was obviously
a path to nowhere,

so I don't think there was
much going in her personal life.

I think it was more her future,

her own future in the way
of life she wanted to lead.

I think her great hope
was to sort of shine a light.

I mean, that's what she was.
That's all she could do.

She was not a legislator.

She wasn't a politician,

although sometimes politicians
accused her of acting like one,

particularly, for example,
over the land mines.

In the early days of that
land-mines campaign,

she was accused of
meddling in things

she had no business
meddling in.

In fact, she approached
the land-mine issue

very much as a humanitarian.

She wanted to draw attention
to something

that she felt deeply about.

Nash: She was the real deal
in that she went out there

and put herself, you know,
not quite in the firing line,

but, you know, she'd
walked through land mines,

and she'd hold hands
with lepers.

She would comfort people
who were dying from AIDS.

She put her money where her
mouth was, if you like,

and nowadays, we see
all manner of celebrities

and public figures
following in her footsteps.

You have the likes of
Angelina Jolie,

George Clooney, David Beckham,

even Madonna, who are doing
some great charity work

and using their elevated status
to shine a spotlight on things,

but you have to remember
that when Diana did it,

she was really
breaking the mold,

certainly stepping
into uncharted territories

for a member
of the royal family.

I think Diana was extraordinary.

She certainly was classless.

She wasn't obsessed
with millionaires,

as I'm afraid nowadays people
seem to think money

is the most important thing,
and that wasn't Diana at all.

She thought humanity
and people being

who they should be
was more important.

Campbell: The causes that she
allied herself to

tended to be
unfashionable causes,

but look at the progress
that's been made on HIV/AIDS.

Look at the -- You know,
one of the first things

that the Labor government did

was further action
on land mines.

I mean, she was ahead of her
time on some of those things.

She was a very active
humanitarian.

I don't think the royal family
had seen anything

quite like that.

The treaty that was signed
just before her death

has pretty much seen
the abolition of land mines

and is a cause now
that Harry is taking on

to make sure that
by 2025 there are no more.

There is no question that
a huge amount

has been achieved
in the last 20 years.

Land mines remain
politically toxic weapons

in the eyes of people
around the world.

Vast government stockpiles
have been destroyed,

and production of these weapons

by the world's arms producers
has all but ceased.

So I think the scale of her work
is really only evident now.

It's taken this long to just see
how remarkable

what she actually achieved was.

One of the most remarkable
things she did,

I think it was in 1987,
is that she went to a place

where people
dying of AIDS were --

it's almost like a hospice,
I think,

and she didn't -- she touched,

she clearly physically embraced
someone with AIDS at a time

when that was thought to be
some kind of death sentence

if you came anywhere
near such a person.

I think that was transformative
of the whole thing.

You have to remember that this
was uncharted territory

for a member of the royal family
to be going into a hospital

and holding hands with people
suffering from HIV at a time

when they were
generally shunned by society.

And I think you can actually
trace a thread

going right the way back to 1987

when she broke
those taboos over AIDS,

and I was there that day when
she shook hands with those poor,

unfortunate young men
at the Middlesex Hospital,

young men who subsequently died,

but she did that
without wearing gloves.

Royals in those days
wore white gloves, inevitably.

Certainly, in the respect
that the lead-up

to Princess Diana coming was,

"Will she or won't she
wear gloves?"

And she didn't.

I mean, I believed she wouldn't,

and she's lived up
to what I had believed.

She knew the facts.

Now, she couldn't do anything
about research into AIDS,

but she could help
in drawing attention

to the inequities of it
and, crucially,

raise vast sums of money,
which she did over the years.

What is remarkable is
she was cuddling people

when the royal family
stayed 5 feet away from you,

and all you did is bow
and let them pass.

She broke all those taboos
and cuddled people with AIDS.

And I don't exaggerate
when I say

I wondered if you could
cuddle someone with AIDS

because I didn't know.

I hadn't got a clue.

but when I saw her cuddle
someone with AIDS, I thought,

"Yes, of course you can
cuddle someone with AIDS.

Obviously not a problem."

HIV does not make people
dangerous to know,

so you can shake their hands
and give them a hug.

Heaven knows they need it.

And so that ability to bring to
people a feeling of simplicity

and honesty was incredible,
absolutely incredible,

and I repeat,
I think I think that

with Prince William
and Prince Harry,

you just see an extension of it,

which would have been
unacceptable 20 years ago.

HIV was a death sentence.

Treatment was not
widely available

in the developed world,
let alone in the poorer regions.

Stigma kept HIV-positive people

from talking openly
about their condition

and kept vulnerable people
from having the courage

to step into a clinic
and ask for a test,

but thanks to the work
of leaders in the fight

against HIV,
people like Nelson Mandela,

Sir Elton John, Dr. Peter Piot,

the brave activists
of TAG and ACT UP,

and like my mother,
Princess Diana,

we have made huge progress.

[ Cheers and applause ]

William and Harry
have had to deal

with an image of their mother
projected in the press

of which they have
no control over,

whether it's ex-lovers
selling letters,

people recalling their
experiences of their time

with Diana, working with Diana,
loving Diana,

whatever capacity it's been,

and there have been
former aides,

courtiers, and lovers who have
cashed in on Diana's memory.

William and Harry
have had to watch that

without having any control.

Harry has spoken
quite recently about the fact

that he has felt conflicted
in the past about his position.

He's not wanted
all the scrutiny.

He didn't want to live
in the goldfish bowl.

But they understand
their power,

and they understand that they
have this unique platform

through which they can spread
their message and, you know,

in turn be used as weapons of
soft diplomacy, if you like.

They can reach a
far wider audience, perhaps,

than your average celebrity.

♪♪

Again, I talked to
Prince William about this,

and he said, you know --
I said, "Do you buy this line

at all that she kind of,
you know,

got herself into
a lot of these difficulties

because she tried to play
the media game?"

And he said, "Look, I think" --
his word was shenanigans.

He said, "I know there were
shenanigans that went on."

But he feels that she was
very isolated, very vulnerable,

not terribly well-protected

once the marriage
started to go wrong.

Yeah, she said --
I thought it was pretty moving

the way that he said
that he felt really sad

because he felt that
that was the sort of role

that he and Harry could have
played had they been older,

that, actually,
as they became adults,

used, themselves, to this
kind of goldfish-bowl existence,

that they'd have been able to
protect her better

than she could protect herself,

and I think they did feel
that she got used and exploited.

Well, I must say, I do think
that they have been

very forgiving,

considering their mother was
practically driven to her death,

and I think that the way
they behave, the kindness

and compassion that they show
is pretty remarkable.

She was, in some ways,

destructive of the role
of family.

I don't mean deliberately
or directly

because I think
she was a monarchist,

but it was clearly her
aim and intention

to make sure that
the Prince of Wales

never became king,

and a lot of what she did
in terms of her broadcasts

and the help she gave

with certain journalists
and biographers

was to try as she could
to prevent that ever happening.

Well, Diana made the statements
about Charles' suitability

as a king in that
infamous panorama interview

that she did
with Martin Bashir.

I think, perhaps,
retrospectively, she regretted

some of the things that she said
in that documentary,

not least because
they hurt her sons,

which was never her intention.

She didn't say that she didn't
want Prince Charles to be king.

She said that she thought
that hemay not want to be king,

which was a very mischievous
thing to do,

and she was always very clever
at sowing these little points

into her public utterances
that would be picked up,

but that, of all of the ones
that she did, was the one

with the greatest power
of destruction.

She saw a very different side
to Charles to the side

that the rest of us see,

but I think quite a bit
of what she said

was probably fueled by anger
and bitterness and resentment.

Mayer: And so she knew,
in talking about the idea

that Charles himself might wish
to take himself

out of the line of succession,
that this was dynamite.

I don't think that she probably
thought it through

in terms of what
she really wanted

because no mother would really
want for their eldest son

to have thrust upon them
early the kingship,

but I'm sure that she knew
it was something

that could damage him
quite considerably, and it did.

He's been fighting that idea
ever since,

that he doesn't really
want the top job.

It's interesting
how Charles has changed.

In 1997, he was not
a popular figure.

He was seen as the man
who inexplicably had chosen

to distance himself
from this immensely beautiful

and vulnerable
still-young woman,

and yet 20 years later,
he has become a figure

whose inner quality of his life

has a much bigger public acclaim
than it ever has,

and yet his ideas about nature,
the environment, this country,

about humanity are seen to be
no longer behind the times

but in many ways
ahead of the times.

Nicholl: I think Charles'
influence on his sons

is something that
often gets lost,

and I think a lot of people
might think

that she was solely responsible
for raising William and Harry

and grooming them to become
the young men that they are,

but actually, you have to
remember that from the age of

12 and 15, they grew up
without a mother.

Harry: Well done, brother.Well, thank you.

I think I deserve that.Shut up.

I nearly fell off my horse
trying to hit you the ball,

and you missed it, spoon.Yeah, right.

"Spoon," did you say?

Spoon, yeah.
It's not a swear word.

It isn't?
You're sure?

Yes. Let's not mention the word
that you invented, shall we?

No, no, no.
No, we won't, Harry.

[ Laughs ]
He "invented," yeah.

[ Laughing ] Please not.
Please not.

One of those things
you put your hands on.

No, Harry, absolutely.
Yes, absolutely.

I couldn't agree more.[ Laughs ]

And the rounded men
that they are today

is largely down to Charles.

I think he's often
overlooked as a parent.

Charles had to step in
and do the job of two parents

under the most unimaginably
hard scenarios.

It wasn't an easy situation,

and I think sometimes
he deserves more credit

than he's actually given.

I think the one thing that
unified Diana and Charles

was how they wanted
to raise those boys.

♪♪

Bradford: Well, of course Diana
was very beautiful.

That always helps, and very
photogenic, and she knew it,

and she knew how to perform
for the photographers,

but this was not a fake.

Underneath it, she had
very strong feelings

and great feelings
of friendship

and encouraging people
to talk to her,

to talk about
their problems to her.

She really was
a compassionate person.

♪♪

♪♪

♪♪

And I think if you think back
through the pictures

that people remember,

I mean, there were millions
of pictures of Princess Diana,

but there are some pictures,
like the first time

that she held the hand
of the guy who had HIV/AIDS,

walking through the minefield,
the night that Prince Charles

was doing his big
television interview

and she wore
that amazing black dress

and just got herself
on all the front pages

the next day looking,
like, drop-dead gorgeous.

She thought in pictures,
and I think that that was --

I don't think it was
manipulative.

I think it was instinctive.

She knew the power
of the picture,

and she knew the power
of the picture to create

this sense of an empathetic
person, which was real.

You couldn't fake that.

For people who are new
to Diana's story,

it's one of endless
fascination for them.

There's this incredibly
beautiful,

glamorous woman
who lived a remarkable life

and had a huge impact
on the world.

[ Laughs ]

Hello. How do you do?

Hello. Hello.

[ Indistinct chatter ]

Oh, how nice.

Lucky me.

Hello.

Nash: People who are now just
reaching their 20s

really want to know
more about her.

They want to hear about
her life and her legacy

and see what all the fuss
was about, really.

It's very hard for them
to imagine,

pre-the Kardashian era,

somebody who was
quite that famous

in a time before social media.

She was, you know,

one of the first huge icons
of our lifetime.

I think Princess Diana's death
dared to make people think,

"Is the royal family
a little out of date?"

The queen is now much more
likely to take tea

with nursing staff
in the canteen

rather than go
to the boardroom.

Now, that is on one level,

but clearly, there have been
other changes, too,

and I think
this has been driven,

if you like, from the bottom up

because I think
because of Diana's influence

and the way she
approached her role,

if you like,
the public have demanded

that the royal family adjust.

♪♪

But if you're asking me,
"Is the modern royal family

very different to the one
20 years ago?"

Very different.

At a time when most
institutions have almost gone

into reputational free-fall,

whether that's the banks,
whether it's parliament,

whether it's politicians
more generally,

whether it's sports stars,

the monarchy seems, to me,
to buck the trend.

But I think a lot of that

has been about the way
the queen has adapted.

I think there has been a kind
of process of adaptation

that's gone on.

And, also, I think it's
maybe that they got

all the really bad stuff
happening to them

before everybody else.

But I think the combination
of the queen,

what she called
annus horribilis,

and then the Diana death
and that moment during the week

when it all felt very,
very vulnerable and shaky,

and then getting
through that week,

and then I think they did
kind of adapt after that,

just a little bit,
not too much,

but enough to get themselves
into a much better place.

[ Indistinct chatter ]

It was quite early on.

Yes.
That's the interesting --

I think it's come over
very strong, young man,

because the community's
been to help.

[ Indistinct chatter ]

♪♪

Nash: William and Harry have
spearheaded Heads Together,

along with Kate, very much
in their mother's memory.

They've talked a lot recently
about their own struggles

in coming to terms
with the grief of losing her.

William has talked about
the fact that,

you know, he still finds it
to be mentally shocking now

even to talk about it
20 years on,

but he's really
encouraged other people,

through his work with
Child Bereavement UK,

for example,
to talk all the time

and to talk about their
lost loved ones

as much as they possibly can as
a way to overcome that grief.

In fact, he's the one who
encouraged Prince Harry to go

and seek help after,
you know, his life descended

into what he describes
as total chaos.

Harry is someone
who didn't talk openly

about his mother's death
for a very long time.

My sense is that
William and Harry,

losing their mother
at such a young age,

always so difficult
for young people to do,

they were given vulnerabilities
that unresolved issues

inside their psyches,
and at some point,

and it traditionally comes out
at the age that they now are,

they want to try
and resolve those.

And I think the fact
that their mother

was such an articulate person,

that helped them
to have the confidence

to feel that they could
talk in public

about the mental, emotional
difficulties that they've had.

Talking can make us realize
that we're not alone.

The opposite of talking
is isolation and fear.

Sometimes, getting something
off your chest

is an important step
in coping with a situation

so you know that
you're not alone,

you're not failing,
that it's perfectly normal

to feel overwhelmed
or sad at times.

Everybody does.

William and Harry have
chosen to get involved

in those key charities,
not so much as a result

of their mother's untimely death

but because they were issues
that she was concerned in.

I think the fact that Harry has
taken in interest in land mines

and in particular
his other charities in Africa,

which would be very close
to Diana's heart,

are just because
they are Diana's children.

Well, neither of the boys,

as open as they've been
in the series of interviews

that they gave about
Heads Together,

have ever said it was
because their mother herself

suffered from
mental-health problems,

depression, bulimia,
all of the things that,

you know, we know
Diana did suffer from.

But I think it doesn't take
a psychologist to work out that,

having gone through so many
years of trauma and grief

and having to have gone through
what they went through

so publicly,
that a charity or an initiative

that is dedicated
to mental health

and being more open
about our problems,

being able to talk more openly
about things like depression,

would resonate
with both of the boys.

The three of us have learned
a lot in the past few months

as we have met people.

The conclusion we are coming to

is that the more we talk
about all of this,

the more collectively,
as a society,

we can do to
support one another.

The theme of
World Mental Health Day

this year matches this.

It is mental-health
first-aid for all.

To us, mental-health first-aid
means getting in there early

to support people before
what they're going through

becomes more serious
or even clinical.

That support can be as little
as a conversation

and a listening ear,

or it can be signposting someone
to a professional service.

These actions may seem little,
but they are vitally important.

I think the mental-health stuff
is fantastic,

and I wrote a piece at the time

when they first said
they were getting involved.

I said, "Well, you know,
the republican in me

finds this really annoying
that they can go into any cause,

and because of who they are,
they get coverage,

they get heard,
they get access to government,

whatever it might be."

But the mental-health campaigner
in me was absolutely overjoyed

because it makes a difference.

There's no point denying it.
It makes a difference.

But it only really makes
a difference if you do it well.

And I would say that the
Heads Together campaign

has been absolutely brilliant,

and I think it's definitely
moved the dial.

Now, would they have got
involved in that

if somebody else
was their mother?

I've got no idea,
but she was their mother,

and I do think
it's part of her legacy

that that's the route
they've gone down,

and I hope they stay down
that route for a long time.

And possibly it took connecting

with a charity
like mental health,

Heads Together -- possibly
that's what it took for Harry

to publicly acknowledge
that he'd also had problems.

I was told that he felt
very strongly

that if he was going
to spearhead this campaign

and encourage others to be open

and talk about
their own problems,

then he knew he'd
have to open up

and be honest in the process,

and he was, and in doing so,
he was incredibly brave.

William, Catherine, and I
started this campaign

because we saw
that fear of judgement,

stigma, and outdated prejudice

meant that too many people
stayed quiet

about their
mental-health challenges,

and we saw that this fear of
even talking about a problem

often meant the issues could
quickly escalate out of hand.

How is it that for most,
the first time mental health

is talked about is when
they're already suffering?

Stigma cannot and must not
be the reason

we shy away from
equipping ourselves

and our families for the day
that a dark cloud may appear.

Diana's legacy is a mixed bag

of what people would like it
to be and what it actually is.

What people would like it to be
is about emotional intelligence,

is about modernity.

What it actually is
is something, I think,

even bigger about a complex
woman in the public eye

and somebody who was
so iconic, so famous

that she will always be with us
for centuries, I think.

Well, I think the
important thing is

that she provided
an example of compassion,

and real compassion, as opposed
to people paying lip service

to being nice
or being charitable.

And I think that is
an important legacy,

and I think that today's
politicians fail

quite severely on that.

On the one hand, you know, she
has this hugely glamorous image.

She was an icon
of fashion, style,

very beautiful and graceful,

but I think, perhaps,
her compassion is something

that really has lasted
and has stood the test of time.

People really remember her
having this presence, you know?

She walked into a room,
and she'd light it up,

people often say of her.

She genuinely brought
comfort to people

and made them feel special,

made them feel important
when they were, perhaps,

going through incredibly
difficult experiences,

and I think that's something

that most people
remember her for.

Her legacy is twofold, really.

Her legacy is her sons,

and her legacy is the work
that they are now continuing.

It was William who made
the point that there is now

a young generation in the world
who really don't know Diana.

They don't know the huge
things that she achieved

and this amazing legacy
that she's left behind.

She shone the spotlight
on issues that would otherwise

have just stayed hidden beneath
the carpet and neglected.

Diana's legacy has to be the way
that she changed the monarchy

away from an austere,
rather remote institution

into one which was
far more personable,

seen as far more authentic,
populated by younger royals

who could connect
with the issues

that confronted every man
and every woman,

and yet, they did that
without losing the dignity

of the office
of the royal family.

Kay: Diana's greatest legacy
are her children

because they have turned out

to be remarkably
well-adjusted young men,

and they've turned out to be
very much like their mother,

and I think she is going to be
casting the image

of the House of Windsor
into the 21st century.

So I think that there has been
a fundamental shift.

I think we'll have a
much more caring,

more involved monarchy,
not so insular,

possibly smaller
and more compact

but more relevant, somehow.

I just feel the language that
the boys speak is the language

that people recognize every day
on the streets of Britain,

and I think that will increase
its relevance going forward

and also ensure, I think,

the long-term security
of the monarchy

because frankly,
it has to change.

It has to adapt to meet
changing times and conditions.

♪♪

♪♪

♪♪

♪♪

♪♪

♪♪