A bombshell new book has ripped open one of the most infamous wounds in modern royal history, revealing that Princess Diana was convinced her estranged husband, then-Prince Charles, wanted her assassinated as part of a sinister plot to eliminate her from public life. The “jaw-dropping” claims, detailed in Dianarama: The Martin Bashir Deception by investigative author Andy Webb, expose the “appalling lies” peddled by disgraced BBC journalist Martin Bashir to secure Diana’s world-shattering 1995 Panorama interview—lies that preyed on her spiraling paranoia and included forged documents suggesting a royal conspiracy to kill her via a staged car crash.

Published this week by Headline Books to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the interview’s broadcast, Webb’s tome—drawing on never-before-seen archival footage, witness testimonies, and declassified BBC memos—paints Bashir as a master manipulator who exploited Diana’s isolation in Kensington Palace to orchestrate one of television’s greatest coups. The book arrives amid fresh scrutiny of the BBC’s ethical lapses, following a 2021 Dyson inquiry that condemned the broadcaster for “deceit” but stopped short of addressing the full extent of Bashir’s psychological warfare.

At the heart of the revelations is a chilling video clip unearthed from BBC vaults, showing a private 1994 meeting between Bashir and Diana. In the grainy footage, the 33-year-old princess—her voice trembling with fear—whispers to the journalist: “Charles is planning to kill me… He wants me out of the way, like an accident in a tunnel.” Webb claims this delusion was no organic outburst but the direct result of Bashir’s fabricated narrative, which he fed to Diana over months of clandestine phone calls and “friendly” lunches. Posing as a confidant, Bashir allegedly presented her with doctored bank statements implying palace aides were spying on her for MI6, and a forged letter from a senior royal equerry “confirming” a plot to stage her death as a car accident—mirroring the tragedy that would claim her life just two years later in Paris’s Pont de l’Alma tunnel.

Bashir’s tactics, Webb argues, were “psychological terrorism” tailored to Diana’s vulnerabilities. Divorced from Charles earlier that year in a union long strained by his affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, Diana was at her most fragile—estranged from confidants, battling bulimia, and convinced the Windsors viewed her as a “liability.” The journalist, then 32 and hungry for a career-defining exclusive, reportedly told Diana: “The establishment sees you as a threat, Ma’am. They’re willing to go to extremes to silence you.” To gain her brother Charles Spencer’s endorsement—key to unlocking Kensington Palace access—Bashir allegedly spread rumors that Spencer was under surveillance by royal “goons,” complete with fake photos of men in suits tailing his Althorp estate. Spencer, now the 9th Earl Spencer, has corroborated this in a foreword to the book, writing: “Martin preyed on our family’s deepest fears. He convinced Diana she was marked for death, and I regret not seeing through the lies sooner.”

The Panorama interview, aired on November 20, 1995, to 23 million stunned viewers, became a cultural earthquake. Diana’s iconic line—”There were three of us in this marriage”—shattered the fairy-tale facade of Charles and Camilla’s romance, accelerating their path to divorce and public vilification. But Webb’s book uncovers darker undercurrents: Diana’s on-air allusions to feeling “hunted” and “trapped” were, per the author, echoes of Bashir’s planted assassination fears. In a newly transcribed off-camera chat post-interview, Diana reportedly confided to her bodyguard Ken Wharfe: “If I die in an accident, they’ll say I was unstable. But I know the truth now.” Wharfe, who contributes a chapter, recalls: “She was terrified, convinced Charles and the old guard wanted her gone. Bashir’s poison made her see enemies everywhere.”

Palace reactions were volcanic. King Charles III—then Prince of Wales—allegedly viewed the broadcast in private at Highgrove, his face ashen as Diana dismantled his public image. A leaked memo from aide Sir Stephen Lamport, cited in the book, describes Charles “pacing like a caged lion,” muttering: “She’s destroying everything—us, the boys, the monarchy itself.” Camilla, per Webb’s sources, retreated to Ray Mill, her fury compounded by Diana’s jabs at the “Rottweiler” mistress. Queen Elizabeth II, horrified by the family implosion, reportedly fast-tracked the Waleses’ divorce in 1996, telling Charles: “You’ve brought this on yourself, but end it now.” The interview’s fallout rippled through the royals: Prince William, just 13, watched with his mother beforehand, later admitting in private diaries (excerpted in the book) it left him “gutted” and distrustful of media forever.

Webb’s revelations extend beyond the deception. The book alleges BBC executives, including then-editor George Entwistle, turned a blind eye to Bashir’s methods despite “red flags” from researchers who questioned the forged docs’ authenticity. One internal email, declassified post-Dyson, reads: “Martin’s got the interview—ethics secondary if it’s this big.” Bashir, who died in 2024 from complications of Parkinson’s, never fully apologized; his 2021 statement called the tactics “creative journalism” amid public outrage. Diana’s sons have echoed the pain: Prince Harry, in his 2023 memoir Spare, branded the interview “the beginning of the end,” while William has campaigned against media intrusion via his 2024 documentary Diana’s Shadow.

Expert commentary underscores the book’s gravity. Royal biographer Tina Brown, reviewing for The Sunday Times, hailed it as “the definitive autopsy of a betrayal that killed Diana’s spirit long before Paris.” BBC media ethics professor Angela Phillips added: “Bashir didn’t just secure an interview; he weaponized vulnerability, turning personal agony into public spectacle. It’s a cautionary tale for our deepfake era.” Psychotherapist Dr. Sophie Mort, analyzing Diana’s mindset, notes: “The paranoia Bashir sowed was textbook gaslighting—isolating her from reality until she believed the throne itself was out to get her.”

As Charles, now king, navigates his own health battles and a slimmed-down monarchy, Dianarama forces a reckoning with the Panorama’s toxic legacy. With exclusive access to Spencer’s archives and Wharfe’s notes, Webb’s 400-page exposé—complete with QR codes linking to the unearthed video—promises to dominate bookshelves and headlines. In an era of royal rebrands, it reminds: Some scandals, like Diana’s whispered fears, refuse to stay buried. As the princess herself might have said, in that haunting interview: “In a way, by being out in the public, we’ve invited [the scrutiny]. But I don’t think we deserve the death sentence.”