A Possible Prince Harry Documentary About Diana Sparks Premature Royal Gatekeeping Over His Own Mother’s Story

Prince Harry is reportedly considering a documentary about Diana, Princess of Wales, to mark the 30th anniversary of her death on August 31, 2027.

In an exclusive report, People said Harry was exploring several possible projects and had contacted relatives and friends connected to his mother. However, no documentary has been finalised or officially confirmed. The Telegraph separately reported that Harry had approached several people, including Diana’s brother, Charles Spencer, about participating.

That timing may not be coincidental. The documentary reports appeared while extracts and other advance material from Swan Song: Diana, My Sister were already circulating before publication. Piers Morgan even threatened legal action over what he called inaccuracies in the book on the evening before its official release.

Explaining why he decided to write the book, Spencer says he had rejected “endless, repeated requests” to appear in documentaries planned around the anniversary. Those approaches came from several people, including “a nephew,” Diana biographer Andrew Morton and Alastair Campbell.

It is therefore possible that at least some of the speculation began with Spencer’s reference to “a nephew,” rather than independent confirmation that the nephew was Harry.

The immediate assumption was that the unnamed nephew must be Harry. It may well have been. But Spencer did not say that.

He has four nephews through his three sisters: Prince William and Prince Harry, Diana’s sons; George McCorquodale, the son of Lady Sarah McCorquodale; and Alexander Fellowes, the son of Lady Jane Fellowes. The memoir’s wording alone does not establish which one approached him.

The Telegraph’s reporting provides a separate link to Harry, but the book should not be retroactively rewritten to make “a nephew” mean “Prince Harry.”

Apparently Harry Needs Permission to Discuss His Own Mother

However, if it is Harry, why would this be an issue? The proposed documentary was debated on Jeremy Vine’s programme, where one commentator said such a film would be acceptable provided it was “respectful.”

Respectful to whom?

There is no serious reason to believe Harry intends to disrespect the mother he has spent much of his adult life honouring. He has repeatedly credited Diana with shaping his charitable work, particularly his advocacy concerning landmines, HIV and AIDS, mental health and children affected by conflict. Harry’s legal action also resulted in News Group Newspapers issuing a formal apology for its extensive intrusion into Diana’s private life.

It takes remarkable audacity for a press culture that hunted and humiliated Diana while she was alive to lecture her own son about treating her memory with respect.

In this context, “respectful” often appears to mean respectful towards King Charles and Prince William. In other words, Harry may discuss Diana provided that nothing he says makes the surviving royal men uncomfortable.

Embed from Getty Images

British journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown made the more compelling argument: Diana has gradually been airbrushed out of royal history, and Harry has every right to participate in telling his mother’s story. And she is not wrong. Spencer says the official guide to St Mary Magdalene Church at Sandringham omits Diana’s baptism there on instructions from the “royal hierarchy”; paired with his claim that Charles said, “We’ll forget her soon enough,” it suggests an effort to preserve a safe, sentimental Diana while erasing the parts of her story that threaten Charles’s legacy.

Jeremy Vine also appeared to suggest that Harry should make such a documentary with William. The brothers previously participated together in Diana, Our Mother: Her Life and Legacy and the BBC documentary Diana, 7 Days for the 20th anniversary of her death in 2017. Their relationship is now dramatically different. Harry does not require William’s participation or approval before speaking about their mother.

William owns his memories of Diana. Harry owns his so both can co-exist.

Embed from Getty Images

The Royal Press Has Never Required Similar Permission

The selective concern is particularly striking because journalists, royal correspondents, former employees and biographers have spent nearly three decades producing books, documentaries and commentary about Diana.

Few television discussions begin by asking whether Andrew Morton, Tina Brown, former royal staff members or the latest talking head secured permission from both princes. Media organisations do not ask rival organisations whether they are morally entitled to commission another Diana programme.

Diana was one of the most famous public figures of the 20th century. Any broadcaster can make a documentary about her. Harry’s involvement would give a project something most productions lack: the memories and perspective of her son.

Charles Spencer faced the same double standard when he wrote his memoir. After decades of watching other people profit from Diana’s story, critics suddenly accused her own brother of exploiting her. Now those same gatekeepers warn Harry to remain “respectful” before he has announced or confirmed a film, much less revealed what it might contain.

A documentary produced by Harry would not automatically be definitive, just as William’s perspective would not be definitive. Both sons experienced Diana differently. Spencer experienced her as a sister. Friends, employees and historians hold other pieces of the record.

But Harry does not become disqualified from telling his part because his memories might complicate the Palace’s preferred version of Diana. If the press genuinely believes her history matters, it should be able to tolerate an account that does not place the comfort of King Charles at its centre.

It is telling that Charles appeared unable to tolerate Diana’s independence while she was alive and, nearly 30 years after her death, still seems entitled to control her memor, just as Spencer says he once sought to place himself at the centre of her funeral procession.