Princess Diana photo — 'not to be published' — shrouded in mystery

Fifteen years after her death, one would have thought the library of photos picturing Diana, Princess of Wales, would have been exhausted.

Alas, a new one has surfaced (above), this one most intriguing for the mystery that surrounds it.

What we do know is that the 8x10 image was among the photos purchased by the Caren Archive from the Daily Mirror newspaper in London about seven years ago.

The photo will go up for public bidding at RR Auction in New Hampshire this month and is expected to go well above the usual $1,000 for type of celebrity picture.

We also know that the photo was stamped at the newspaper on Feb. 26, 1981, two days after Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer announced their engagement (right).
The actual picture was obviously taken much earlier, so it was likely purchased from a freelancer.

Here's what we don't know:

► Why is the photo clearly marked in grease pencil "Not to be published"? Could it be that the paper was gun-shy about publishing a photo of a young Diana cuddled up with another man? One editor from the early 1980s, Mike Molloy, told the Guardian that the reason the picture wasn't published was probably because the Sunday Mirror's editor, Bob Edwards, had been subjected to a lot of heat from the Palace for publishing an earlier story about a secret romantic rendezvous between Charles and Diana on the royal train.

► Who is the guy? The Daily Mail is suggesting it might by Rory Scott, an old Diana boyfriend from her teen years. She would have been about 17 or 18 at the time and speculation is that the setting might be a ski chalet in Switerland. A good time would likely have been had by all, it seems, since there is a bottle of Johnnie Walker not far from the future princess's head.

"This would certainly not be the way the Royal Family would have wanted Diana to be presented at that moment, given that two days before her engagement had been announced," Eric Caren, owner of the Caren Archive, told the Daily Mail. "The fairytale between her and Charles was still intact at that point."

The fairytale didn't last long, with the marriage crumbling into divorce by April 1996. A little more than a year later, in a Paris tunnel, Diana died.

The fascination with her has not.

Comments

[onthehill]

If the photo was indeed taken on Feb. 26, 1981 (you say it was "dated" Feb. 26, 1981), Diana would have been 19, not 17 or 18. She was born July 1, 1981.

[Fred Dwarzell]

Or could the mystery man be .... her brother?

[Charlieman]

Johnnie Walker? Are we sure that's not a bottle of Ballantine's Irish Whisky?

[Charlieman]

...I meant Ballantine's scotch whisky.

[Nina]

Prince Harry's real father ?

[Kevin S]

The guy is reading a book and happens to be leaning on her.....sheesh

[concerned about our future with morals like this]

So if this is a new mystery, is that the bottle of Johnny Walker, Red Label, (sitting on the window sill,) going to fuel the fire of passion!!
Leave the doll alone, she has passed in a cloak of turmoil, we don't have to flog this to death.
You journalists should get life or at least buy yourselves some second hand morals from the Sally Ann..,

[Ron Bergundy]

OMG WHAT IS SHE WEARING? CAN WE SEE MORE PICTURES OF DIANA NOW THAT SHE'S DEAD & PEERING IN TO HER PERSONAL LIFE HAS SOMEHOW CHANGED FROM THE NIGHT SHE DIED?? CAN WE CAN WE CAN WE??!?!?!? lols

[[email protected]]

So perhaps she was not the virgin brood mare for the royal family after all. Diana did not obey her masters. If only Kate and William had her spirit and said no to the corruption of the monarchy. Diana's crime was that she actually cared.

[Paul]

Sure looks like her BROTHER!!!

[The fairytale is over]

" 'This would certainly not be the way the Royal Family would have wanted Diana to be presented at that moment, given that two days before her engagement had been announced,' Eric Caren, owner of the Caren Archive, told the Daily Mail."... And just a few decades later, when Diana's son married, his bride-to-be had an exhaustive number of pictures on Youtube in highly unflattering states. I guess the days of the Firm having control over the "princess narrative" is coming to an end.

[Constance]

Oh here we go again. Just because the photo was 'stamped' with a date doesn't mean it was the date the picture was taken, most like the date the picture was developed. If you ask me, she looks younger in the photo then when she got engaged to Chuck.

[Paul Myles]

I believe that the bottle is Ballantine's Scotch

[ntomyng]

It the paper really "never" intended for the picture to be published I suspect they could have put a line through Diana's face or something. Someone knew that this picture would be worth money someday, and while they may not have wanted to pulish it at that time, they obviously saw the value in keeping it.

[Grandma Roses]

It looks like it might be her brother, who is younger than she is. He appears to be reading a book. Perhaps the 'Do not publish' remark is due to the casual, dare I say, undignified posture of someone who might become queen one day.

[victoria gneo]

uh oh

[Sailor]

"publishing an earlier story about a secret romantic rendezvous between Charles and Diana on the royal train."
Turns out the romantic interlude was true , but it was between Charles and Camilla !!

[picklestick]

I wonder if she ever wished she'd stayed with this boy instead...

[Shawna Lillo]

Look at the guy, he looked like little Harry’s twin brother! If that isn’t Harry’s father, I am Elton John’s pony. That must be a photo of when Harry was conceived. This is a true gem to have been witnessed.