Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Advocates for Ms Kelly's right to proceed would argue that after three decades of devoted service, she has earned the right to tell her own story on her own terms, much as other former staff and family members have done. They would note she reportedly holds explicit written permission from a royal private secretary covering published works, and that a thoughtful, historically rich account of her unique vantage point could offer genuine public and cultural value, honouring the late Queen's era rather than diminishing it. Personal autonomy and the right to earn from one's own life experience, they would say, should not be permanently curtailed simply because of who one once worked for.

The case against

Those concerned about the project would argue that the trust placed in close royal staff depends on discretion being lifelong, not conditional, and that airing private views on sensitive matters such as Brexit, family relationships or succession risks real harm to individuals who cannot easily respond in kind. They would point to the confidentiality agreement she signed and argue that any permission she holds was intended for measured, vetted publications rather than a dramatised television production involving reconstruction, which could sensationalise or distort private moments. For them, protecting the institution's confidentiality culture and the dignity of those still living matters more than one individual's commercial or personal opportunity.