Is Moore as good as his Bond? Opinion Part 1       Read Part 2 (revised)

The third year anniversary of Sir Roger Moore withdrawing his foreword from Nikki's book For Your Ears Only has long passed and still there has been no contact from him to her. Speculation and rumours abound in the Bond world and many fans find the lack of a credible explanation unsatisfactory.

This is a typical comment:
Sir Roger Moore a well loved national treasure writes a foreword to a seemingly innocuous book which he then, without explanation, pulls at the last minute. I think that's a story worthy of discussion but when I raise it I am just met with people wanting to hush it all away or outright hostility .... Source

Some question whether Roger actually knew what was done in his name, or was under pressure to comply:
This is quite strange. The thing that really makes this shocking is that Roger Moore, one of the nicest gentlemen to ever enter this world had his foreword removed from her book. It seems like Sir Roger was MADE to take it out, as that action doesn't befit him. Source:

Rog wouldn't do that unless he was told. He is too much of a gentlemen for doing it for his own reasons, considering he already wrote the foreword, obviously having wanted to do it. I think EON has a hand in this particular cookie jar. Source:

This Nikki lady seems so harmless that it does not give me a nice feeling that at her age she has to put up with this. And Roger withdrawing his consent is strange. He writes the foreword then changes his mind? He is not playing Bond anymore so how could it harm his career? Has anyone read her book?, because I can only imagine there are some revelations in there that paint a darker picture of the organisation. Source:

Writing to Nikki from Florida, USA, this fan says:
If you wrote about your personal family problems and your son was upset, why Roger Moore and/or his representatives would decide to pull his section is beyond me.

This raises several questions. Who could make Roger do something against his will? And why? Would he not, as the gentleman most believe him to be, at least have asked to read any alleged 'offending' passages in the book first, and then contacted Nikki if he had any reservations? The fact is, he had not even read the book prior to the foreword being withdrawn. (Has he read it since?)

It is highly implausible that Roger would be concerned with matters about Nikki's private life in her own autobiography. After all he has been married four times and is not reticent about talking about the broken relationships, bitter recriminations and affairs in his books and frequent media interviews - most recently on TV with Piers Morgan. Roger won an injunction to stop his second wife Dorothy Squires from publishing her autobiography, which detailed their secrets. But there is nothing comparable in Nikki's book nor anything which is critical of, or reflects badly on, Roger. To quash any current rumours, Roger did not seek an injunction against Nikki's book.

Gareth Owen (Roger's Pinewood representative, pictured left with Nikki at a film convention), when speaking to the Daily Mail in January 2013, stated that the reason for Roger withdrawing his foreword was because of a letter the actor received from Nikki's son, Darrell van der Zyl. However when Mr. van der Zyl (pictured below with his mother in earlier times) was questioned by the Evening Standard he said he had not written a letter to Roger. Now, Mr. van der Zyl is a man of bottomless probity and so there can be no doubt that he did not write a letter to Roger. Besides, what sort of son would plot against his mother in that way? It's inconceivable and would be a rejection of the moral values instilled in him by his mother and stepfather. (But this interpretation will have to be revised because of Roger Moore's September 2013 insistence that he had received a letter from 'Darryl' - see part 2.)

But Mr. van der Zyl's explicit denial raises another crucial question. Who was the man - or woman - claiming to be him? Is it someone in the film industry motivated by malice? Or is it a relative who does not want unpalatable truths to be revealed? Either way, why would Sir Roger give credence to vilification? If he or his staff had sought verification of the identity of the letter's author there would be no uncertainty. They seem to have acted without due diligence.

The mystification can be easily cleared up by simply publishing the alleged letter. What is there to hide? A request for a copy of the letter was sent to Mr. Owen, but no reply (as yet) has been received. Does such a letter even exist? Nikki deserves to have everything out in the open and be able to respond to any unfair accusations made against her. Roger's autobiography (co-authored with Mr.Owen) is entitled My Word is My Bond, so a few words of clarification from him would not go amiss. It would put an end to damaging speculation and allow a much admired screen saint to preserve his image. .

Can you help identify the unknown person above - she or he? Or is the cowardly anonymous accuser(s) who persuaded/pressured Sir Roger allowed to get away with it? Any information you can supply will be welcomed. Click here to send your

It is very easy to mislead people. Read how an encounter between Roger and a journalist never actually happened, but was reported as just that. Anatomy of a cock-up: how the People's fake Roger Moore interview made it to New Zealand (Jan. 2013). Fortunately, he was able to obtain a retraction and an apology for the falsehoods. Isn't Nikki entitled to similar redress for the way she has been treated and the distress it has caused her?

Isn't it time for honesty? Abraham Lincoln said: Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.

Is George Lazenby being sidelined too? (see panel above) Where will it end?

- GAR, London, November 2013

Unless otherwise noted, the contents of this site are
Copyright 2013 Nikki van der Zyl
Material may not be reproduced without permission.
Web site designed by Rekoor Software