Was Princess Diana murdered?

[john8pies]

undefinedundefined

Have read a lot about this theory (much of it by the arch-conspiracy theorist, David Icke, but to be fair, several people sem to agree with him this time!)

The theory is basically as follows. The MI5/MI6/Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh (or perm any 1, 2 or 3 of them in any combination, according to who you believe or don`t) didn`t want Diana to marry Dodi Fayed because any children they subsequently had would be half Muslim, thus if they ever became heirs to the throne the Anglican link dating back to Henry VIII would be broken. So they engineered a car crash, by (again, you take your choice, I`ve heard all of these suggested:) tampering with the car brakes; spiking the chauffeur`s drink; having a driver coming in the opposite direction flashing a huge spotlight into the chauffeur`s face to temporarily blind him and make him lose control of the car; having a white Fiat Uno clip the royal Mercedes just sufficiently to make it lose control and hit the post at very high speed; etc etc.

Oh, yes, and this can allegedly be `proved` by unexplained amounts of money being paid into the chauffeur`s bank accounts just before the `accident`; and by the fact that only 1 occupant (who I presume must have been working in cohorts with the assassins) was wearing a seat-belt at the time of impact, contrary to regulations - apparently he de-activated the seat-belts of the other 3 by remote control. Diana herself was `seen` by some in a distressed state, wandering about in the tunnel. And so on.....

Any ideas or comments or extra info. most welcome!

[lady cop]

IF the royal family were involved in this harebrained convoluted scheme, they would have found a more certain and professional method. more bollocks.

[abbey]

This is unbelievable!

Everybody knows that it was Santa Claus who clipped the car that night, it has been said that Rudolph had been out on the tiles that afternoon and had had one too many Martini's.

Of course, the magic pixies cleaned up any evidence with their magic pixie dust!

[Bothwell]

What utter B******s. Enough already. Take a powerful car, too much speed, a pissed driver, no seatbelts and a concrete wall, that is the magic formula for a fatal road crash. For God's sake there was no conspiracy and even if the part of the population (alien abductees, Daily Mail readers) that believes there was who cares?

[john8pies]

Oh, does the fact that the video cameras which went all the way from the hotel to the tunnel were out of action for the only time ever during that fateful journey make any difference then???!!!

[Bothwell]

No they don't she is still dead.

The surete, Scotland Yard, the Met Police, The British and French Governments, countless investigative reporters, amateur sleuths, the French Judicial system, the British Judicial system between them have come up with NO proof of any conspiracy. My guess about the TV cameras is that they were "disabled" afterwards to stop copies of the tapes falling into the hands of such august journals as The National Enquirer or the News of the World.

The French of course would do everything they could not to expose a British Royal Family scandal!!!!!! are you kidding, most French magazine editors would joyously hack off parts of their anatomy to have such a thing, if they have it publish and be dammned !

My point is that any fact dredged up by anyone that was indisputable regarding a conspiracy would be worth millions commercialy, not one of the many alleged co conspirators of investigators with knowledge of what "Really" happened has come forward, why? because there is no conspiracy.

[Philadelphia Eagle]

You talk about 'Princess Diana'

Allow me to correct an oft-repeated mistake.

There was no such person.

I suspect you mean the lady whose official title was 'Diana - Princess of Wales'

She was not 'Princess Diana' as she was born a commoner and, as such, could never become a princess even when she married a real Prince.

Upon her marriage she was granted the honorary title of 'Diana - Princess of Wales' by royal decree and deliberately not 'Princess Diana'

As to the conspiracy thoery - what rubbish!

Read Bothwell#4 for some common sense!

[john8pies]

This may be technically accurate but she was always known by the British people at least as Princess Diana ; it wasn`t until her divorce from Charles that she was `rebranded` as Diana, Princess of Wales.

The conspiracy theory may in your opinion be `rubbish` but a simple google! search along the lines of `Was Princess Diana murdered?` will show that a lot of people seem to think it.

I note your footnote, "America the Beautiful, Land of the Free` - I totally agree with you, and one thing America is famous for is the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights guaranteeing Freedom of Speech. Or do you think this only applies to people who have similar views to yourself?

[turbonium]

I agree with you, John. All of you out there - this is a CONSPIRACY forum here - if you don't agree with the theory, at least post civil and intelligent rebuttals - to write everything posited as 'a bunch of tripe spewed out by nut-jobs' does nothing but bring the forum down into the gutter. John has researched the issue, and has his opinions based on such. If you disagree with him, you have every right to do so, but it would be much more productive if your comments are based on valid information. It makes it a lot more informative for others (like myself) who know very little about the controversy and would like to learn more, both pro and con!!

[redman]

I tend to disagree with a lot of you,I think it was planned by M16,

they could never allow her to marry a muslim or have his child.

Why did the French break rules to embalm the body? why was so much evidence hushed up? if you have followed the latest inquiry I am sure you would change your mind after reading the FACTS.

[spot]

It's a pity the original poster has such clunkers as "any children they subsequently had would be half Muslim"... ??what??

"thus if they ever became heirs to the throne"... as though being the mother to the Heir Presumptive's children raised any other children she might have higher in the Succession.

Two sad misunderstanding, there.

Yes of course she might have been murdered to prevent any further embarrassment to the throne, how can anyone read all the convolutions that have happened since and not at least wonder? What strikes me as lunacy isn't the notion that it might have happened so much as the condescending arrogance of LC and Bothwell knowing for sure that the idea is "more" or "utter bollocks", in their words. How closed can a mind get before it might as well shut down altogether? That's not "I read the newspapers", that's "I sit with my fingers in my ears singing lalalalala loudly".

[Uncle Kram]

john8pies wrote: undefinedundefined

Have read a lot about this theory (much of it by the arch-conspiracy theorist, David Icke, but to be fair, several people sem to agree with him this time!)

The theory is basically as follows. The MI5/MI6/Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh (or perm any 1, 2 or 3 of them in any combination, according to who you believe or don`t) didn`t want Diana to marry Dodi Fayed because any children they subsequently had would be half Muslim, thus if they ever became heirs to the throne the Anglican link dating back to Henry VIII would be broken. So they engineered a car crash, by (again, you take your choice, I`ve heard all of these suggested:) tampering with the car brakes; spiking the chauffeur`s drink; having a driver coming in the opposite direction flashing a huge spotlight into the chauffeur`s face to temporarily blind him and make him lose control of the car; having a white Fiat Uno clip the royal Mercedes just sufficiently to make it lose control and hit the post at very high speed; etc etc.

Oh, yes, and this can allegedly be `proved` by unexplained amounts of money being paid into the chauffeur`s bank accounts just before the `accident`; and by the fact that only 1 occupant (who I presume must have been working in cohorts with the assassins) was wearing a seat-belt at the time of impact, contrary to regulations - apparently he de-activated the seat-belts of the other 3 by remote control. Diana herself was `seen` by some in a distressed state, wandering about in the tunnel. And so on.....

Any ideas or comments or extra info. most welcome!
This confuses me..or am I being stupid here?......these children would never be heirs to the throne as they would not be descendants of Prince Charles

[chonsigirl]

abbey wrote: This is unbelievable!

Everybody knows that it was Santa Claus who clipped the car that night, it has been said that Rudolph had been out on the tiles that afternoon and had had one too many Martini's.

Of course, the magic pixies cleaned up any evidence with their magic pixie dust!


I happen to personally know Santa had nothing to do with this! Or Elf either!

[PurpleChicken]

Why is it that we always have to find someone to blame?? What ever happened to the '**** happens' theory?



Tragic as they are, sometimes these things just happen. No conspiracy, no cover ups, no bribes.

[spot]

Uncle Kram wrote: This confuses me..or am I being stupid here?......these children would never be heirs to the throne as they would not be descendants of Prince CharlesEvery Subject of Her Majesty stands in line to the throne, Uncle. To murder my way to the top, according to my family history chart, I need to remove about 90,185 closer claimants, so as you can see I'm quite high up the list. Since all bastards are ineligible, you need very well-behaved ancestors going back to the last time a monarch appears up your family tree - in my case the prolific offspring of a poorly-documented elder sister of George the Second who spent her adult years in London's Bethlehem Hospital amusing visitors at sixpence each. I'd get to the British Throne before any putative descendants of al Fayed though.

[JayDee]

PurpleChicken wrote: Why is it that we always have to find someone to blame?? What ever happened to the '**** happens' theory?



Tragic as they are, sometimes these things just happen. No conspiracy, no cover ups, no bribes.


That sums it up for me.

Oh- and Clunk Clip every trip!

[spot]

JayDee wrote: That sums it up for me.

Oh- and Clunk Clip every trip!If you feel it's possible that a professional chauffeur of the quality of Henri Paul drove with alcohol in his system, then that's a reasonable assumption. In my experience it doesn't ever happen. Historically, high-placed murders of this complexity do.

[JayDee]

spot wrote: If you feel it's possible that a professional chauffeur of the quality of Henri Paul drove with alcohol in his system, then that's a reasonable assumption. In my experience it doesn't ever happen. Historically, high-placed murders of this complexity do.


I'll bear that in mind.

[Tigerlily]

I've always thought that there might be something in it. She was so embarrassing and showed such bad judgement that you could quite easily imagine them wanting to be rid of her.

[Uncle Kram]

spot wrote: Every Subject of Her Majesty stands in line to the throne, Uncle. To murder my way to the top, according to my family history chart, I need to remove about 90,185 closer claimants, so as you can see I'm quite high up the list. Since all bastards are ineligible, you need very well-behaved ancestors going back to the last time a monarch appears up your family tree - in my case the prolific offspring of a poorly-documented elder sister of George the Second who spent her adult years in London's Bethlehem Hospital amusing visitors at sixpence each. I'd get to the British Throne before any putative descendants of al Fayed though.
Good and interesting post Your Spotness. Must have been a classy girl. A tanner was a lot of money in those days

[spot]

Uncle Kram wrote: Good and interesting post Your Spotness. Must have been a classy girl. A tanner was a lot of money in those days :DTwenty four loaves of hand-baked bread, twelve pints of foaming ale... hell, I remember when I'd get a bag of chip scratchings and a train ride home from cubs for that with a penny change, and that weren't so long ago neither.

[redman]

spot wrote: If you feel it's possible that a professional chauffeur of the quality of Henri Paul drove with alcohol in his system, then that's a reasonable assumption. In my experience it doesn't ever happen. Historically, high-placed murders of this complexity do.




What I say is ,How could Henri have that much carbon monoxide in his blood?he would have been dead like the chap who gave the blood sample,never mind being able to drive.

[spot]

redman wrote: What I say is ,How could Henri have that much carbon monoxide in his blood?he would have been dead like the chap who gave the blood sample,never mind being able to drive.We'll make little progress if we don't provide the occasional url for further reading. If you can see the autopsy reports online, or a rational uncontentious newspaper article, that would help a lot.

The current fuss seems to be led by the Express and Mirror, neither of which figure prominently on my reading list, but I'd love to see them get somewhere. This is from April 18th's Express which, sensationalist or not, isn't making it up:

In addition to the blood-alcohol reading, tests done by Dr Pepin and Professor Dominique Lecomte showed such a high level of carbon monoxide - 20.7 per cent - that Mr Paul would have been unable to stand, let alone drive. One French source said: "The authorities were keen to speculate that the carbon monoxide may have been ingested after the crash, but two factors would point to this being impossible.

"Firstly, Henri Paul died instantly so he would not have drawn breath. But, even more curious, Dodi Fayed had no carbon monoxide in his blood whatsoever." The readings were consistent with someone who had drunk a large quantity of whisky and then attached a hosepipe to their car exhaust as a method of suicide.

Mr Paul's was one of 25 bodies in the morgue that night. Lord Stevens wants to know who the other 24 were but French law prevents them being identified.

[chonsigirl]

:wah:

[Nomad]

chonsigirl wrote: I happen to personally know Santa had nothing to do with this! Or Elf either!



:)




LIES ! BLASPHEMY !

[princessfroggy]

Have you read the book written by the only survivor of the crash? I'm not finished reading it yet, but it seems to give some real insight to the circumstances of that dreadful evening. A sweet princess was lost that night. :-1

[HelenA]

lots of good points - I really think that something was going on - not sure what. If they had really wanted her dead a car crash is surely not a good way to kill someone - too hit and miss.

Another point though - why was the enquiry not held until recently? Why did the French embalm the body? And was she pregnant?

I know that there was no love lost between the senior royals and Diana- but she had just come through it and was i think coming into herself - supporting charities and finding love. She seemed a lot happier

But around that time it was all reaching such a climax, the press were hounding her.....this seems the kind of cinematic ending that even steven speilberg couldn't make up! It had to reach a finale somehow.....sucha shame she had to go that way.

[Bill Sikes]

HelenA;503173 wrote: lots of good points - I really think that something was going on - not sure what. If they had really wanted her dead a car crash is surely not a good way to kill someone - too hit and miss.

Another point though - why was the enquiry not held until recently? Why did the French embalm the body? And was she pregnant?


A very lengthy and detailed report has just been made concerning all these

matters. If you have some time to spare, it's worth a read and will put all

this stuff to bed.

[spot]

An interesting aspect of the impending inquest is that the Royal Family has insisted the Princess, despite being divorced and out of the list payments system and not fulfilling royal engagements, still be considered a member of the family. The consequence of this is that any jury will consist of the Queen's employees instead of members of the public.On the question of a jury at a royal inquest, the law is clear. There is no "wiggle" room.

It states: "The jurors on an inquest held by the coroner of the Queen's household shall consist of officers of that household".

So, Lady Butler-Sloss faces an unenviable task.

She either sits on her own - and runs the risk of being accused of presiding over an establishment whitewash - or she has a jury which is made up of the Queen's senior employees.

This is just one of the many hurdles the former senior judge has to clear in advance of the inquest taking place, presumably before the 10th anniversary of Princess Diana's death in August 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6176613.stm

[Bill Sikes]

spot;503200 wrote: An interesting aspect of the impending inquest is that the Royal Family has insisted the Princess, despite being divorced and out of the list payments system and not fulfilling royal engagements, still be considered a member of the family. The consequence of this is that any jury will consist of the Queen's employees instead of members of the public


It's an interesting feature of the law, not a royal whim. Do you doubt that the

result will differ from the conclusions of the Froggies, and Lord Stevens?

[spot]

Bill Sikes;503220 wrote: It's an interesting feature of the law, not a royal whim. Do you doubt that the

result will differ from the conclusions of the Froggies, and Lord Stevens?The royal whim is in deciding who falls within their remit, it seems to me.

I'd put any amount of hard cash at long odds on the outcome if anyone were daft enough to predict a verdict other than accidental death.

[HelenA]

Bill Sikes;503220 wrote: It's an interesting feature of the law, not a royal whim. Do you doubt that the

result will differ from the conclusions of the Froggies, and Lord Stevens?


who knows - as long as the truth is told.......lets face it any other accident and the enquiry is held almost immediately. I suppose we will never know what really happened unless someone manages to contact diana beyod the grave!!

[Tigerlily]

She was a very irritating and embarrassing woman who was badly treated and didn't have the wits to cope with it with dignity. Even if they didn't do for her I bet they heaved a huge sigh of relief when they heard the news.

a week before she died she was photographed whizzing around on a back of a jetski behind Al Fayed looking distinctly podgy, and I felt sorry for her sons having to see photos of their mother behaving with such lack of judgement.

[Bill Sikes]

Tigerlily;505947 wrote: She was a very irritating and embarrassing woman who was badly treated and didn't have the wits to cope with it with dignity. Even if they didn't do for her I bet they heaved a huge sigh of relief when they heard the news.

a week before she died she was photographed whizzing around on a back of a jetski behind Al Fayed looking distinctly podgy, and I felt sorry for her sons having to see photos of their mother behaving with such lack of judgement.


There is much to agree with in the above post!

[Bill Sikes]

HelenA;504347 wrote: I suppose we will never know what really happened unless someone manages to contact diana beyod the grave!!


You don't need to go that far - the Stevens enquiry looks pretty good to me. If

it was not, Old Fathead would be screaming blue murder at details, not simply

saying "It can't be true!".

[RedGlitter]

Wow! This surprises me a lot because I was under the impression that Diana was so loved by "her" people....? Here in the US we're overall, quite fond of her. At least I was. I remember that ridiculous over the top wedding an dthat crazy gown but even then, there was something about Diana.

So what exactly do you guys think about her?

I do think her death was "iffy."

[Bill Sikes]

RedGlitter;506180 wrote: Wow! This surprises me a lot because I was under the impression that Diana was so loved by "her" people....? Here in the US we're overall, quite fond of her. At least I was. I remember that ridiculous over the top wedding an dthat crazy gown but even then, there was something about Diana.

So what exactly do you guys think about her?

I do think her death was "iffy."


There are people who thought she was quite something, and people who

thought she was quite something else! The "ridiculous over the top wedding"

was entirely appropriate, as it was a State Occasion. Personally, I became

absolutely sick of her rather before they separated.

I think that the only "iffy" thing about the crash was the incident with the white

car, which may (or may not) have precipitated the accident.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/sha ... report.pdf

[spot]

Bill Sikes;503220 wrote: It's an interesting feature of the law, not a royal whim. Do you doubt that the

result will differ from the conclusions of the Froggies, and Lord Stevens?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6239897.stm updates this. I seem not to be the only person to feel that a wider jury rather than a royal household jury would be sensible, given the current level of public suspicion.Any jury at the inquest into the death of Princess Diana should be drawn from the public to avoid an "appearance of bias", the Queen's lawyer has said.

Sir John Nutting QC told a preliminary hearing at the High Court that protocol which could see a panel from the Royal Household sit should not be followed.

[RedGlitter]

I'm on the fence about this but I'm leaning to the side of murder theory. It makes sense to me why someone (or someones) would be desperate enough to have her ...removed.

[cyprian]

Kets get this over and done with. Princess died in a tragic accident - no one killed her - it was not murder - there was no conspiracy. Let the poor woman rest in peace and her family get on with life. The whole thing is becoming stupid.

[spot]

cyprian;509230 wrote: Kets get this over and done with. Princess died in a tragic accident - no one killed her - it was not murder - there was no conspiracy. Let the poor woman rest in peace and her family get on with life. The whole thing is becoming stupid.


Your Royal Highness! We're honoured to have you visit our humble site. Do, please, make yourself at home. If you prefer to be incognito just mention it and we'll call you cyprian instead.

[RedGlitter]

:wah: Way to go, Spot!



As I said, Cyprian, or..Your Royal Highness....I do think something was in the works to kill her. I mean look at the history of the entire royal family...what about those two dead princes in the tower? What about the other ones whose names I can't recall. And the ones we know- that Henry the HeadCutter guy who offed wives as they became inconvenient? Why should modern day Royalty be any different?

[spot]

You have to bear in mind that the entire army individually swears loyal obedience to the Queen, not to the Government, and that she has the authority to grant pardons, with or without publicizing the fact, for anything which might be construed otherwise as a crime. It's not as though she doesn't have a lot of people to do her bidding.

[Bill Sikes]

spot;509285 wrote: You have to bear in mind that the entire army individually swears loyal obedience to the Queen


Do they really?

[buttercup]

RedGlitter;506180 wrote: Wow! This surprises me a lot because I was under the impression that Diana was so loved by "her" people....? Here in the US we're overall, quite fond of her. At least I was. I remember that ridiculous over the top wedding an dthat crazy gown but even then, there was something about Diana.

So what exactly do you guys think about her?

I do think her death was "iffy."


Hi Red - Many people adored her & just as many thought she was a basket case, bout 50 - 50

.........................

Other questions - Do i think the queen plotted her death, oh pleaseeeeeeee :yh_rotfl

[spot]

Bill Sikes;509910 wrote: Do they really?


Why else would I have said it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ar ... allegiance

"I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me".

[Bill Sikes]

spot;509945 wrote: Why else would I have said it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ar ... allegiance

"I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me".


You effectively missed out all of the bit after "II" in your post, which completely

distorted the meaning of the oath.

[YZGI]

I cant believe it has'nt been blamed on the U.S. or Bush yet.