Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death

[MARG]

I have said this before and will repeat again: never in my life I believed for a moment that Prince Charles or any other member of the Royal Family has anything to do with the tragic death of Lady Diana. I always tried to avoid the so-called 'absolute' opinions, since nothing is absolute, but this is one thing I am definetely sure.

As too am I! The idea is at best ridiculous, at worst, obscene.

As for witnesses, who saw 'flashes', other cars... None of those witnesses stated anything like that back in 1997, and they suddenly start remembering after almost 10 year? very convincing. 5 minutes of fame, that's what they want, those, who 'saw the last moments of the Princess's life'.

Very very convincing ..... I don't think!

I cannot believe that there are many ordinary reasonalble people out there that will give these assertions (for that is all they are) the time of day, let alone 5 minutes.

 

[ysbel]

The only thing I can think of the French investigators would hide is the red car that supposedly came in contact with their car. There were reports of a swath of red paint where another car had brushed past the car.

Even then, I can't imagine the authorities repressing that if the car had in fact been a cause of the collision. But I can imagine them hiding it if they determined that this incident didn't have any impact on the fatal collision. If the people in the red car had nothing to do with the eventual collision, having their names and details out during the initial furor after Diana's death would have put them in an awful position. Even if innocent they would have been on the other side of a vicious press and an angry public.

 

[Diogenes]

I do belive that Diana could have been killed by "other forces." After all Diana was the most popualr person in the world at the time of her death. The British government may have worried whatDiana might do to them and maybe thought she was better off dead. Another thing to point out is the letter Diana wrote to Paul Burrell saying she would die in a mysterious car crash in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry. So I belive the British government may have had something to do with Diana's death.

I'm not 100% convinced either way. The only thing to bear in mind though is that a potential marriage (and children) to an Egyptian and son of one of the least popular establishment figures in the UK would have rattled both the government and the Royal Family. Just imagine, a sibling of the potential heir to the throne being a muslim and whose grandfather has been repeatedly denied British nationality!

 

[Avalon]

I'm not 100% convinced either way. The only thing to bear in mind though is that a potential marriage (and children) to an Egyptian and son of one of the least popular establishment figures in the UK would have rattled both the government and the Royal Family. Just imagine, a sibling of the potential heir to the throne being a muslim and whose grandfather has been repeatedly denied British nationality!

I understand it would be inconvinient and everything but what exactly would happen if Diana did marry Dodi (though I highly doubt she ever had that in her mind, whatever Mr. Al Fayed says) and have kids with him? The end of the world? She would just suddenly become very unpopular, just like Jackie did, when she married Aristotel, and that's all. Come to that, it might even be good for the RF in the end.
I understand all the controversy about the fact that the possible siblings of the Princes of the UK could be muslin and everything, but really, so what? The bif scandal would be if William/Harry would decide to become muslins themselves but I don't believe in that/

 

[Warren]

I'm not 100% convinced either way. The only thing to bear in mind though is that a potential marriage (and children) to an Egyptian and son of one of the least popular establishment figures in the UK would have rattled both the government and the Royal Family. Just imagine, a sibling of the potential heir to the throne being a muslim and whose grandfather has been repeatedly denied British nationality!

This keeps coming up. So I'll ask again: why would it be such a problem if the divorced wife of the Prince of Wales (and mother of the future King) was married to a person of the Islamic faith? Why do some people assume Britain would be aghast if William and Harry had a half-brother or sister of that faith and of part-Egyptian heritage? Considering his close and sympathetic connections with the Arab World I imagine Charles would be quite chuffed.

Why is there an assumption that a potential Islamic step-family connection would be motive for murder? Kill the mother to save the sons? The suggestion that William and Harry had to be protected from the "taint" of Islam by the murder of their mother is inherently illogical.

Why would the British government care if Diana and Dodi married and lived in Paris? (or anywhere for that matter). The issue of marrying an al Fayed would be controversial for sure, but that is because of the father's reputation (and maybe the son's), and not his religion or the fact he is Egyptian. And the last point: apart from Mr al Fayed himself, who else has stated Diana and Dodi were planning to get married? As far as I know Diana's family and closest friends denied the claim from the outset.

 

[Avalon]

This keeps coming up. So I'll ask again: why would it be such a problem if the divorced wife of the Prince of Wales (and mother of the future King) was married to a person of the Islamic faith? Why do some people assume Britain would be aghast if William and Harry had a half-brother or sister of that faith and of part-Egyptian heritage? Considering his close and sympathetic connections with the Arab World I imagine Charles would be quite chuffed.

Why is there an assumption that a potential Islamic step-family connection would be motive for murder? Kill the mother to save the sons? The suggestion that William and Harry had to be protected from the "taint" of Islam by the murder of their mother is inherently illogical.

Why would the British government care if Diana and Dodi married and lived in Paris? (or anywhere for that matter). The issue of marrying an al Fayed would be controversial for sure, but that is because of the father's reputation (and maybe the son's), and not his religion or the fact he is Egyptian. And the last point: apart from Mr al Fayed himself, who else has stated Diana and Dodi were planning to get married? As far as I know Diana's family and closest friends denied the claim from the outset.

We seem to have the same thoughts on this issue, Warren!

 

[MARG]

We seem to have the same thoughts on this issue, Warren!

I'll second that! Calm logic will squash emotional rhetoric any day!

 

[Roslyn]

I'll second that! Calm logic will squash emotional rhetoric any day!

But calm logic settles back and enjoys itself quitely, whereas that bright, shiny attention-seeker emotional rhetoric just won't stay down. It has to keep bubbling up and attracting attention, and calm logic is overlooked in its wake.

 

[Diogenes]

I understand it would be inconvinient and everything but what exactly would happen if Diana did marry Dodi (though I highly doubt she ever had that in her mind, whatever Mr. Al Fayed says) and have kids with him? The end of the world? She would just suddenly become very unpopular, just like Jackie did, when she married Aristotel, and that's all. Come to that, it might even be good for the RF in the end.
I understand all the controversy about the fact that the possible siblings of the Princes of the UK could be muslin and everything, but really, so what? The bif scandal would be if William/Harry would decide to become muslins themselves but I don't believe in that/

I feel I must make my own position clear - I don't think there would have been anything wrong with a potential marriage nor with Will and Harry having Arab siblings. I was playing devil's advocate, interpreting what the British establishment might have been thinking! Let's not underestimate this. The establishment is powerful enough to have been blocking Al Fayed's citizenship for years, ignoring the fact that he employs thousands of British people, does a hell of lot for childrens charities and, if he is a crook, he is definitely not alone!!

 

[ysbel]

But there is a difference between blocking citizenship and plotting a murder.

 

[Elspeth]

I'm not 100% convinced either way. The only thing to bear in mind though is that a potential marriage (and children) to an Egyptian and son of one of the least popular establishment figures in the UK would have rattled both the government and the Royal Family. Just imagine, a sibling of the potential heir to the throne being a muslim and whose grandfather has been repeatedly denied British nationality!

Well, I think Diana came a lot closer to marrying Hasnat Khan, who's also Muslim, than Dodi Fayed, and she didn't appear to be the target of bizarre assassination attempts during those years. As Warren said, marrying Fayed's son and going off to live a jet-set lifestyle wouldn't have helped her popularity at all - if the Establishment wanted to marginalise her, it would have been positively helping her along the road to being Mrs Fayed.

 

[redfox6]

This keeps coming up. So I'll ask again: why would it be such a problem if the divorced wife of the Prince of Wales (and mother of the future King) was married to a person of the Islamic faith? Why do some people assume Britain would be aghast if William and Harry had a half-brother or sister of that faith and of part-Egyptian heritage? Considering his close and sympathetic connections with the Arab World I imagine Charles would be quite chuffed.

Why is there an assumption that a potential Islamic step-family connection would be motive for murder? Kill the mother to save the sons? The suggestion that William and Harry had to be protected from the "taint" of Islam by the murder of their mother is inherently illogical.

Why would the British government care if Diana and Dodi married and lived in Paris? (or anywhere for that matter). The issue of marrying an al Fayed would be controversial for sure, but that is because of the father's reputation (and maybe the son's), and not his religion or the fact he is Egyptian. And the last point: apart from Mr al Fayed himself, who else has stated Diana and Dodi were planning to get married? As far as I know Diana's family and closest friends denied the claim from the outset.

I agree with you. First of all I believe this was just a fling, so to speak, Secondly, when this was occurring 9/11/ and the other bombings had not yet occurred, so the fact that the gentleman in question was Muslim was a smaller factor than, perhaps, today. I really don't believe Diana had any intentions of marrying him anyway. Thirdly, as much as Diana was a thorn in the BRF side, her death was worse. I do not for one moment believe they had anything to do with it. She now is frozen in time, a young, beautiful goddess, that many revere and love. Her visage is always young and perfect. I don't think they wanted that. Just an aside Jackie Onassis only fell from grace here in the States for a short time, people adapted to her new name and life and when she died she was much loved and respected.

 

[fanletizia]

Rome, ITALY: A women reads the Italian magazine Chi, which featured a photograph of Princess Diana as she lay dying, 14 July 2006 in Rome. Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed died in the crash in Paris in 1997. A photo of the princess being given oxygen at the crash scene appeared in the weekly magazine

from getty

 

[Elspeth]

I sincerely hope that the cover is the only part of that magazine we'll be seeing.

While a discussion about whether the magazine should be printing the photo is perfectly OK, we're not prepared to have the photo itself on this site.

Elspeth

Royal Forums administrator

 

[Empress]

I sincerely hope that the cover is the only part of that magazine we'll be seeing.

While a discussion about whether the magazine should be printing the photo is perfectly OK, we're not prepared to have the photo itself on this site.

Elspeth

Royal Forums administrator

Thank you for that. This is totally obscene!

 

[marian]

As I am a jornalist, and I work in a newspaper and in a magazine, I can say you that I realized many polls and mexican people think that the royal house killed to princess Diana. People said that the queen and prince Charles use her only for that she give him heirs.

 

[ysbel]

As I am a jornalist, and I work in a newspaper and in a magazine, I can say you that I realized many polls and mexican people think that the royal house killed to princess Diana. People said that the queen and prince Charles use her only for that she give him heirs.

Well as a journalist, marian, you undoubtedly know that just because polls say people believe something, it doesn't necessarily mean that what they believe is true.

 

[foiegrass]

why can't everyone just move on from the fact that she died. seriously, whether she was killed by an accident or other forces... whether they find out about it or not- WON'T BRING HER BACK TO LIFE.
everyone should move on, let her rest in peace, see her light shine in prince william & harry!

 

[KSDiva]

Thanks for cracking down and not posting the picture here. I surfed out to see how others felt about it (I generally lurk, it's about all I have time to do infrequently!) and didn't even think that I might see the photo. I do not want to see it.

So thanks, moderators.

 

[nokklav]

Foto morente Diana,Al Fayed furioso
Collera contro settimanale "Chi"
A nove anni dal tragico incidente sotto il ponte dell'Alma a Parigi, ora è la foto di Diana morente, pubblicata dal settimanale Chi, a far infuriare la stampa britannica e Mohammed Al Fayed, il cui figlio Dodi morì con la principessa. La notizia della pubblicazione è sulle prime pagine di tutti i giornali, che criticano con toni indignati la decisione del giornale italiano. Il magnate egiziano si è detto rattristato e furioso....


http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/mondo/articol...olo318850.shtml


Italian gossip magazine chi has published the photo of lady immediately after the accident before she died. in this picture her face is hidden. basically, the article above says mr al fayed as well as prince charles are said to be furious and at the same time sad of the fact the photo was published. they say that no care was taken on the 'intimacy' of the moment and on what her loved ones would feel once these saw the photos. charles has as yet not excluded the chance to sue the magazine. morover, kim knott, who has been reported to be the author of the picture has disclaimed himself, saying that his only ever relation with diana was when he photographed her for a christmas card.

 

[fanletizia]

William, Harry 'saddened' by Italian photos of Diana death

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/219305/1/.html

 

[Elspeth]

Please note that posts containing edited versions of the photograph, whether posted or linked, will also be deleted.

 

[merchooker]

It doesn't matter what the speedometer was showing, they were obviously going VERY fast. Just look at the mangled wreckage, particularly the front of the Mercedes (or what's left of it).
.

The car was smashed up badly. However, alot of the "damage" you see, was done by EMS trying to get the passengers out of the car. Speed is very important if you are trying to reconstruct the accident to see what happened and why.

 

[Avalon]

I am feel really sick at the idea that the magazine published those pictures. Thanks for our moderators, who banned them from this forum.
I can understand Princes William, Harry and Charles. While there are very little chances, I certainly hope that they didn't see it.

 

[merchooker]

It's hard to know what to believe since there are so many huge questions in the crash investigation. I doubt anyone will ever know exactly what happened and as good as the investigators are they can't turn back time and know precisely what went on.

One thing is for sure: if there was a conspiracy to kill Diana, a suicide wouldn't have raised any less commotion than the accident in Paris has. Even with a note, there would still be questions years later...was it her intent, was she poisoned..if so by whom?

It's tragic that she was lost. She was young and vibrant and had so much to give. The best that we can do is remember the good work that she did, and hope that her sons carry on her legacy.

Well stated! I don't think anyone will ever really know what happened that night, except the people that unfortunately can't tell us. Anytime someone so beautiful, so young, so popular, and sooooo loved dies, especially tragically, there are always going to be conspiracy theories. Part of me believes that she was killed on purpose. But I think that's because it's easier to accept than she wasn't wearing a seatbelt, the driver was drunk and high, and they were going WAY too fast. It really is a shame that her royal detail had been dismissed. Fate is fate, when it's your time to go, it will happen no matter what the circumstances. I just feel so sorry for her two boys who will have to live the rest of their lives with all of this surrounding them.

 

[Avalon]

Well stated! I don't think anyone will ever really know what happened that night, except the people that unfortunately can't tell us. Anytime someone so beautiful, so young, so popular, and sooooo loved dies, especially tragically, there are always going to be conspiracy theories. Part of me believes that she was killed on purpose. But I think that's because it's easier to accept than she wasn't wearing a seatbelt, the driver was drunk and high, and they were going WAY too fast. It really is a shame that her royal detail had been dismissed. Fate is fate, when it's your time to go, it will happen no matter what the circumstances. I just feel so sorry for her two boys who will have to live the rest of their lives with all of this surrounding them.

Let's think... Elvis Presley, 2Pac, Princess Grace of Monaco, Merlin Monroe... All of them are death but either people don't believe in their death, or believe they are conspiracy theories.
People die every day. The fact that you are young, popular doesn't secure you from the fatal end. Why is it hard to accept that they simply died? Not killed but died? Like millions of people every year.

 

[merchooker]

Let's think... Elvis Presley, 2Pac, Princess Grace of Monaco, Merlin Monroe... All of them are death but either people don't believe in their death, or believe they are conspiracy theories.
People die every day. The fact that you are young, popular doesn't secure you from the fatal end. Why is it hard to accept that they simply died? Not killed but died? Like millions of people every year.

I think it's because these people are all placed so high on a pedastal, that they become almost untouchable. They become in a way invincible and we don't think that death will ever come to them. So when it does and it's tragic, people have a hard time dealing. They bring such great light to our lives, people don't want that to go away. On a deeper level, I also think it's because death is final and is the great unknown.

 

[Avalon]

I think it's because these people are all placed so high on a pedastal, that they become almost untouchable. They become in a way invincible and we don't think that death will ever come to them. So when it does and it's tragic, people have a hard time dealing. They bring such great light to our lives, people don't want that to go away. On a deeper level, I also think it's because death is final and is the great unknown.

I understand that, but I find it, well, stupid. Maybe the only think, in front of which we all are equal, is death.
They are not untouchable, they are mortals. I understand it's hard to assept the death of a person, you like or maybe adore (since many of them were really adored) but to look for a conspiracy in every single (at least most) case of death of such person?

 

[ysbel]

Part of me believes that she was killed on purpose. But I think that's because it's easier to accept than she wasn't wearing a seatbelt, the driver was drunk and high, and they were going WAY too fast. .

This statement really disturbs me. Do you mean its easier to accuse a possibly innocent person of plotting murder - the most serious crime known to man - rather than believing that she might have been killed because she didn't wear a seat belt?

Is there any thought to the names and reputations of the ones accused in the conspiracy theories or are their names a unavoidable casualty in this all?

All in all I find it very disturbing that accusations of murder are thrown around so casually.

 

[Elspeth]

This statement really disturbs me. Do you mean its easier to accuse a possibly innocent person of plotting murder - the most serious crime known to man - rather than believing that she might have been killed because she didn't wear a seat belt?

Is there any thought to the names and reputations of the ones accused in the conspiracy theories or are their names a unavoidable casualty in this all?

All in all I find it very disturbing that accusations of murder are thrown around so casually.

I've seen this argument before, in the wider context of conspiracy theories and of things like the origin of religions. Humans are characterised by higher brain function and the ability to correlate cause and effect with a fairly high degree of success; humans tend to act on intention rather than at random, and it's a basic human trait to look for causal patterns (as well as other sorts of patterns) - this is partly why superstitions are so hard to shake off.

So when some major event happens, especially a major destructive event, it's a practically automatic response for humans to look for a cause, often a cause that involves intention, as a way to explaining it because very very deep down, looking for intention-driven causes is what humans do just as a way of getting through life. The notion that this car crash was planned and that it had a cause which involved intention is just a lot easier for many people to believe than that it was a random accident - or even a not so random one when you figure in alcohol and high-speed pursuit. If you've ever wondered why conspiracy theories are so popular and so extremely hard to debunk, this goes some way to explaining it.

I know it sounds callous, but it seems to be preferable for people that something is a meaningful event, even if the meaningfulness is wholly negative, than that it's a meaningless one.

The section on Origin of Conspiracy Theories at Wikipedia says it somewhat more succesfully:

"Humans naturally respond to events or situations which have had an emotional impact upon them by trying to make sense of those events, typically in spiritual, moral, political, or scientific terms.
Events which seem to resist such interpretation—for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable—may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory