Today it's 20 years since Princess Diana died!

[Mr Allen]

Topic.

And there are still conspiracy theories saying she was bumped off by the Royals because she was more popular than "Horse Face" Camilla.

Thoughts?

 

[AGXStarseed]

Topic.

And there are still conspiracy theories saying she was bumped off by the Royals because she was more popular than "Horse Face" Camilla.

Thoughts?

Not aware of that particular conspiracy, although it's still upsetting about her death. My earliest memory from my childhood was in March 1996 and when it came to television, I didn't really pay that much attention unless it was a cartoon or something I enjoyed like You've Been Framed! or Robot Wars or Gladiators, etc.
As such, I don't remember even hearing about her death on the news - or if I did, I didn't really pay heed to it.

Looking back and having learnt more about her, her loss was a great one to all. I've since listened to the version of "Candle in the Wind" that Elton John dedicated to Diana and it does make me feel sad that she's no longer with us.

 

[Alaska]

Not aware of that particular conspiracy, although it's still sad about her death. My earliest memory from my childhood was in March 1996 and when it came to television, I didn't really pay that much attention unless it was a cartoon or something I enjoyed like You've Been Framed! or Robot Wars or Gladiators, etc.
As such, I don't remember even hearing about her death on the news - or if I did, I didn't really pay heed to it.

Looking back and having learnt more about her, her loss was a great one to all. I've since listened to the version of "Candle in the Wind" that Elton John dedicated to Diana and it does make me feel sad that she's no longer with us.

Thanks for the song. It expresses my feelings well. The world would have been a better place if Diana had been in it longer. I felt it was especially sad for her sons. I believe they suffered too much from her loss.

Most Royals seem a bit like birds laying their eggs in random nests for somebody else to raise. Diana was different because she was very involved in her motherhood. I think her sons came out as well as they did because of her.

 

[Chance]

Princess Diana seemed to be a very decent person, tangled in a mass of power and indignity.

Its weird to remember what you were doing when certain things happen. I was in Ruidoso, New Mexico.
I was with some friends and we had been fishing and hiking all day. I remember that day a really old Indian man walked by us and said calmly... "You boys afraid of bears?" As he pointed to one right behind us that was watching us for who knows how long... The bear wanted our fish, we gave him some and moved on.

I remember thinking we should be scared, but the old man was so calm, I guess we stayed calm. It was just a really cool event that stuck with me.

When went down the mountain that evening and went into town for supper everyone was talking about Princess Diana being killed in a car crash. I remember ladies crying while watching the news on the tv. I remember feeling emotions but not understanding what I was actually feeling, or knowing what to feel. I still feel that way sometimes, but maybe more aware of it now.

What was cool about Diana, is that even though her life was short and maybe tangled, she lived a large life that will never be forgotten. : )

 

[Gracey]

It was both shocking and saddening. I don't know if we'll ever know for sure what actually happened Rich.
It's comforting to think if I believed she could be 'looking down', she'd be especially proud of her boys.

It would be great if the establishment by-passed Charles and got Wills on the throne. He's what 'Kinging' should be all about. It doesn't hurt that he's a handsome pilot either...
...just sayin'

 

[xudo]

I remember it being announced on the news and for once being able to tell my parents something had happened instead of the other way round.

It's always sad that someone died, but I don't feel any emotions about it really. I didn't know her, and I never understood why random people were bawling their eyes out on the route of her funeral procession, like it was their Mum who'd died.

It was an accident, people died and everyone else should move on. I don't imagine her kids want to have to constantly have people questioning it in minute detail either. The amount of programmes on at the moment beggars belief.

 

[oregano]

Yes, I feel sad for her sons, especially Harry, he was so young and he really didn't know himself and was at a very sensitive age, and suddenly his mom was gone and his father didn't care. I think that it was at the root of all the bizarre acting out he did for years.

I have a CD copy of Candle In The Wind 1997, the CD is likely very rare and hard to find. I remember it well, and Mother Teresa died a week later, and suddenly the world was a much poorer place in spirit. The thing that sticks out is when one reporter said something like "you know, we run simulations and such for events like this, but we never expect it to actually happen, this doesn't seem real right now".

I also think that all the bizarre conspiracy stuff and the so-called "rememberances" must be like constantly rubbing turpentine into a wound for her kids, they will forever have that hanging over their lives. The woman is dead, let her rest in peace and look towards the future.

I just remembered, earlier this year William was meeting some disadvantaged youths, and one told him that he had just lost his mom, and William said something like "my mom has been dead for 20 years, and it's always with you but it eventually gets better". You could tell it was from his heart.

 

[Judge]

Yes, some of the cable channels are currently running all the shows about Diana and her tragic death. An interesting conspiracy story. Charles and the "Old Grey Men". With the help of MI 5/6. Personally I just don't think Charles was bright enough or strong enough to pull off such a thing. Though I must say, the English tend to be rather good at perpetually keeping secrets under wraps when it counts.

I'm afraid most of it strikes me as a simple fact. The consequences of not wearing a seat belt combined with a drunk driver.

Though it's very sad to realize that Diana's life as a whole was mostly an unhappy existence for one reason or another. Even her childhood was sad....by her own words. A tragic existence and yet she came across as a very nice and genuine human being. Something some of the royals seem to have problems with. Clearly being monumentally stoic goes only so far with the British people.

 

[Mr Allen]

Yes, I feel sad for her sons, especially Harry, he was so young and he really didn't know himself and was at a very sensitive age, and suddenly his mom was gone and his father didn't care. I think that it was at the root of all the bizarre acting out he did for years.

I have a CD copy of Candle In The Wind 1997, the CD is likely very rare and hard to find. I remember it well, and Mother Teresa died a week later, and suddenly the world was a much poorer place in spirit. The thing that sticks out is when one reporter said something like "you know, we run simulations and such for events like this, but we never expect it to actually happen, this doesn't seem real right now".



I also think that all the bizarre conspiracy stuff and the so-called "rememberances" must be like constantly rubbing turpentine into a wound for her kids, they will forever have that hanging over their lives. The woman is dead, let her rest in peace and look towards the future.

I just remembered, earlier this year William was meeting some disadvantaged youths, and one told him that he had just lost his mom, and William said something like "my mom has been dead for 20 years, and it's always with you but it eventually gets better". You could tell it was from his heart.

That's the thing about William though, he's very genuine, he means what he says. I think eventually he'll make an excellent King, because he's next in line if anything happens to his Gran, the current Queen, Charles has gone down the queue recently.

Also, I was watching the Royal Edinburgh Military tattoo the other night, and commented that William, who is in his early to mid 30's, actually looks quite a bit older than he is IMO, probably because he has a very stressful job.

 

[Aeolienne]

No, I don't buy the conspiracy theories. The PR guru Max Clifford once said that any lingering belief he had in them were quashed after the run-up to Prince Charles's second wedding, which was held up by one legal obstacle after another (Panorama: Lawful impediment?) and then the death of the Pope. If the Windsors' spin doctors couldn't organise a simple civil wedding, how could they carry off a covert assassination? The words "brewery" and "piss-up" come to mind.

I have to say I'm not that impressed by Prince William so far. He seems to be on an extended gap year, what with he and his wife regularly coming near the bottom of the league table of royal engagements. More than once he's rocked up at an engagement and admitted to not having read his briefing notes. Kate's lack of gainful employment prior to marriage also shows. Compare and contrast with the kind of women who have married into other royal families: Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, Princess Claire of Luxembourg, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands and Queen Letizia of Spain.

 

[oregano]

Aeolienne, it seems that English royalty is far more constrained by centuries of "tradition" than other royal houses in Europe. In fact, it sometimes seems from an American perspective that ALL of British society is trapped by the idea that things are done a certain way because that's the way they've always been done, the end. The British seem to prefer the idea that the world is a stable place where nothing changes, that even when the "why" has been lost to the fog of time that it has to be done a certain way simply because.

Charles is rumored to have told Diana that he would have a mistress simply because every other Prince of Wales had one, and he wasn't about to break the line, and that Diana was simply a trophy wife and that it was her job to shut up and go through the royal motions simply because that's what English royal wives have always done. Charles didn't seem to care that the world around him had changed drastically. Even worse, the Queen backed him up until his marriage began to break the whole monarchy apart, and only then did she allow a divorce.

Diana too was somewhat light on credentials compared to queens-in-waiting on the Continent. The Windsors seem to think that their wives are primarily "arm candy" and seem threatened by the idea of an independent woman. Of the four women you mentioned, I do know a little bit about Queen Letizia, she was a TV reporter assigned to cover the Spanish royal family, and fell in love with Prince (now King) Felipe, and it's not hard to see why!

It's sad that William is so stuck in this line of thought to the extent that he is. Even worse, it's possible that he's something of a lightweight when it comes to intelligence, and if so then Kate likely is too. Kate finished university then immediately went into queen-in-waiting mode. Diana, behind her megawatt personality, was apparently not that bright per se herself, and preferred spending time with a group that one courtier described as "all fashion and hamburgers", as opposed to her husband, who could easily hold a discussion with philosophers.

 

[xudo]

he's next in line if anything happens to his Gran, the current Queen, Charles has gone down the queue recently.

No, he's not next in line. Charles in the heir and William is after him. The line of succession doesn't really change at all, unless someone in line does something like marry someone from a different religion, or in the case of Prince Harry moving down the line when William had children.

 

[Aeolienne]

One of the strangest things about Diana's legacy is the way every single woman who's married an heir to the throne since then has been compared to her. This despite all these women having far higher academic and career credentials and not being virgins (one assumes - certainly given their age at marriage they've had more opportunity not to be, and if anything it would be cause for concern if they'd had no relationships before).

Oregano, the story I heard about how the then Letizia Ortiz and Crown Prince Felipe met was at the unlikely setting of the Prestige oil spill. He was offering his support to the community, as royals are meant to do after a crisis, and she was covering the story for the evening news in her role as reporter, having previously earned kudos for reporting from war zones (a bit like the UK's Kate Adie). That said, the British media rarely says much about Europe's other royal families. Whereas the wedding of Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark and Mary Donaldson was televised across continental Europe (and Australia, natch) in the UK it didn't even make the front page of the newspapers. I have heard that the other European royals actually regard the UK as a safe haven from tabloid intrusion, such is the level of non-interest. A bit ironic considering the British tabloid press's lack of restraint for other celebrities.

 

[pjcnet]

That's the thing about William though, he's very genuine, he means what he says. I think eventually he'll make an excellent King, because he's next in line if anything happens to his Gran, the current Queen, Charles has gone down the queue recently.

Also, I was watching the Royal Edinburgh Military tattoo the other night, and commented that William, who is in his early to mid 30's, actually looks quite a bit older than he is IMO, probably because he has a very stressful job.

I just came across this thread from a more recent link. No-one really knows what any of the royal family are truly like unless they know them personally, every single bit of information obtained is taken from what people have seen on the media, obviously when they're on their best behaviour knowing that they're in the public eye, sometimes even with pre-written lines. Even if you've seen them in public, they will obviously still be on their best behaviour and will almost certainly be on the media too. William may appear to come across the way he does, but he is most likely totally different when he's not putting on an act for the media and public, and most likely not in a good way as I suspect most of the royal family. I however suspect Diana was somewhat different, but look what happened to her.


With regards to Diana's death, there was far too many loose ends and it was pretty obvious that the royal family wanted her dead and ordered it, then it was covered up with stories about the driver being a drunk when allegedly this wasn't the case. Diana was not only an embarrassment, but she was also considered dangerous since she would have known many of their best kept secrets and if she had revealed them to the public a lot of people would have believed her and I believe such utterly shocking revelations could have finished the royal family in the UK. When you looked at Diana's face in her later years it looked like she was holding a lot in under pressure. Very powerful and evil people greatly fear exposure as they know it can destroy them. Royal families have committed murder/conspiracy to murder throughout the centuries as well as many other crimes, but for some reason most people think it's all different today. It is very unlikely to have changed and where there's power there's also corruption as I have stated many times before. Also if the royal family don't commit crime why are they protected from investigation by the police and also prosecution? They have clearly got a lot to hide.

PS: Jimmy Savile knew the Queen personally as well as other members of the royal family and he would have been able to give a much better judgement on the royals than any of us with only "false" media coverage. Jimmy used to spend Christmas with them some years and was a personal friend that was allowed freedom of the palace, in fact he even knew Prince Charles and Diana. What's more people who knew Jimmy said it was obvious he was a paedophile as he was blatant about it, yet nothing was done and it was in fact covered up by the BBC and various other people, it's also very likely the Queen and probably other members of the royal family knew too, yet it didn't stop the Queen from giving him a knighthood. What does this say about the true nature of the royals? Even if the Queen didn't have a clue, she was at the very least a terrible judge of character and so were any other royals who came into contact with him. Perhaps even their close alliance with Jimmy was one of many secrets Diana was struggling to hold back, probably frightened to mention? And Jimmy Savile was also an example of how the media can portray someone who is evil extremely well, most of the public loved him and genuinely believed he was a great person, he did a lot for charity and people even remember the "Jim'll Fix It" show, it can be similar for many people including the royal family. The media is very powerful and indoctrinating, too powerful. Shockingly Jimmy lived out a great life and got away with all his evil crimes. many of which will probably never be revealed.

 

[tducey]

She was such a great person who's death left a mark on this world. Her sons come across as good people as well so she's proud of them. I doubt the conspiracy theories out there that her death was anything more than an unfortunate accident.

 

[Aeolienne]

As I said, I don't buy the conspiracy theories. The YouTube video I posted earlier (a sketch from "That Mitchell and Webb Look") debunks most of them. To which I would add: where's the motivation? Contrary to what Mohammed Al-Fayed apparently thought, Diana was royal by marriage only. Any children she'd had subsequent to her divorce from Charles would have had no claim to the line of succession, just as the children from Camilla's previous marriage don't. Nor is there any official prohibition against ex-royals dating Muslims, as witness Diana's previous relationship with Hasnat Khan. And that at least was by all accounts a genuine relationship whereas there is no evidence either that her association with Dodi Fayed was anything other than a casual fling, or that she was pregnant. Incidentally, M A-F only started the pregnancy assertion two years after the accident.

 

[pjcnet]

As I said, I don't buy the conspiracy theories. The YouTube video I posted earlier (a sketch from "That Mitchell and Webb Look") debunks most of them. To which I would add: where's the motivation? Contrary to what Mohammed Al-Fayed apparently thought, Diana was royal by marriage only. Any children she'd had subsequent to her divorce from Charles would have had no claim to the line of succession, just as the children from Camilla's previous marriage don't. Nor is there any official prohibition against ex-royals dating Muslims, as witness Diana's previous relationship with Hasnat Khan. And that at least was by all accounts a genuine relationship whereas there is no evidence either that her association with Dodi Fayed was anything other than a casual fling, or that she was pregnant. Incidentally, M A-F only started the pregnancy assertion two years after the accident.

So you think the royal family are just nice people as portrayed by the media, E.g. The queen is a lovely elderly lady portrayed as everyone's perfect grandmother that truly cares about the people of her country? Do you believe the queen has never lost her temper in her entire life? If not then lets see the media footage, but you won't because you are seeing a rosy and artificially created public image of her. Similarly you won't really ever know the queen or anything bad she does and I believe she would have at least authorised/allowed the murder of Diana, but she probably even ordered it. There's masses of loose ends in Diana's death, well in fact there's numerous reasons why it was very suspicious as well as covered up and there was also a very big motive which I think was much more than just the embarrassment (please watch the documentary below). I believe Diana was keeping shocking inside secrets they were worried she could leak because what evil and very powerful people fear the most is exposure and the problem was that unlike just a conspiracy theorist a lot of people would have believed Diana. If there's nothing for them to hide then why are the royal family immune from prosecution and even police investigation? The police can't exactly get a search warrant to raid Buckingham Palace and/or Balmoral Castle and then take members of the British royal family in for questioning (BTW. they're really German and they had Nazi connections, their name changed in 1917, Windsor was taken from the name of a castle), yet they most definitely had both the motive and the means to organise such an assassination, I'm only surprised that it wasn't done even more professionally, because it's pretty obvious it wasn't just an unfortunate accident and evidence strongly suggests that the driver wasn't even drunk or an alcoholic as officially claimed. It's very closed minded to believe everything the state tells you. Where there's power there is usually corruption, and in their case there is so much power and wealth it's ridiculous, their assets literally run into the £Trillions, for instance they own most of the land in Canada and charge for it and this is just a small fraction of what they own, while they take many £Millions of public money each year on top, the Queen alone gets £4Million a year just for travel expenses.

Please watch the following shocking documentary and see if this changes any of your views:

The person behind this documentary, Jay Myers has done a huge amount of research, far more than any of us. I don't believe absolutely everything in the above video (I'm sceptical it was a ritual murder), but a lot is likely and I do believe it was definitely a murder that it was covered up, even the other vehicle was very suspicious on it's own by not being officially traced and how no CCTV cameras out of 11 were apparently working (for the 1st time in history), and this was just the start.

Notice the documentary mentions the high profile and evil paedophile Jimmy Saville (suspected of ritual abuse of at least 1000) who was a great friend of the royal family that I also mentioned in my previous reply to this thread, what the video reveals is shocking if true, but even Mohamed Fayed (Dodi's father) stated that sexual offences had been going on within Buckingham Palace, plus he truly believes Diana and his son were murdered after employing a private detective to investigate. Imagine if they'd let Diana announce this to the world and probably much more?

PS: Look at history and see how many monarchs have murdered, but even then you won't know most of it. Some of the current royal family's crimes maybe accepted in a couple of hundred years, then people will probably be thinking that this is something that would never happen today as many do now.

PPS: For more on royal family secrets, please click here, this documentary shows the royals in their true light and it also shows how the media manipulates people into believing otherwise, this is partly why so many people don't believe that Diana's murder was ordered by them. Again it also mentions the evil "record breaking" paedophile Jimmy Saville and his very close connections with the royals, something which will never be officially investigated due to the royal family's immunity. Masses of allegations against Jimmy Saville were somehow all covered up while he was still alive.

Edit: spelling correction.

 

[Progster]

I think that it's about time Britain became a republic. Retire the royal family. What does Britain, or any country need a royal family for, other than public propaganda? The royal faimily is part of the aristocracy/feudal system of government which belongs to a bygone age and has no real useful function in today's reality other than for propaganda or entertainment or tourism. The idea that a person is born into such a family, and has such power and wealth through birthright and not through achievement is totally against my ethics.

Edit: also, what was all this public outpour of emotion when she died? Was she a personal friend of all these people, that they felt such grief? I just can't get emotionally attached to people I don't know like that - I don't like it that she died for whatever reason, or anyone dies, public figure or not, but I don't/can't feel grief for people I don't know. I don't feel like I know someone or feel attached to someone just because they are in the public eye.

 

[Mr Allen]

I think that it's about time Britain became a republic. Retire the royal family. What does Britain, or any country need a royal family for, other than public propaganda? The royal faimily is part of the aristocracy/feudal system of government which belongs to a bygone age and has no real useful function in today's reality other than for propaganda or entertainment or tourism. The idea that a person is born into such a family, and has such power and wealth through birthright and not through achievement is totally against my ethics.

Edit: also, what was all this public outpour of emotion when she died? Was she a personal friend of all these people, that they felt such grief? I just can't get emotionally attached to people I don't know like that - I don't like it that she died for whatever reason, or anyone dies, public figure or not, but I don't/can't feel grief for people I don't know. I don't feel like I know someone or feel attached to someone just because they are in the public eye.

Won't happen.

Like them or not, the Royals bring in a LOT of money for the UK in tourism etc.

 

[Progster]

Won't happen.

Like them or not, the Royals bring in a LOT of money for the UK in tourism etc.

The same could be said for Shakespeare. He has been gone a long time, but tourists are still attracted to the UK because of the cultural legacy he left.

When tourists visit Britain, what they actually visit is the museums, historical buildings, landmarks, etc, not the royal family themselves... tourists rarely actually see the royal family except on TV, and they don't need to visit the UK to do that. Even after the royal family is gone from power, the palaces, stately homes, castles etc will still be there and will still be a tourist attraction, and could even be opened to the public to generate more income.

I agree that this is unlikely to happen, though, not in my lifetime at least.