Turn on thread page Beta

Was there any Collusion in the Death of Diana Princess of Wales? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of debate about it, I thought we should have a poll.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    probably
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I really doubt it, but because I like Al Fayed and think he's a fairly credible bloke, I vote 'Probably Not'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe there was any collision but there is definitely something suspicious going on.

    1.When anyone breaches royal security, ie someone gets into a party their not supposed to, there is a full scale inquiry announced immediately by the home office. It has taken the home office 8 years to announce a public inquiry into the death of Diana.

    2. The papparatizi (apology for the spelling) following the car all saw an icredibly bright white flash. This is what I believe caused the crash, MI6 have been proved that they had planned to kill a foreign diplomat in this way by flashing a very bright light into a the eyes of a driver whilst in a tunnel

    3. Diana was becoming more of a public figure than the queen and was supossedly pregnant at the time although this is dubious, but for sure she was a strong presence in the monarchy, had divorced Charles and was engaged to dodi al fayed. Who incidently is Jewish or Islamic(not sure one or the other) which wouldn't go down well with the monarchy.

    4. A technique called the strawman is incredibly similiar to the circumstances of the death of Diana. This technique is used by MI5 and 6 to quash rumours of their involvement in high profile cases. After a person has been assasinated/killed the security services create a report about the killing but include several key mistakes. ie MI6 don't print in this ink or This agent was in afghanistan at the time. This report is then sold to a grieving husband/wife father etc, in this case mohammad al fayed. He buys it with out realising the flaws, MI6 cover their costs and when al fayed shows this evidence to the media, then MI6 can prove it is a fake and this immediately and permenantly discredits al fayed arguement.

    5. The driver had been receiving sizeable amount of money in his 13 bank accounts around the world in the couple of months leading up to the death of Diana

    6.The limousine that she was meant to be leaving in wouldn't start and therefore another limo had to be used instead, although no evidence of tampering was found after the accident, but something like a samll microchip to disable the ABS say from a radio signal could be easily hidden in the miles of wires in a car, in particular a limo.

    All in all I don't believe their was a collision with another car becasue this would have left traces of paint but I do believe that a combination the powerful falsh of light and possible tampering with the vehicle caused the crash. I believe that the crash was devised by MI6 in response from concern from the royal family as to the state of Diana actions.

    Also while I remember diana had previously stated that she felt her life was in danger and as she was probably the most popular person in Britain at the time and hadn't trod on any other countryies toes, that doesn't leave many people left of which some of the few are the monarchy.

    please give me rep :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    I don't believe there was any collision but there is definitely something suspicious going on.

    1.When anyone breaches royal security, ie someone gets into a party their not supposed to, there is a full scale inquiry announced immediately by the home office. It has taken the home office 8 years to announce a public inquiry into the death of Diana.

    2. The papparatizi (apology for the spelling) following the car all saw an icredibly bright white flash. This is what I believe caused the crash, MI6 have been proved that they had planned to kill a foreign diplomat in this way by flashing a very bright light into a the eyes of a driver whilst in a tunnel

    3. Diana was becoming more of a public figure than the queen and was supossedly pregnant at the time although this is dubious, but for sure she was a strong presence in the monarchy, had divorced Charles and was engaged to dodi al fayed. Who incidently is Jewish or Islamic(not sure one or the other) which wouldn't go down well with the monarchy.

    4. A technique called the strawman is incredibly similiar to the circumstances of the death of Diana. This technique is used by MI5 and 6 to quash rumours of their involvement in high profile cases. After a person has been assasinated/killed the security services create a report about the killing but include several key mistakes. ie MI6 don't print in this ink or This agent was in afghanistan at the time. This report is then sold to a grieving husband/wife father etc, in this case mohammad al fayed. He buys it with out realising the flaws, MI6 cover their costs and when al fayed shows this evidence to the media, then MI6 can prove it is a fake and this immediately and permenantly discredits al fayed arguement.

    5. The driver had been receiving sizeable amount of money in his 13 bank accounts around the world in the couple of months leading up to the death of Diana

    6.The limousine that she was meant to be leaving in wouldn't start and therefore another limo had to be used instead, although no evidence of tampering was found after the accident, but something like a samll microchip to disable the ABS say from a radio signal could be easily hidden in the miles of wires in a car, in particular a limo.

    All in all I don't believe their was a collision with another car becasue this would have left traces of paint but I do believe that a combination the powerful falsh of light and possible tampering with the vehicle caused the crash. I believe that the crash was devised by MI6 in response from concern from the royal family as to the state of Diana actions.

    Also while I remember diana had previously stated that she felt her life was in danger and as she was probably the most popular person in Britain at the time and hadn't trod on any other countryies toes, that doesn't leave many people left of which some of the few are the monarchy.

    please give me rep :p:
    nice post, but read thread title again...


    you got the wrong vowel mate :p:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    I don't believe there was any collision...
    kidney thief beat me to it but it's too beautiful to resist. MLR I salute you!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    1.When anyone breaches royal security, ie someone gets into a party their not supposed to, there is a full scale inquiry announced immediately by the home office. It has taken the home office 8 years to announce a public inquiry into the death of Diana.
    She wasn't a royal anymore, and those inquiries are intended to stop the same happening again. Unfortunately, no preventative measure can now made as a result of an inquiry.

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    3. Diana was becoming more of a public figure than the queen and was supossedly pregnant at the time although this is dubious, but for sure she was a strong presence in the monarchy, had divorced Charles and was engaged to dodi al fayed. Who incidently is Jewish or Islamic(not sure one or the other) which wouldn't go down well with the monarchy.
    Most likely a muslim, but i honestly don't think they could care less

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    4. A technique called the strawman is incredibly similiar to the circumstances of the death of Diana. This technique is used by MI5 and 6 to quash rumours of their involvement in high profile cases. After a person has been assasinated/killed the security services create a report about the killing but include several key mistakes. ie MI6 don't print in this ink or This agent was in afghanistan at the time. This report is then sold to a grieving husband/wife father etc, in this case mohammad al fayed. He buys it with out realising the flaws, MI6 cover their costs and when al fayed shows this evidence to the media, then MI6 can prove it is a fake and this immediately and permenantly discredits al fayed arguement.
    Interesting

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    6.The limousine that she was meant to be leaving in wouldn't start and therefore another limo had to be used instead, although no evidence of tampering was found after the accident, but something like a samll microchip to disable the ABS say from a radio signal could be easily hidden in the miles of wires in a car, in particular a limo.
    ABS in the new limo? Why not just tamper with the first limo. It would be just as easy to gain access to either limo.

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    please give me rep :p:
    Someone with more rep power than me should, purely for the effort put in and the amusing error in reading the question :rolleyes:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    When anyone breaches royal security...
    I have no interest whatsoever in whether that silly cow was murdered, but I'll admit to being curious about how her bodyguard has become a hero and fellow victim in this weird story.

    Wasn't he responsible for her safety?
    Didn't that demand that he tell the driver to slow down?
    Don't these guys always insist their charges wear seatbelts?
    Didn't he **** up?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by kidney thief)
    nice post, but read thread title again...


    you got the wrong vowel mate :p:
    It doesn't detract from the content though! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    I have no interest whatsoever in whether that silly cow was murdered, but I'll admit to being curious about how her bodyguard has become a hero and fellow victim in this weird story.

    Wasn't he responsible for her safety?
    Didn't that demand that he tell the driver to slow down?
    Don't these guys always insist their charges wear seatbelts?
    Didn't he **** up?
    Maybe, but he is being rewarded for his silence perhaps?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Apologies, I was speed reading and just assumed it was collision, what I wrote covers the collusion arguenment quite well anyway. To answer the the question in the thread, I most definitely believe there was collusion of the death of Diana

    (Original post by jamlan)
    She wasn't a royal anymore, and those inquiries are intended to stop the same happening again. Unfortunately, no preventative measure can now made as a result of an inquiry.
    Her title was the Her Royal Highness Princess Diana of Wales, she refused to give up the title when they were divoreced, which also upset the monarchy. Also are you trying to tell me if Charles died in a similiar manner that there would be no public inquiry immediately started.

    (Original post by jamlan)
    ABS in the new limo? Why not just tamper with the first limo. It would be just as easy to gain access to either limo.
    I can see your point but the spare limo is there for emergencies ie when the other one doesn't start. Therefore the security around it would be noticeably less. There were finite security resources, so they have to be used wisely. the chance of having to use the spare limo is say 1 in 100, therefore the ratio of when each limo is used is 99:1 therefore the security resources are deployed in a similiar ratio, ie 1:10. So it would be significantly easier to tamper with the spare limo than the main one.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No and this cult of Diana thing is the most pathetic load of ****.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    3. Diana was becoming more of a public figure than the queen and was supossedly pregnant at the time although this is dubious, but for sure she was a strong presence in the monarchy, had divorced Charles and was engaged to dodi al fayed. Who incidently is Jewish or Islamic(not sure one or the other) which wouldn't go down well with the monarchy.
    Thats one of the reasons i think it occured...im not suggesting it was directly the Royal Family responsible, but maybe one of their aides. I doubt people would have liked having a Islamic prince.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    Her title was the Her Royal Highness Princess Diana of Wales, she refused to give up the title when they were divoreced, which also upset the monarchy.
    Her title after the divorce, as per the letters patent defining entitlement to the title HRH, was Diana, Princess of Wales.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Chrism)
    Her title after the divorce, as per the letters patent defining entitlement to the title HRH, was Diana, Princess of Wales.
    Correct - pretty spiteful, eh?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The letters patent defining entitlement to the HRH date from 1917, more than 40 years before Diana was even born, let alone divorced.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Chrism)
    The letters patent defining entitlement to the HRH date from 1917, more than 40 years before Diana was even born, let alone divorced.
    I would be interested to view this document - any link please?

    I am surprised that, as long ago as 1917, it was envisaged that the wife and heir to the throne would be divorced and therefore the wife would lose HRH status.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've tried and failed to find them in full form on the net. The best I can recommend is the notice of them issued in the Gazette of 14th December 1917. The actual letters patent date from the 30th November that year.

    They in fact make no reference to divorces. Diana however was a Princess by marriage, not birth. Ergo, the end of the marriage ended her entitlement to the honorific. She's became Diana, Princess of Wales in the same way that a divorced peeress would retain the title after her name without actually being a peeress.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Chrism)
    I've tried and failed to find them in full form on the net. The best I can recommend is the notice of them issued in the Gazette of 14th December 1917. The actual letters patent date from the 30th November that year.

    They in fact make no reference to divorces. Diana however was a Princess by marriage, not birth. Ergo, the end of the marriage ended her entitlement to the honorific. She's became Diana, Princess of Wales in the same way that a divorced peeress would retain the title after her name without actually being a peeress.
    Would the same thing have happened if she became a dowager princess, ie if Charles had died whilst she remained alive? I can't recollect at the moment if that scenario has applied to any other spouses of heirs to the throne.
    Offline

    13
    If Diana's title of HRH was taken away because she was a princess, not by birth but by marriage and the marriage ceased to be, how come the Queen Mother kept her title of HRH when her marriage ceased to be because her husband died?

    How does the patent of title work in her favour, but not in Diana's favour?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 25, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

2,078

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.