Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Princess Diana-do you believe she was murdered?

342 replies

ChampersPampers · 08/05/2011 11:43

I often meet people who are convinced she was 'bumped off'.
Wondered if it's only small percentage of peoples view or do alot of people believe this so called murder to be true?

OP posts:
CaveMum · 08/05/2011 13:24

If you're going to bump someone off there are far more effective ways of doing it than engineering a car accident and crossing your fingers that the person you want to get rid off suffers a fatal injury.

valiumredhead · 08/05/2011 13:25

But I did think it was odd that the Royal family was so keen to claim her body given they'd removed her Royal status

They weren't to start with were they if you remember? They hid themselves away in Scotland and there was lots of too ing and fro ing between Tony Blair when people were get very angry that she wasn't going to be given a state funeral. He had to go and tell Queeny that her people demanded a proper funeral. And there was a big hoo ha about the flag being raised, the crowds were on the brink of rioting if that hadn't happened.

noblegiraffe · 08/05/2011 13:25

What I do think is odd is seeing pictures of royals being driven home after the wedding and none of them wearing a seatbelt.

GwendolineMaryLacey · 08/05/2011 13:26

No, not murdered but I agree that it was bloody convenient. No, not convenient for the boys, of course and short term not convenient for C&C but in the long term, who knows what she would have done and, unlike Fergie (who I actually quite like) she had the public on side. Diana running round doing goodness knows what and the public following her every move with glee can't be something the royals were happy about.

So not murdered but I suspect the Queen did a little internal 'phew'.

Chil1234 · 08/05/2011 13:31

But don't forget Auntie Margo.... When talking about badly behaved Royals, Princess Margaret was the baddest assed momma in a tiara! She quietly carried on partying on her tropical island, withdrew from public engagements, and I think Diana was heading for a similar trajectory. BTW... the public were not all 'on side' with her at the time of her death. She was attracting more than a little criticism for her frequent holidays, various boyfriends and revealing books/interviews.

valiumredhead · 08/05/2011 13:33

She certainly was a loose cannon - she was heading for some kind of disaster.

olderandwider · 08/05/2011 13:37

Fabbychic, were all the manned moon landings faked then, all six of them?

FakePlasticTrees · 08/05/2011 13:39

1 She had claimed to be pregnant (Establishment can't have a Muslim baby now can it?)

Her friend said she had her period on holiday.

But mainly, her getting knocked up by someone else would have been a PR dream for the Royals! This would be a good thing! She wasn't part of the family anymore, she was divorced. Her 'moving on' and having a family with someone else (especially if she married him and stopped being, "Diana, Princess of Wales but just "Mrs. Al Fayad") would have made it far harder for anyone to complain about Charles marrying Camilla -which was pushed a few years as at the time Diana died, the Royal PR was starting a big push with his first public appearance with Camilla a couple of weeks before and the hoopla around Camilla's 50th birthday. After Diana's death, Camilla went back into the background for a couple of years.

polarbabe · 08/05/2011 13:39

Let us imagine for a second that Diana Princess of Wales was murdered. For this theory to hold water an extraordinary set of events aided by telepathy, mind control and quantum physics would have had to be employed. There would have had to be cooperation of hundreds (about 200-300, I think) individuals including the UK and french governments, MI5, MI6, DGSE and other intelligence agencies, the french medical services, french police, the french coroners and forensic labs, french judiciary, the Met, british coroners, british judiciary, french and british journalists, Prince Charles, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, HM the Queen, Prince Philip, Diana's friends, Trevor Rees ....All these people would have had to come together, conspire and then kill Diana, Princess of Wales, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul then, of course, cover it up - all in a matter of a couple of hours.

I feel sorry for Mohammed Al Fayed and the loss he suffered but we cannot pussyfoot around and avoid acknowledging that the Al Fayeds made a number of decisions which on their own would have been of no consequence but together they contributed to this tragedy.

Change of driver
Get Henri Paul back on duty when he thought he was off duty for the night
Leave hotel and go to AF apartment
Route used to travel to AF apartment

This was a horrific tragic accident aided by careless driving and overzealous paparazzi trying to get their shot. The MO of paparazzi when wanting to photograph high profile individuals in a moving vehicle is to get an apprentice photographer to let off a 'flash' in the driver's eyes, making him slow down so the main photographers can get a shot of the occupants of said car. Scary, but true.

Incidently, the bodyguard Trevor Rees said he left the employ of Mohammed Al Fayed after he was pressured to support conspiracy theories he knew were not true.

noddyholder · 08/05/2011 13:40

Diana and the moon genuine I think but 9/11 I am Hmm

HecateQueenOfTheNight · 08/05/2011 13:40

Has an inconvenient person been bumped off before - yes. history is full of people who were 'removed'

Is it possible that such an accident could have been arranged in this day and age? Does anyone or any organisation or indeed any government have the power or ability to do such a thing - yes.

Just because murder is possible, does that mean it had to have been murder? No. Certainly not. Just because something could be true does not mean it IS true. Accidents also happen.

Do I think that she was murdered? I have no idea. No clue. How can anybody know, when either is actually possible? You can believe either. You can think that one is most unlikely and therefore it must be the other. But you can't have the actual knowledge unless you were always in the room with any people capable of making any arrangements and know that no plans were ever made, or you are in the head of the person who crashed to know they did it accidentally. iyswim.

I don't think that it is impossible that someone can be murdered and it be made to look like an accident, but nor do I think that because it is possible to do such a thing that it must have therefore actually happened.

Bloodymary · 08/05/2011 13:43

Still uncertain here, but regarding the cameras @ the entrance of the tunnel, I did hear/read (by several people) that they were turned around that night.

edam · 08/05/2011 13:46

Vallum, Charles flew straight over to Paris to get her body as soon as he heard the news. That's what I found odd. Not suggestive of any conspiracy, just odd.

clam · 08/05/2011 13:47

"But I did think it was odd that the Royal family was so keen to claim her body given they'd removed her Royal status"
They had to. can you imagine if they'd left it for God knows whom to claim. Would have been even more of a circuc.
Not my favourite man, by any means, but Earl Spencer had the right idea by burying her out of the way of all but close family to visit.

parafused · 08/05/2011 13:47

She was killed by the paps, not wearing a seatbelt, driver under the influence. People find it easier to have someone to blame. I don't believe the royals could have planned the whole thing.

Moonlanding I have to say I do feel sceptical about!

clam · 08/05/2011 13:48

If you look at the trafficengland webcams on any motorway in GB, a large proportion of them are out of action at any one time. Not unusual.

FakePlasticTrees · 08/05/2011 13:48

oh yes, and re the 'public being on her side' - on the Sunday morning after she'd died in the night, my dad went and bought all the sunday papers. I remember reading the Sunday mirror (I know) and while they'd had time to change the front page, the comment columns hadn't been changed, there was at least one article slagging Diana off for the number of holidays she'd had that summer, calling her a bad mother as she'd been out of the country for nearly a month etc, complaining about why were we still 'funding' her lifestyle when she wasn't a Royal anymore...

People didn't like her before she died, she was being so insulted in the papers, she was talking about leaving to move to New York for good.

A lot of the public and press outpouring of grief struck me at the time as being very hypcritical, like people were trying to make up for how badly she was treated when alive.

juneau · 08/05/2011 13:49

She was killed by a drunk driver who wasn't used to driving a heavy, armoured car and was doing so erratically and far too fast though a tunnel with concrete pillars.

juneau · 08/05/2011 13:50

Oh yeah, and she wasn't wearing a seat belt. She probably would've been fine if she had been.

onagar · 08/05/2011 13:52

FabbyChic You say "You only have to be an engineer to know that it is not possible to take off from the moon.*

I'd be interested in any reasoning/evidence behind that. Presumably you believe we can take off from the earth so what is the difference? (from the moon is easier) Is it based on the moon being made of cheese?

As for the towers thing I can guess some of the reasoning behind the earthquake-proof point.

Earthquakes: BIG things that shake continents and move 1000s of people.
Planes: Small things that move a bus load of people.

So anything earthquake proof must be able to withstand planes hitting it all day long. Right?

Wrong! The way to understand it better is to imagine standing in the street when an earthquake hits. "Wooo!! that was scary wasn't it"

Now imagine standing in the street and being hit by a plane weighing 336000 pounds and moving at something like 1000mph. That really stings right?

In case there was any doubt no I don't think the diana thing was murder at all. Joined up thinking shows there is no reason to think it was.

polarbabe · 08/05/2011 13:52

edam, he was the ex-husband and father to her children and he was representing the royal family. He was accompanied by her two sisters Lady Jane and Lady Sarah. Nothing odd, I think, what would have been odd would have been if they had left her there. As clam says imagine the circus.

wotnochocs · 08/05/2011 13:53

NO

FakePlasticTrees · 08/05/2011 13:54

re claiming the body (am on a roll now, sorry) - wasn't William was her next of kin - Charles either had to send his grieving son to claim the body, or he could do it for him. What sort of a father would make a 15 year old do that no matter how much he hated his exW?

expatinscotland · 08/05/2011 13:54

Di's brother was probably out of the country shagging yet another person. Hence, why Charles went.

She was estranged from her mother at the time of her death and her father was dead.

HazeltheMcWitch · 08/05/2011 13:54

FakePlasticTrees I was working in a supermarket the day she died, doing the papers. We got an urgent call saying to take the first set off the shelves (before store had opened). The red tops were full of hate and bile at her about her wanton lifestyle etc. The next set which were raced out a few hours later were all 'Queen of Hearts dead'.

Naughty me, I 'liberated' a set of the 1st papers, the only thing in my life that I have ever stolen.