Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Bottleofbeer · 08/05/2011 13:55

The twin towers were built to withstand aircraft hitting it, all skyscrapers are.

The Empire State building was hit in a very similar manner during ww2, it burned for days yet still remained standing.

BalloonSlayer · 08/05/2011 13:55

"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."

Not odd. The right thing to do for the mother of his children.

sleepingsowell · 08/05/2011 13:58

onagar - good post Smile

expatinscotland · 08/05/2011 13:58

But he didn't go straightaway. He was at Balmoral when he heard she'd died and he waited till around 5AM to tell his kids their mother had died himself.

kaid100 · 08/05/2011 13:58

Here is the conclusive proof she was bumped off: Video footage of the actual MI5 meeting in 1997.

Saltire · 08/05/2011 13:58

I don't think it odd that Charles borught her body back - none of us know the conversations that took place in balmoral that ngiht.

As someoesomeone who lost her dad at the same age William was when Diana died, all I wanted to do was hide away from everyone. I still think that the reason they stayed in balmoral for so long was as a safety blanket for those boys, to keep them away from the media circus that was forming at the Palace. After all,s he may be the Queen but she is their granny.

edam · 08/05/2011 14:03

balloon - maybe but as her ex he had no legal status and no right to take charge of the body. Why didn't he call her next of kin to go with him? I don't think that has any bearing on any conspiracy theories, it is just strange.

Saltire · 08/05/2011 14:04

Edam - her next of kin would be William. To young surely to go and do something like that

expatinscotland · 08/05/2011 14:05

'Why didn't he call her next of kin to go with him?'

They did, her sisters Jane and Sarah. Don't know why her brother didn't go, maybe she wasn't talking to him, either, or he was again in S. Africa. He must have known she wasn't speaking to her mother at the time. Her sons were minors.

edam · 08/05/2011 14:09

William wasn't her next of kin - as expat says, he was a minor, poor lad. (My mother had to update her will to make me her next of kin when I was 18 - she'd nominated guardians and executors and stuff when we were little and she got divorced.)

HazeltheMcWitch · 08/05/2011 14:10

Edam - Charles collected the body with her 2 sisters - who would presumably be NOK as the sons were not of an age.

expatinscotland · 08/05/2011 14:11

She was definitely estranged from her mother. This would likely have been known by Charles and her sisters. She was on-off again with her brother, because he's a twat. William and Harry were minors.

Doesn't seem odd that Charles went with her sisters (who looked lovely at the wedding last week :)).

BalloonSlayer · 08/05/2011 14:11

She wasn't talking to her brother.

Charles probably got involved so that the Royal system could get things organised more efficiently. The Queen apparently said that Diana should not be brought home by the state as she was no longer a member of the Royal Family. An aide asked whether she thought Diana should come home in a Harrods van. Whether or not that is true, I have read in several places that Charles had to insist that she had a "Royal homecoming" ie returning by RAF plane, flag on the coffin etc.

TrillianAstra · 08/05/2011 14:13

Nope. Why would I?

edam · 08/05/2011 14:14

Oh, OK. Grin at the Harrods van. That's nice of Charles, if true.

ScousyFogarty · 08/05/2011 14:14

not necessarily bumped off. But the chasing motor bikes played a part in Dianas death

expatinscotland · 08/05/2011 14:14

Her brother is a real piece of work. Laughed whilst watching the BBC coverage of the wedding. Camera panned in to Earl Spencer. One presenter said, 'And is that his new wife with him?' The other quipped, 'All his wives are new.'

missmelo · 08/05/2011 14:39

I don't think she was, I think Charles was right to go and collect her remains, it must have been an awful time for him as a parent.

clam · 08/05/2011 14:55

Whatever went on between Charles and Diana, I think he was genuinely mortified at her death. And not just because of the effect on his sons.
I think him going to Paris was the right and honourable thing to do. Can't have been easy. Seems he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

TheOriginalFAB · 08/05/2011 15:06

Maybe Charles went to escort her body out of compassion for his sons as she was the mother of his children.

MrsFruitcake · 08/05/2011 15:20

No, I don't think she was murdered. It was just an accident - wrong place, wrong time IMO.

sfxmum · 08/05/2011 15:27

of course not, why do people choose to believe involved theories instead of the simplest and more obvious explanation?

to successfully hold a conspiracy secret a lot of people must keep quiet for a very long time that is pretty much impossible

pointydog · 08/05/2011 15:39

No, just seems veru obvious this one. The driver was drunk, I don't believe the driver wanted to kill himself especially not with a fat bank balance, and two of the passengers chose not to wear seatbelts.

Snorbs · 08/05/2011 15:49

Fabby, I'd love to hear why it's "impossible" to take off from the moon.

Incidentally, the reason we don't have stations on the moon are:

  1. It would cost a staggeringly huge amount of money, and
  2. There would be very little return on that investment.

There's no technical reason why we couldn't, it's purely economic. Which country would be rich enough to stump up the umpty billions it would cost in construction and the ongoing billions needed to re-supply the place?

Snorbs · 08/05/2011 16:00

Bottleofbeer, the Empire State Building was not hit "in a very similar manner" to what happened at the WTC. The Empire State Building is of a very different construction to the WTC buildings and that made it more resistant to the damage. Critically, though, the Empire State did not burn "for days". The fires were extinguished in less than an hour. That made a very big difference.

Finally, the aircraft that hit the Empire State was much smaller, much lighter, much slower and was carrying much less fuel than the aircraft that hit the WTC. So the initial damage was substantially less than at the WTC plus the smaller amount of fuel meant that the fires were much more easily contained.