to think the common idea that Diana was murdered is absurd

[makkapacca]

Heard a journalist on the radio the other day speculating it was not an accident and heard others saying the same. AIBU to think people like this are complete idiots?

People are not idiots to believe it. Mohammed Al Fayed was not an idiot. He firmly believed it

I'm not sure he did. He kept passionately saying that he did, but he was grieving for his son at the same time as being desperate to try to ensure that no-one blamed him and his employees.

Yes, it's absurd. It was an accident. She had ditched her usual security which probably didn't help. The paps were crazy about her that summer, I was in France when she was. I agree they played a part. But her driver was also speeding and she had no seatbelt on.

The future king of England having a half sibling that was Muslim would have put the Queen in a difficult position. She is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

It simply wouldn't. The child wouldn't be an heir of the queen's and wouldn't be in the line of succession. In essence it would be no different to the future king having a Muslim cousin.

But many argue that the driver wasn't actually drunk. He wasn't staggering to the car. There was video of him tying his shoe laces up before got in the car.

It's very well known that habitual drinkers will be able to function ostensibly normally when it comes to day to day activities; indeed, concentrating on small things like tying shoelaces helps to steady them. But that doesn't work when they're in charge of a speeding car at night time.

Not at all. I remember those days. People didn't view her as a mad woman. They had great sympathy for her after the Panorama interview. She was a really popular figure that was becoming more and more defiant against the royals.

I remember it well. She was popular when they were married and she was having children. By the time of her death that was very obviously slipping. I particularly remember the photographs of her on Fayed's boats accompanied by sneering articles about the number of holidays she was taking, how happy she was to be apart from her children, and how many people she was freeloading off. People were also massively unimpressed by blatant photo opportunities, e.g. standing over some unfortunate heart surgery patient dripping mascara. I well remember it was a standing joke that whenever there was a disaster she couldn't drop everything quickly enough to try to get there first so that she could get photos published of herself bending caringly over the unfortunate victims, who didn't get any say in whether they wanted to be photographed.

The Panorama interview was particularly badly misjudged. All that peeking up at the camera through her eyelashes just didn't work in a woman of her age, and people were only too well aware that when she moaned about three in the marriage she was artistically forgetting about all her own lovers. She was losing popularity by the day.

Why would it be traumatic for them? It would be more traumatic for them to have her alive with all the secrets she knew (Paul Burrell was aware of these) and the new relationships she was having was causing them problems

this,whilst I do think they were sad/pained to see the boys lose their mum, they'd still have had some sort of relief she'd gone. It was a thorn out of their side.

People are not idiots to believe it. Mohammed Al Fayed was not an idiot. He firmly believed it.

He started it…

But coincidentally not for months after it happened. Just like the pregnancy bollocks that he concocted many months after the fact.

He was both grieving and desperately trying to deflect the fact that if anyone was to blame for the accident it was his driver and security chief that he had called in specifically to drive them.

As it stands H&M have had their say, it didn't go down as well as they had hoped. They are universally loved and missed

I wouldn't agree with this at all, much of the comments I hear about Markle are very much negative and people both on here and that I know have being harsh towards her.

Meghan dying would cause them more issues also
perhaps but she'd also solve a lot of their issues- another loose cannon like her mother in law. Again this is not to say I think they'd kill her or that they killed Diana. I very much believe that was an accident.

I've no idea or much what the truth is in this case, but I don't think the idea that the rich and powerful "get rid" of those who are inconvenient is absurd in itself.

If she'd worn a seatbelt, she probably would have survived - as the only person in the car wearing one did

this has being largely disputed and I don't think an answer was ever given.

It simply wouldn't. The child wouldn't be an heir of the queen's and wouldn't be in the line of succession. In essence it would be no different to the future king having a Muslim cousin.

Exactly. The future queen (whether or not she goes by that title) was married to a Catholic and her children, technically the step brother and sister of a future king, are also Catholics. Nobody cares, despite the fact that the ban on royals marrying Catholics was only lifted a few years ago, and Catholics are still specifically excluded from the line of succession.

The religion or race of any children Diana might have gone on to have would have been just as irrelevant. They simply wouldn't matter.

@DePfeffoff

Not at all. I remember those days. People didn't view her as a mad woman. They had great sympathy for her after the Panorama interview. She was a really popular figure that was becoming more and more defiant against the royals.

I remember it well. She was popular when they were married and she was having children. By the time of her death that was very obviously slipping. I particularly remember the photographs of her on Fayed's boats accompanied by sneering articles about the number of holidays she was taking, how happy she was to be apart from her children, and how many people she was freeloading off. People were also massively unimpressed by blatant photo opportunities, e.g. standing over some unfortunate heart surgery patient dripping mascara. I well remember it was a standing joke that whenever there was a disaster she couldn't drop everything quickly enough to try to get there first so that she could get photos published of herself bending caringly over the unfortunate victims, who didn't get any say in whether they wanted to be photographed.

The Panorama interview was particularly badly misjudged. All that peeking up at the camera through her eyelashes just didn't work in a woman of her age, and people were only too well aware that when she moaned about three in the marriage she was artistically forgetting about all her own lovers. She was losing popularity by the day.

Whatever badly judged things she did, I don't think anyone can deny that Diana changed societal attitudes to people with AIDS in a way that was nothing short of groundbreaking. She should never be forgotten in that regard.

Being dead she can do no wrong and that's not good for the royals...I think they know they'd have been far better with her still alive as she'd have fallen in and out of favour with the press and public, just as they do, rather than being held up as some weird saintly example as she is now

I wouldn't agree with this at all, I think many people are aware by now she was far from the saintly figure she was made out to be. Enough came out since 97 about her fallouts with people, her manipulation of the press and her affairs to know she was morally flawed like the rest of us. And I would say the saintly reputation she had is long worn thin.

Plus her decision to refuse Met police protection is so often cited as the royals "removed" her security so they get the blame for the shoddy security

Again this has being much disputed and I don't know whether she shunned it or it was shunned on her.

@DePfeffoff

Not at all. I remember those days. People didn't view her as a mad woman. They had great sympathy for her after the Panorama interview. She was a really popular figure that was becoming more and more defiant against the royals.

I remember it well. She was popular when they were married and she was having children. By the time of her death that was very obviously slipping. I particularly remember the photographs of her on Fayed's boats accompanied by sneering articles about the number of holidays she was taking, how happy she was to be apart from her children, and how many people she was freeloading off. People were also massively unimpressed by blatant photo opportunities, e.g. standing over some unfortunate heart surgery patient dripping mascara. I well remember it was a standing joke that whenever there was a disaster she couldn't drop everything quickly enough to try to get there first so that she could get photos published of herself bending caringly over the unfortunate victims, who didn't get any say in whether they wanted to be photographed.

The Panorama interview was particularly badly misjudged. All that peeking up at the camera through her eyelashes just didn't work in a woman of her age, and people were only too well aware that when she moaned about three in the marriage she was artistically forgetting about all her own lovers. She was losing popularity by the day.

Have you forgotten Charles' interview and didn't that come first?

Charles's Central TV interview with Jonathan Dimbleby was in June 1994; Diana's with the lying Martin Bashir was in February the following year.

@shortroundd she died from a ruptured blood vessel ( I think aorta although i could be wrong) she basically bled out into her chest cavity. So there is absolutely no disputing that she would have survived that accident had she been wearing a seatbelt. Also it is a matter of public record that she refused police protection from the met police, she didn't trust them and thought they were reporting all her comings and going's to her ex husband and his family.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Charles's Central TV interview with Jonathan Dimbleby was in June 1994; Diana's with the lying Martin Bashir was in February the following year.

Thank you. So Charles set the precedent of airing the dirty laundry

So there is absolutely no disputing that she would have survived that accident had she been wearing a seatbelt

I didn't dispute this, I disputed that the bodyguard Trevor was wearing a seatbelt as ,multiple sources contradict this. Also I don't understand when you say ''there is absolutely no disputing that she would have survived that accident had she been wearing a seatbelt''. Who knows what would have happened had she being belted up? Sometimes the belt can do more damage.

Also it is a matter of public record that she refused police protection from the met police, she didn't trust them and thought they were reporting all her comings and going's to her ex husband and his family

Ok can you source this please as I have seen this disputed across mn over the years with no conclusion.

@Hoppinggreen

Very unlikely Also, I don’t think it was necessary. People were staring to lose interest/fall out of love with her and she did far more damage to The Monarchy by dying than she did when alive

The press had turned on her. Negative stories about her abounded. Had it not been such a dreadful event, it would have been hilarious to watch the press backtracking.

@shortroundd

If she'd worn a seatbelt, she probably would have survived - as the only person in the car wearing one did

this has being largely disputed and I don't think an answer was ever given.

What is disputed is whether the bodyguard was wearing a seatbelt, not whether Diana would have survived if she had. The point is that he demonstrated that this was a survivable accident - if he wasn't saved by the seatbelt he was probably saved by an airbag - so if she'd been wearing one the chances of her surviving were very high.

Whatever badly judged things she did, I don't think anyone can deny that Diana changed societal attitudes to people with AIDS in a way that was nothing short of groundbreaking. She should never be forgotten in that regard.

I wouldn't deny that for a moment. I was simply pointing out the facts in response to the poster who claimed that she was still very popular at the time of her death.

Have you forgotten Charles' interview and didn't that come first?

No. My post wasn't about him, it was about how people were reacting to Diana's actions and how she was perceived by the time she died.

It is not true that she was losing popularity overall.
The press had periods of saying how wonderful she was, and then periods of being critical. That cycle sells newspapers and magazines. Nearly any famous female celebrity has the same media cycle.
She was being criticised by the media at the time of her death. It would have soon changed back.
But with the general public she was very popular.

I really don't see how anyone can make the claim that she was very popular with the general public. Yes, her face still sold newspapers, but that was more to do with general curiosity and celebrity culture. But so many people found her increasingly irritating and/or slightly laughable. Yes, they were still shocked at her death, and found it sad, but that was more because of her age and her sons.

Her face sold lots of newspapers and magazines. Popularity is not the same as thinking someone is a saint. People were interested in her. Most people admired some things she did, but also could see her flaws. Not that long ago before her death, there had been a public auction of some of her dresses for charity, which were sold for huge amounts.
The Royal Family did not like how popular she was.

@DePfeffoff

I really don't see how anyone can make the claim that she was very popular with the general public. Yes, her face still sold newspapers, but that was more to do with general curiosity and celebrity culture. But so many people found her increasingly irritating and/or slightly laughable. Yes, they were still shocked at her death, and found it sad, but that was more because of her age and her sons.

And because of the soap opera-nature of a messy, if privileged life, lived out very publicly. The fact that it ended so suddenly and prematurely was a bit like people getting outraged because their favourite show was cancelled, or George RR Martin died without finishing the Game of Thrones series — a long running story of a fairytale princess captured and kept in a castle that turned out not to be a fairytale, and who turned out herself to be human, flawed, silly and messy in her own emotional life, was cut off abruptly, and now we were never going to find out what happened next.