To think Princess Di was killed

[Lavenderfarmcottage]

There OK I said it. You hoo, crazy conspiracy theorist over here…

Yes, I know they had an inquiry though anyone high up enough to kill a Royal could snowball an Inquiry or influence the outcome ? I think it’s naive to think the law is this perfect thing.

Ive always found it odd that she was labelled a “loose cannon” by the press and was campaigning against landmines. It was said that it caused a lot of noses out of joint in politics. I would have thought that weapons dealers and the industry would have taken a huge hit.

There aren’t many celebrities or organisations that could have taken on the weapons or arms industry as powerfully as Diana. It was until then an issue that nobody touched.

Since her death there’s still landmines and the issue has never really been addressed.

I wonder if she’d been alive today what she’d be doing. Not hard to imagine her visiting children impacted by war and maybe even Palestinian refugees, beaming images around the world to restore some sanity and humanity.

I dont think we realise the humanity, bravery and brilliance she had. Could have been going to glamorous events and being a Princess but instead she was carrying on even when powerful people were upset.

I wonder how powerful those people were or was it someone British. Men don’t take a liking to women with power and it amazes me more that she wasn’t killed deliberately in the context of this.

What are the chances she would die at such a young age and to not be wearing a seat belt seems bizarre to me. Just too many coincidences.

Ah yes, it was the Queen Mum who suggested Diana because Diana's grandmother Lady Fermoy was one of her ladies-in-waiting. One thing that has always mystified me is why Diana was so surprised to find there were three people in her marriage (plus the multiple others she dragged in). I thought bed-hopping was the stock-in-trade of much of the aristocracy.

I have a friend I made at uni who is an aristocrat and was told the rule is: You can have as many mistresses and male equivalents as you like, in fact it’s expected, and you can even be open about it: but ALWAYS after you’ve had all your babies with your spouse and only ever be open within aristocratic circles not beyond. Andrew Parker Bowles, Camilla’s ex, could have got an illogic gold medal in extramarital shagging.

Its another world entirely and it really isn’t the same as regular people getting cheated on because it’s latgely accepted and expected

The “There were 3 of us in this marriage” was ridiculous - yeah Diana and the rest! Let’s ask Julia Carling her thoughts on what you did to her family shall we.

Had she worn a seatbelt and made sure not to get in a car with a drunk driver then she might well be alive today.

It’s strange because the Queen Mum and QE2 both picked men they truly loved and it worked very well albeit the odd spat. So you’d think she’d support Charles marrying for love not finding a virgin to avoid a kiss and tell!

Ive never known any kiss and tells on either Catherine, Sophie or Meghan, who presumably were not virgins when they met their men, so it’s clearly not something the press are interested in

But that's precisely why you wouldn't carry out an assassination in those ways though isn't it? Because the ordinary semi-intelligent Joe would go: Poisoned? Accidentally stabbed in the heart with an Umbrella shaft? Pull another one.

But now if it's a carefully orchestrated 'accident' then everyone who is suspicious can be easily dismissed.

I'm not saying I think she was killed. I err on most likely just one of those unfortunate things.

But the question always ought to be: Is/was it convenient? And if so, for whom?

What I do find interesting is how the press did an about turn (she was previously the press darling) and were gunning so hard for her before her death and the explicit attempt to denigrate her character and influence in the press and media since. There's been a lot of rewriting about her, about the reaction to her death and a playing it down. It does make me think: why and whom does it serve? The Royal Family? Possibly. But unlikely.

Perhaps it's s up there with Jeffry Epstein conveniently dying in his cell.

I'm sorry but this theory has never made any sense to me.

Why would Prince Philip arrange Diana's death when that would leave two of his grandsons - one the future King - bereft of their mother? In what way would Diana's death benefit the future monarchy when William could have suffered from some serious MH issues as a consequence, as Harry, of his own admission, clearly has. That surely would run the risk of destabilising the monarchy, not making it safe for the future?

And what about Prince Charles - who was nowhere near as popular as Prince Diana - wouldn't the public blame him, the next King, because of his self-confessed affair with Camilla? That would be another potentially destabilising factor to the future monarchy.

And as a matter of interest, who exactly would the DOE 'organise' Diana's car crash with? The monarchy is ceremonial, it has no authority over armed forces including the SAS and Royal Marines; and none over our intelligence services.

The Duke of Edinburgh was a WW2 veteran, mentioned in dispatches for his bravery. To accuse him of organising Diana's death is an insult as that would be the act of a coward and not a hero.

He was also well-known for speaking his mind and no doubt if he disagreed with Diana's behaviour or views, he would have told her so, unflinchingy and directly.

If the monarchy were to order the death of embarrassing members of the Royal Family, Prince Andrew would no longer be here and neither would Sarah Ferguson (Prince Philip banned her from Christmas Day gatherings for years.)

The sad reality is Diana chose to dispense with her Royal Protection Officers and on this occasion relied on Al Fahed to provide her with adequate protection. With the best will in the world, it was highly unlikely he would be able to provide security of the same calibre as RPOs. In the event, it was nowhere near good enough: only one bodyguard, no armed outriders and a drunken chauffeur, all of which allowed the Paparazzi to engage in a dangerous, high-speed chase. The coroner also said not wearing a seat belt contributed to Diana's death.

I thought she wasn't allowed the privilege of Royal Protection Officers because she no longer was officially titled 'Royal' post divorce?

I understand that the UK and US often cover for each other politically (eg WMD in Iraq) but if it was a plot, then it would be necessary for French authorities to be bribed and I can’t imagine why France would agree to this.
If she’d died in the UK or US then I would be more persuaded about a conspiracy.

Phillip had also experienced loss at IIRC 21 of his father from whom he’d been estranged for many years. He also lost a lot of his family as a child. Why would he want much loved grandsons to go through that pain?

@AcquadiP

The Duke of Edinburgh was a WW2 veteran, mentioned in dispatches for his bravery. To accuse him of organising Diana's death is an insult as that would be the act of a coward and not a hero.

Excellent post and I agree with everything you say.

Nope - as the mother of the future king she was offered protection.

Despite what Harry and Meghan say, security is not linked to titles

She ditched it because Martin Bashir faked documents to say her protection officers were feeding information to the palace. He did this in order to make her so pissed off she’d do the Panorama interview. William has spoken out against Bashir and the BBC and said clearly if it weren’t for their underhand tactics his mother may be alive today

Maybe it was Cami. After she pushed Kanga out the window she went gunning for Di because she couldn't cope with the constant comparisons to Charlie's glamorous ex (and Charlie & Cami's and al - ahem Penny Junor - character assassination of Di wasn't as successful as they hoped).

The exes have probably signed NDAs. You are right about the QM and QEII, they really screwed up there but equally, I am not sure Camilla and Charles were in marriage territory with each other when they were an item?

Things have changed since the '80s though and there isn't an expectation that women will remain virgins until marriage. Even Diana's father made some disgusting remark about her being good breeding stock, as if she were a horse, at tge time if the engagement. And the virginity expectation didn't extend to men, who were lauded for sowing wild oats by the ton.

I thought bed-hopping was the stock-in-trade of much of the aristocracy.

I think you’ll find ‘bed-hopping’ happens across the whole class spectrum.

No, she kept her RPOs after the divorce. Given she was the mother of the future King and one of the most famous women in the world, the Home Office decided she warranted RPO protection.

I don't think they were. She was besotted with Andrew Parker Bowles, who for reasons I do not understand was considered a real catch among upper class ladies of the day.

The idea that Charles and Camilla would have married back in the 70s if their great love had not been forbidden is a great story. But it's not really what happened.

It's not something I think about very much, but I don't think I'd be terribly surprised if it was proven to be true.

Thank you so much @Andante57

Princess Diane was definitely fearless, determined and very compassionate.

It's so sad that she was terrified, paranoid and intimidated in the last few years of years of her life.

There's a difference between it happening and it being expected.

But why would the exes sign NDAs? The press must walk a fine line with the palace and I suspect wouldn’t dare publish a story like that

What killed Diana was the public's obsession with celebrities. If the public stopped consuming celebrity nonsense, including theat of the Royal, the paparazzi wouldn't have been chasing her for photos.

If you're looking for someone to blame, blame the people who collude in propagating that environment.

Say what!

Working and middle class people don’t have set ups where it’s expected though