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.

Diana's relationship choices are irrelevant to this. Unless, of course, you meant to imply they had something to do with her death.

Well if she hadn't got involved with Dodi she wouldn't have been in Paris pursued paparazzi that night, so it's not entirely irrelevant.

Charles also had a pretty playboy image back in the day!!

Charles always had a serious side. His life wasn't all about playing polo and dating pretty girls. And I don't recall that he was photographed going into or out of nightclubs. Philip had a bit more of a playboy image, pre-marriage, but he always took his Naval career seriously, he wasn't just out for a good time.

He was hired by MI5. That's why no one can find him. He probably slipped in and tampered with Diana's seatbelt too.

Edward married Wallis in 1937, not the 1950s!! The first of the RF to divorce was Princess Margaret in 1978!!! The others came later.

They'd have had to have a crystal ball to foresee a divorce 41 years on!!

I was talking about people now, who are suddenly scandalised about Wallis and Meghan being divorced. It was scandalous at the time, but it was also extremely misogynistic and women suffered far more than the men. Yet people who live this century clutch their pearls about these women partly because they were divorced and mainly because they can't possibly admit they have been lumbered with weak willed, spoilt men, because those men are Royal.

That's true. He did have a succession of girlfriends though. I wouldn't put any of the royals on a par with Dodi Fayed.

Disgusting victim blaming.

If people were not in the Twin Towers they would never have died during 9/11. So what??

Andrew's image was very playboy. He was even called the playboy prince. Andrew dated a number of women including models, successful businesswomen and actresses. There was even a photo of the prince standing naked in the surf while swinging his swimming trunks over his head. After his divorce he left the Navy, and his playboy reputation really took off. The Prince frequented the social scenes in London and Los Angeles and was estimated to have about 15 girlfriends after he divorced his wife. He was seen and photographed many times on party yachts.

Charles was had a bit of a playboy image being photographed with glamorous women, on the beach, and playing polo.

But the key thing about the Royals is married in women always get very heavily criticised for things that the Royal men do and are barely mentioned. It is stark misogyny.

I don't think many people care about either woman having been divorced nowadays.

It was seen as scandalous in Edward and Wallis's day, and she'd divorced twice!

Well if she hadn't got involved with Dodi she wouldn't have been in Paris pursued paparazzi that night, so it's not entirely irrelevant.

In terms of cause and effect, agreed. But presumably she didn't have a crystal ball, and it was a very random accident. The real question is why no one spotted that the driver was off his face before he got behind the wheel. It was stupid that she wasn't wearing a seatbelt, but beyond that I can't see how she can be considered to have contributed to the outcome.

@wigsonthegreenandhatsforthelifting There was lots if criticism about Meghan having been divorced. And Catherine is praised for William being her only serious boyfriend. So the misogyny is still there, just not as stark as it used to be.

What "disgusting victim blaming"? It's a matter of fact that if Diana hadn't been in Paris that night, she would not have been killed. It's also a matter of fact that if Joe Bloggs had not been present in the towers, he would not have died in 9/11.

I don't recall a lot of criticism.

But how is it relevant if you are nit blaming her for being there?

I'm not clear what point you are attempting to make, but I will reiterate: nobody is blaming anyone for where they were at a particular time! But it's a no-brainer that if they hadn't been in the wrong place at the wrong time, then they would not have died.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Diana’s choices in her last summer may have contributed to her death - we will never know. Certainly, having spent a decade with close protection officers with her every day she will have been uniquely able to assess whether Al Fayed’s model of only two officers to provide 24/7 coverage made her feel secure or not. Be that as it may, she was clearly happy to spend time with Dodi on that basis.

Actually, my personal view is that the culture that was set by Dodi’s father, and by extension Dodi - that their opinion was followed with no dissent possible- was the main issue here. Trevor Rees Jones wasn’t able to tell Dodi that his plan to use Henri Paul as their driver, with him aiming to outrun any paparazzi was reckless and not advisable. That’s not Diana ‘s fault. And obvious she is in no way to blame for what happened. But she’d had by this stage a good week on the family’s yacht to assess how the Al Fayed family operated. Her family will doubtless always ask themselves if she had misgivings. It must be torment for them.

👌🏼

I think this is a great post and a really important issue to highlight generally.

We don’t discuss the inherent misogyny that lies within the monarchy and the RF enough. Hopefully things are changing but I always thought it terribly hypocritical of Prince Philip to banish Fergie from family Christmases!

For years it’s been acceptable for men to have mistresses and get away with it. kC is a prime example. But if women do the same, they are hung out to dry.

That’s what I find so unjust about Diana’s situation. It’s not the affairs themselves! It was that she was supposed to keep quiet about it and not expose that their life was a sham basically so the institution can continue with fresh blood; never mind the collateral damage.

The fact that the women who marry in have to give up any thoughts of an independent career and identity also leads to a lot of problems imho. It’s not remotely reflective of modern society as a whole.

They are forced to become non-controversial, non-speaking figure, sending messages through the colour of their dress or what kind of broach they wear! Stuff that! It’s 2025 fhs!

All while the King and the Prince run commercial enterprises like the Duchies which each have an annual income of £20 million a year but they pretend to be jobless figureheads. They in fact do have jobs at the same time as being royal, which btw, imho, is the very definition of being half-in and half-out.

So why can’t royal wives do the same?

There's so much wrong with the post above that I can't even be bothered to start...

I don't think Diana was bumped off it was a series of decisions by everyone that day/night that ended in a tragic accident.

Shadows of a princess by Patrick Jephson is a good book for a look behind the scenes into Diana's life.

This thread has reminded me that I had started looking more deeply into Wallace Simpson. Can anyone please recommend any books or podcasts about her?

At least because of the awful consequences of the marriage of Diana and Charles no Royal has had to be paired up with someone they hadn't wanted to be with since whatever problems that entails. And that is the sad part. A young woman going into marriage with an older man who didn't love her. Who wants that.
She had a pretty sad life overall and it was cut short far too soon. It's sad that she didn't get to hold her grandchildren. I think she would have brought a lot of fun and joy to them all. One of the most iconic pictures of her would be in the black revenge dress. Absolutely a woman in her prime.

I think keeping quiet about what the Royal men do is the number one rule in the family. Sarah Ferguson is back in the fold because she kept quiet about anything Andrew did that she knew about.

I think keeping quiet applies to both sexes.

After all, the rumours of Andrew's parentage were widespread but never confirmed.

Fidelity during the child producing years is a fairly common deal, after that all bets are off, but discretion is expected, as is never embarrassing your spouse publicly.

Fergie was fed up because of the amount of time Andrew had fucked off with the Navy, leaving her in comfortable circumstances, but very much on her own. If she'd had quiet affairs, I don't think anyone would have blinked.

"forced to become non-controversial, non-speaking figure, sending messages through the colour of their dress or what kind of broach they wear!" - I think Sir Timothy Laurence is a pretty "non-controversial, non-speaking figure">

Mike Tindall never gives anything much away either.

How many other Royal men are there that have 'married in' in recent times?

It’s not the affairs that are the problem though.

It’s pretending to the public that you are one happy family.

It’s not very honest or honourable is it?

And yet we are supposed to see Royalty as honourable and all things respectable.

And for the top job, you are meant to lead the C of E!

It’s all so hypocritical!

true, but this comment is regarding it being arranged to kill, the non wearing of seatbelts could not have been pre arranged

try the Kitty Kelley book..P.S.: its Wallis