Does Harry honestly think Diana was killed by the paps?

[leopardskincolour]

Just that really. I'm still reading the book so I might be wrong, but so far he seems she "went into hiding" because of the paps, and not the fault of the RF?

There is a bizarre disconnect with Diana, which is playing out now with Harry....

The wish for privacy, but at the same time the need for notoriety.

If she went to a large stately home in the country and ate a Michelin starred meal which was prepared on premises, no paparazzi, no problem.....

If she went to a large town/city and stayed in a private residence etc... ditto.

If she attended a private party, etc ditto.

Instead she went to the centre of Paris, driving between two different public restaurants and then tried to return on public roads to a residence, and was annoyed with the paparazzi following her.....

The back seatbelts were not working in that vehicle, so Diana could not put one on.

There was absolutely no need for Diana & Dodi to leave The Ritz that night. None. But Al Fayed was beside himself with excitement that his son was dating Diana. He wanted their relationship splashed all over the media. So he instructed Dodi to take Diana out of the hotel knowing it would whip the waiting paparazzi into a frenzy.

Dodi wanted an exciting chase through Paris. He wanted to show off to Diana how manly and in control of the situation he was. I honestly think he thought he was some sort of action hero starring in his own personal film.

If he genuinely wanted to protect Diana from the paparazzi he would have kept her at The Ritz and ordered a quiet supper to be served in their suite.

The problem is that they both desperately want to paint Meghan as being Diana The Second. Inevitably, this will involve fitting details of Diana's life to tie in with Meghan's and making dramatic claims about Meghan's experience to tie in with Diana's. The result is paranoia and desperation.

Diana was constantly chased because the press/public were fascinated and mesmerized by her and believed in her. Meghan has only courted attention because the press and public are repelled by her and how she has forged a way into the inner sanctum of a family/institution which she clearly dislikes.

They don't believe most of what she says (with good reason). They are chasing her away as opposed to chasing after her to get closer (as it was for Diana).

I agree with this, also with Step s post upthread about the effect of Martin Bashir.
Drunk drivers crash cars, he might have crashed even without the paps. He made the stupid, drunken decision to speed even though he obviously couldn’t outrun the photographers on their bikes, they would have stayed behind the car anyway. Diana’s position in the car meant that it was a survivable crash had she been wearing a seatbelt. A series of bad decisions, made by people not thinking clearly, ending in such a tragic way. I am still surprised that nobody was belted in, it is so ingrained in me to have a seatbelt on. I wonder why they didn’t , was there a reason ?
The photographers taking pictures straight after the crash though, that was shocking and inhumane. I think he is right in having huge anger over that.

"She'd been continuously harassed by the press for 15 years, and she will have known from prior experience that they would chase her regardless."

No, they really wouldn't, because there's no value in those photos. And if they did follow her car, and she got out at the other end, and maybe had her photo taken again, that wouldn't have been the end of the world. But making it into a chase was unwise.

She, like Harry and Meghan, was happy to court the press when it suited her, and her office would tip photographers off where she'd be when she wanted them there.

She should have refused to get in the car. She didn't have to go. Unfortunately there were a series of incidents leading to this event, but if they hadn't got it the car, it could have been avoided.

“No, they really wouldn't, because there's no value in those photos.”

Oh, this is baloney.

They did the morning photo call on ski trips repeatedly, still didn’t stop some photographers try to follow Diana and the princes for more pictures. A snap of Di and Dodi snogging in the car (or whatever) would have earned more than a posed picture that a hundred photographers had a version of.

You are suggesting she is at fault for not appeasing the pack before leaving? That she brought the chase on herself? That the paps were reasonable here?

Right.

“but if they hadn't got it the car, it could have been avoided.”

Well, yes.

The inquest jury returned a verdict of "unlawfully killed". It's not unreasonable to think that means some one, or more than one person, were responsible.

Although Harry blames the British press, it was actually French and Italian Paparazzi, who were there. They were picked up by the police and interviewed.
I understand that Paparazzi are actually free lance photographers, who then sell on the photos, but are not necessarily employed directly by a newspaper.
Diana herself used to call the media, and in fact one of her last calls from Paris was to a British Journalist.
The driver had been drinking because he had gone off duty, but was called back by Dodi Fayed, so they could use the correct driver at the front of the hotel to create a diversion. So he had been drinking and was driving too fast. (120 mph, I read)
Diana was not wearing a seatbelt. The only person who survived (the bodyguard) was wearing a seatbelt.
We will never know if she would have survived if she had been wearing a seatbelt, but she may have had a better chance.
Diana cultivated the press when she wanted them, but found it impossible to 'turn them off', when she wanted.

Although Harry blames the British press, it was actually French and Italian Paparazzi, who were there. They were picked up by the police and interviewed.
I understand that Paparazzi are actually free lance photographers, who then sell on the photos, but are not necessarily employed directly by a newspaper.

The British press often paid for photos by overseas paparazzi. The paparazzo who got the most intimate snaps would get paid the most for their photos, and it was the press that fuelled that market.

I don’t think it's reasonable to criticise the paparazzi without also criticising the industry that funded them and fuelled their aggressive behaviour.

The only person who survived (the bodyguard) was wearing a seatbelt.

This is often repeated, but isn't true:

"investigations revealed that none of the occupants of the car were wearing their seat belts"

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Rees-Jones_(bodyguard)#:~:text=Some%20media%20reports%20claimed%20he,were%20wearing%20their%20seat%20belts.

I agree with the chain description and the paps were partly to blame. Also remember the paps took photos of Diana as she lay dying.

@AreOttersJustWetCats

*marcopront
Why is it OK to blame one factor the paparazzi but not to blame one factor the lack of seatbelt?

There were multiple factors but the lack of seat belt was probably the biggest one.
Actually deciding to change hotel was the biggest.

What evidence do you have that the lack of seat belt was the "biggest" factor?*

If you are going to quote me at least read what I wrote.

I used the word probably which you ignored.

Because that particular image was taken as he first drove away from the hotel. It's just one of a series of them all getting into the car and leaving. It wasn't taken when he was driving at speed.

I hadn't realised the car had previously been a write off and then repaired, nor that the seat belts weren't working. That car should never have been anywhere near Diana, let alone any guest of a 5+ star hotel.

I also didn't realise that there is video of Henri Paul signalling to waiting paps before they left the hotel in the car.

Who exactly was protecting Diana that night? Seems to me people were only using her for their own benefit.

Nobody was protecting her, and she was surrounded by people using her for their own benefit because of one man.

Martin Bashir.

Oh come on. The paps were chasing her long before Bashir.

But she had protection before Bashir.

No faults were found with the car as far as I’ve read. Where is the evidence that the car was at fault? The car was checked meticulously after the crash and no faults found. No evidence to suggest seatbelts weren’t working.

As per my previous post, the car was effectively written off in a previous accident and had been rolled several times. It was sold as a wreck for parts, the buyer rebuilt it then sold it to Etoile limousines who were contracted by the Ritz. It was said by drivers to have been unstable with steering problems if driven at anything above 40kmph.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/princess-diana-paris-car-killed-in-travelling-hugely-dangerous-rebuilt-wreck-reports-henri-paul-pascal-rostain-mercedes-a7765356.html

Another article concerning the car.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4556606/Diana-s-Paris-crash-car-death-trap.html

Pantherrose it seems the car was a bit dodgy but presumably still passed the French MOT equivalent I presume? Crash investigators examining the vehicle came the conclusion the accident wasn’t the fault of the car.

65mph to be going through a tunnel is a lot espe ially when the driver is drunk, don't you think? It's not far off motorway speed.
Perhaps the original speed of 120 was being reported in km's? I'm not sure what the conversion is.