Harry says Diana's death a mystery

Isn't there a question about whether there was another car involved in the accident and couldn't that be all that there is to the Prince's statement.

Four months after the death of Princess Diana, a new police report quotes two witnesses who saw a white Fiat Uno "zigzagging" out of the tunnel where she died, and they described the car's driver.


www.cnn.com...

Does anyone but me see the marilyn monroe parrelel her?Both killed because they were threats to powerful mens/countries prestige in the face of scandal.

Originally posted by Xfile
Does anyone but me see the marilyn monroe parrelel her?Both killed because they were threats to powerful mens/countries prestige in the face of scandal.

The problem is, that there is not one scrap of evidence that she was killed in anything other than an accident.

If you have proof, post it - and I don't mean un-authenticated accusations courtesy of mohammed al-fayed.

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by Xfile
Does anyone but me see the marilyn monroe parrelel her?Both killed because they were threats to powerful mens/countries prestige in the face of scandal.

The problem is, that there is not one scrap of evidence that she was killed in anything other than an accident.

If you have proof, post it - and I don't mean un-authenticated accusations courtesy of mohammed al-fayed.

Well MR.Budski...marilyn supposedly had sleeping pill overdose to kill a horse yet there were no undigested pills found in here stomach.Quite impossible.Yet nobody has been charged in this obvious murder.As for Diana,Dodi isnt the only one buying the official story is he?

xfile,
like I said - please provide proof - not un-substantiated rumour/fiction.

I know about the "theories" surrounding both deaths, but have yet to see anything that could even remotely be considered as proof.

We're talking about the facts, rather than your opinion.

If had concrete proof of Diana murder i certainly wouldnt be wasting my time talking to you now would i?How bout this...Can you prove that that car crash WASNT PROVOKED ON PURPOSE?I imagine you cannot anymore than i can prove otherwise.At least i leave open the obvious possibility where as you cant...

Originally posted by Xfile
If had concrete proof of Diana murder i certainly wouldnt be wasting my time talking to you now would i?How bout this...Can you prove that that car crash WASNT PROVOKED ON PURPOSE?I imagine you cannot anymore than i can prove otherwise.At least i leave open the obvious possibility where as you cant...

The findings of the french inquiry into this affair say that there was no involvement of any 3rd party other than the chasing papparazi - until this can be proved to the contrary, I'll accept it.
And let's face it - if there was any conspiracy involving the royal family, the french would be the last to cover it up - rather, they would probably take great delight in embarrassing the royals.

My mind is open to facts, rather than hysterical "theories" with not a shred of evidence to back them up.

Fact: henri paul was well over the legal alcohol limit for driving - which in france is higher than in the UK. He also had prescription meds in his system, the combination of which seriously impaired his judgement.

Theory: henri paul was spiked with alcohol and drugs

Fact: none of the occupants was wearing a seatbelt - this taken from an interview with Trevor Rees-Jones - who contrary to popular belief was employed by mohammed al-fayed, rather than the royal family

Theory: Rees-Jones put his seatbelt on just before the crash, thus "proving" that he had seen something - this refuted by rees-jones himself.

Fact: Diana was not pregnant at the time of her death

Theory: she was murdered because she was pregnant, and therefore a threat to the succession of the throne

Fact: no child of diana other than her 2 sons from her marriage to prince charles could ever ascend to the throne

More silly theories:
A laser was used to blind the driver
the brakes had been tampered with
another car caused the crash, deliberately ( a small fiat run a huge mercedes off the road? give me a break)

So until someone comes up with concrete proof, rather than rubbish, I'll stick to the facts thanks.

BTW as a UK citizen I have no love for the royal family, and would quite like to see them implicated in something like a conspiracy - but again, there are no facts/evidence or anything else to even remotely suggest this.

So if you don't mind, I'll just have a laugh at your post.

Originally posted by budski

BTW as a UK citizen I have no love for the royal family, and would quite like to see them implicated in something like a conspiracy - but again, there are no facts/evidence or anything else to even remotely suggest this.

So if you don't mind, I'll just have a laugh at your post.

I find it hard to believe a country is so monolithic in its dislike for its "leadership" or ruling family. Rather spiteful, if you ask me.

Have you tried American soil?

Originally posted by newtron25
Have you tried American soil?

I've tried Earth soil... it's all the same to me.

I too have a strong dislike for the royal family, but that dislike spreads to all authoritative/powerful figures. God only knows what "our" royal family has been involved in.

Originally posted by newtron25

Originally posted by budski

BTW as a UK citizen I have no love for the royal family, and would quite like to see them implicated in something like a conspiracy - but again, there are no facts/evidence or anything else to even remotely suggest this.

So if you don't mind, I'll just have a laugh at your post.

I find it hard to believe a country is so monolithic in its dislike for its "leadership" or ruling family. Rather spiteful, if you ask me.

Have you tried American soil?

They are neither leaders nor rulers - they are anachronistic leeches - a throwback to feudalism when "lords" etc took what they could grab through violence. They are not even british - they're german and greek.

I don't hate them, I just don't think they have a place in the modern world - especially when you consider that the money they take could be spent on better things.

Back to the topic, please!


"Harry says Diana's death a mystery"

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Back to the topic, please!


"Harry says Diana's death a mystery"

Something which everyone has taken out of context and blown out of all proportion.
It was a car smash. Something that happens many times a day anywhere in the EU and if you have seen the standard of driving in Framce it wouldnt surprise you at all

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by newtron25

Originally posted by budski

BTW as a UK citizen I have no love for the royal family, and would quite like to see them implicated in something like a conspiracy - but again, there are no facts/evidence or anything else to even remotely suggest this.

So if you don't mind, I'll just have a laugh at your post.

I find it hard to believe a country is so monolithic in its dislike for its "leadership" or ruling family. Rather spiteful, if you ask me.

Have you tried American soil?

They are neither leaders nor rulers - they are anachronistic leeches - a throwback to feudalism when "lords" etc took what they could grab through violence. They are not even british - they're german and greek.

I don't hate them, I just don't think they have a place in the modern world - especially when you consider that the money they take could be spent on better things.

Well then, as an enigmatic peddler of pablum yourself, would you mind telling us how better to redistribute the money? After all, that would then reclassify the UK as a communist country, right? Or perhaps those who have attained power need be placed into indentured servitude to fulfill some sort of public need for karmic justice. After all, the people have been slaving away at their feet as mindless drones for so long, not capable of enjoying all the amenities and perks that were obtained through centuries of conquest and protection for its people....

Largely due to the efforts of the royal family!

Unless your family can make that claim or show along its line how it has served its country either through diplomatic alliances kept or internal politics being maintained, I'm guessing you're not going to be able to apply for the position of King anytime soon.

Besides, if your Parliament is a superior governmental body, whey haven't they eschewed the royals by now? WOuld seem they have a use for them, otherwise, they would have shown them off the "payroll" a long time ago.

But this thread is about one young man who has been infected by your country's (and others, too) media for his entire life, and now he wants to let you know that besides the fact that his mother's death is a mystery, its important to know that you all need to back-off...as a matter of courtesy to his family's history, his country's pride for itself and for simple dignity.

Be human, please. In the United States, we do it to our celebrities, but to be honest, they at least in part have asked for it.

Harry, as proud as he is to be prince, never asked to born who he was. He was simply told that was his lot and he has to shoulder it. And because of his station, he has no choice but to lead.

If that is not the definition of leadership (granted by default), then I don't know what is.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by newtron25]

Budski how do you know the official investigation wasnt tainted??Did you supervise all info gathered did you??Im not saying it was tainted but how can YOU say it wasnt???You have as much proof as anyone else-NONE-unless ofcourse it was YOU who handled investigation...

Originally posted by ConfusedOz
Budski how do you know the official investigation wasnt tainted??Did you supervise all info gathered did you??Im not saying it was tainted but how can YOU say it wasnt???You have as much proof as anyone else-NONE-unless ofcourse it was YOU who handled investigation...

Do you think the french would ever do a favour for the brits? let alone the royals who they despise.

With this in mind and having a modicum of faith in independant enquiry, I choose to believe the official french version of events.

No one has ever shown any proof that anything else happened - just speculation and wild theories.

As for Harry, I feel for him, I really do - despite my attitude towards the royal family, no one should lose their parent in such tragic circumstances and then be expected to cope with all the hype and hysteria surrounding their death. But that's what he's managed to do in a dignified manner.

Another point is that maybe it's easier for him to speak about this in an open manner, as he is not expected to ascend to the throne - unless something happens to William of course.
Harry has much more freedom in what he does, much the same as Charles's siblings had.

newtron25

please get your facts straight before you start with all that mallarkey.

here's some facts about the current royal family (german/greek)

www.royal.gov.uk...
american..._almanac.tripod.com/naziroot.htm

When you know something about it, we can have a debate, if you want.

Hey Budski, you are an insufferable mallet head and a boon to your species. And for that, I commend you heartily!!

This is what I found from your first link:

~~~

During the twentieth century, kings and queens of the United Kingdom have fulfilled the varied duties of constitutional monarchy. One of their most important roles has been acting as national figureheads lifting public morale during the devastating wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45.

The period saw the modernisation of the monarchy in tandem with many social changes which have taken place over the past 90 years. One such modernisation has been the use of mass communication technologies to make the Royal Family accessible to a broader public all over the world.

George V adopted the new relatively new medium of radio to broadcast across the Empire at Christmas; the Coronation ceremony was broadcast on television for the first time in 1953, at The Queen's insistence; and the World Wide Web has been used for the past seven years to provide a global audience with information about the Royal Family.

During this period, British monarchs have also played a vital part in promoting international relations. The Queen retains close links with former colonies in her role as Head of the Commonwealth.

~~~

"Vital roles in promoting international relations." Isn't that what I said earlier, only using different, possibly longer and more complex words in a different order?

Sorry if my English isn't the Queen's. I go under the asumption that people who post here are capable of reading as well as cutting/pasting.

The only debate I wish to engage in is this: the Royals today, unless their functions have changed drastically from the article that I have quoted here, are still responsible for their positions as leaders in their country.

What is the analogue in America? Former presidents and senators or congressmen/women? I'm not even sure why you're all testy.

How about a spot of tea to soothe your nerves? In fact, according to my clock its almost 4:00 o'clock. Must be off. Don't want my scone to be taken by a nasty troll......

Cheers.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by newtron25]

have you also found the nazi link of phillip the greek?

Have you also found the family tree of the house of windsor?

Don't bother trying to cherry pick

And what's with the insults?

Is that how you get your kicks?