Princess Diana....Okay now it all makes 100% PERFECT SENSE......

reply to post by Zaphod58


you've been watching too much Braveheart!!!!

reply to post by spartacus699

Okay you guys don't get it....

I think what we don't get is how your logic works. Just because you think something ... doesn't make it so! I would have to do a lot of digging to find the source (and I will if you insist) but I remember an article at the time of the divorce. Princess Diana was required to give up HRH (her royal highness) at the divorce. She was allowed to keep the 'title' Princess. As others have pointed out ... if the Queen died, next in line to the throne would be Charles and next in line after Charles would be William and next would be Harry and next, next , next, next etc. Dodi's money is not an issue because .... the Royal family has more money than God. So Prince Charles would inherit the money and Prince William would inherit it from him. Now Diana's popularity is/was a real issue, BUT William is her son and is popular in his own right. The UK would see William as the heir no matter how much they love Diana.

I don't even know how to approach your misunderstanding of jus primae noctis. Get a dictionary and look it up. It is not a way to claim the throne. You can not change the definition to make it whatever you want. It doesn't work that way.

reply to post by spartacus699


The ONLY definition that comes up for jus primae noctis (or ius primae noctis) is that one. There is no British law that comes up under it that would allow Diana to become queen.

Ius Primae Noctis comes up as "Right of the first night" everywhere you look for it.

reply to post by spartacus699



She wasn't so much the princess of hearts but the princess of tarts.

Let's face it, she threw herself about a bit. I think sometimes that I was the only person in the UK that she didn't shag.

Before that it was Sarah Ferguson with her toe sucking antics ( which also gave me the boak).

Oh no, not another Diana conspiracy thread. Can’t she just rest in peace, having been killed by a drunk/drugged chauffeur who lost control.

Just a couple of minor points, rather than tearing the OP to bits.

Originally posted by spartacus699
2) She was in line to be queen if the Queen croaked. Prince Charles had already declared that he didn't want to accept kingship or whatever. But diana said she would accept queenship. So she was next in line to the thrown.

No, it does not work like that. Diana would never have been Queen as described, not least because she was divorced and therefore no longer part of the Royal family. Even if she was still happily married, she would never have been sovereign – she would have been consort. If Queen Elizabeth died and Prince Charles abdicated without issue then HRH Prince Andrew would have been King. If HRH Prince William had been born, he would have been King when he reached 18, but as he would have been too young, Parliament would have appointed a Regent, possibly Prince Andrew, or instituted some other arrangement.

Originally posted by spartacus699
5) But the linch pin that killed her was she had gotten pregnant with Dodi's child. So she was going to have a half arab son who would be a british royal prince. that would mess with their pure blood line. When the royal found that out, well it probably was the nail in the coffin.

No, this is simply a fantasy. Diana was not pregnant and this was covered in the 2007 inquest.

However, the point is moot. Diana, Princess of Wales was no longer a royal and any further children she had would have had zero claim to anything. The offspring would not have been princes or princesses, they would have been bog-standard commoners with mixed parentage and a very rich dad.

Read it to inform yourself... webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...:/www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/

Regards

Originally posted by Khaleesi
reply to post by spartacus699

 

Okay you guys don't get it....

I think what we don't get is how your logic works. Just because you think something ... doesn't make it so! I would have to do a lot of digging to find the source (and I will if you insist) but I remember an article at the time of the divorce. Princess Diana was required to give up HRH (her royal highness) at the divorce. She was allowed to keep the 'title' Princess. As others have pointed out ... if the Queen died, next in line to the throne would be Charles and next in line after Charles would be William and next would be Harry and next, next , next, next etc. Dodi's money is not an issue because .... the Royal family has more money than God.

So Prince Charles would inherit the money and Prince William would inherit it from him. Now Diana's popularity is/was a real issue, BUT William is her son and is popular in his own right. The UK would see William as the heir no matter how much they love Diana.

I don't even know how to approach your misunderstanding of jus primae noctis. Get a dictionary and look it up. It is not a way to claim the throne. You can not change the definition to make it whatever you want. It doesn't work that way.

Lets say there was even just a 10% chance that these events could unfold this way. You don't think that would set an ass-ass-in-ah-sion plaught in motion??? All that stuff combine was her doom.

reply to post by paraphi


oh ya....like they would have went out of there way to tell you otherwise if she really was? Ya they would never lie to the masses. What planet are you from? If I was a betting man which I'm not all that circumstancial evidence would clearly point toward the necessary elements of a ...well you know

Originally posted by spartacus699
reply to post by Knobby

 

You don't think queens are allowed to have some fun? Look at France. Merry Antoinette

Persitence is an admirable trait.... but seriously... Merry?

If nothing else it's been entertaining...

Originally posted by spartacus699
reply to post by paraphi

 

oh ya....like they would have went out of there way to tell you otherwise if she really was? Ya they would never lie to the masses. What planet are you from? If I was a betting man which I'm not all that circumstancial evidence would clearly point toward the necessary elements of a ...well you know

edit on 27-8-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)

...car crash.

Originally posted by spartacus699
oh ya....like they would have went out of there way to tell you otherwise if she really was?

Why would "they" lie. The "they" being witnesses at an inquest.

Diana was a celebrity, an ex Royal. She was no threat to the establishment and if she had babies they would have been nothing. She was not pregnant. It was a fantasy created by Al-Fayed. Have you any evidence that she was pregnant.

Regards

reply to post by spartacus699


Amusing thread.

Omg.

Some people don´t seem to understand how lineage and succession works in a monarchy, or at all.

But yeah, if it wasn´t an accident she probably was killed because she was embarassing them. I believe they would be capable of it.

reply to post by spartacus699

All that stuff combine was her doom.

even though you say this at the beginning of the same post

Lets say there was even just a 10% chance that these events could unfold this way.

and earlier in another post

If the divorce dragged out and wasn't finalized then the queed passed, then diana would infact have a slight chance of becoming queen.

how many straws are you grasping for?


Ifs and evens make it seem like your running out air and gasping for anything you can.

Okay you guys don't get it....

Yes,

I don't get your joke dragging on so long or I don't get how your serious as you supply nothing to support your thread.

Originally posted by spartacus699

Lets say there was even just a 10% chance that these events could unfold this way. You don't think that would set an ass-ass-in-ah-sion plaught in motion??? All that stuff combine was her doom.

There's not even an .00001% chance of your theory being correct if you insist that ALL of your theory is correct. Was she assassinated? I don't know. I wasn't there. Maybe .... MAYBE ... IF she was assassinated ... maybe because she was an embarrassment to the royal family ... MAYBE. BUT your theory about her being in line for the throne is just WRONG. Maybe she was assassinated. Maybe it was just a horrible accident. Until someone comes forward with more information ... NOT THEORIES ... I'll go with accident.

It always amuses me that so many non-British people are so interested in the British monarchy, yet few ever take the time to research the subject. I don't mean that as a dig, but if the OP had taken even the most cursory glance at Wikipedia he'd have seen his theory was mistaken.

In any event, I do think there's a higher than average possibility that Diana's death has a conspiritorial element. For me, the most likely explanation is that a shadowy zionist-leaning element of the British and French security services had concerns about the growing influence of Islam in the two countries and conspired to 'resolve' the potentially awkward situation of a very high profile figure marrying into a Muslim family and perhaps converting herself. Similarly, I believe such an element would consider the possibility of the future British king having a Muslim half-sibling to be undesireable.

If this was indeed the case, I'm reasonably certain they'd be acting rogue. For all the talk of 'Islamic danger' in the UK, it's well worth remembering that Muslims are represented in government, high society etc without note, which leads me to think Diana becoming Muslim wouldn't create that much of an issue in real terms. Many high profile people in Britain, even in 1997, are Muslim.

However tempting that theory is, I still think that Diana's death was caused by a man driving too fast having had too much to drink.

Originally posted by abdel
reply to post by spartacus699

 

Hi Spartacus699
The only problem with your theory is that after she divorced Charles, Diana and any offspring, would not be eligible for the throne. Dodi could never have been a royal consort. I think your other points are valid, she was pregnant as seen on her last t.v. news coverage on Dodi's yacht, she clearly had a belly bump and stated that she had some big news which she would reveal soon.
She was seen as a potential trouble maker and had to go.
As for masonic rituals. I'm not sure, you'd have to ask the Duke of Kent about that.

edit on 27-8-2013 by abdel because: why so curious

But there is the truth as I see it. Charles was not going to have anymore sons. They needed Diana gone as she was moving on from her cheating husband and what would that mean...the reputation of her two sons or since she may have been going to marry a very rich man whose family may help her to take her boys and live in another country.

Even before "the accident" I realized they would have to do something about Diana.

Originally posted by Amagnon
reply to post by spartacus699

 

Ya, I heard this many years ago and it made sense to me, an Arab Muslim prince of England was not going to happen.

You're completely right. There would never be an Arab Prince of England born to Diana because a Diana independent of Charles is not royal and Charles is not Arab.

It really is as simple as that.

reply to post by spartacus699


I think it had more to do with public perception, Diana was left alone to do what she wanted until she became involved with Dodi....whatever the motive was I do not believe it had anything to do with the premise of her becoming Queen.

She was, also, very active in trying to get rid of land mines...a huge money maker for England and her involvement was seen as a slap in the face to the Crown.....they were also, concerned with the influence she would have on the Future kings, her son's.....nothing to do with Muslim religion either specifically....and her being pregnant would not have been a reason...she was never part of the royal bloodline and any child she had with Dodi would not have mattered...public perception however, and her influence on her son's...certainly are reasons to "Accident" her.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 1000. Okay now it all makes 100% PERFECT SENSE.
Bold statement I know.
But if 1= 75 and 2= 100 and 3=425 and 4= 150 and 4= 200 and 5= 50, THEN it all makes perfect sense.
What dosen't make perfect sense to me is that for over three full pages of your piers refuting your argument as sheer nonsense, you continue to defend it. That is simply amazing. How dooooooo you do it?

i agree, as soon as she divorced Charles she lost any rights to the Crown. However, would it be enough that Diana was the custodial parent of William, who is himself heir to the Crown? Would the thought of a Muslim having a strong influence on a future King be enough that the royal family might want to take her life? I can't help but wonder....

Just can't believe that this thread has gone on so long without being ripped from the ATS website.....It seems as if the creator of the thread has his own agenda of what he believes and will not be swayed whatsoever regardless of what truth spouts from any of our writings.....

Surely this thread was written in jest, surely it was....

I have lost the will to live.....

Yeah, I believe that that bloke called Camilla will one day be king of England even if Charles dies....All those in favour, say aye...........................Aye!!!!!!