Sex, Lies, Video Tapes and Murder


On the 1st July 1961 a Princess was born, only she didn’t know she was a Princess, all that would be made public a lot later on, or should I suggest that she didn’t know that she was going to be groomed to be a Princess.

Diana Frances Spencer, that was her title, a typical human being with blood coursing through her veins, with so much life and love to give, not just her children, but the whole world.

Of course she was born into the British nobility with royal ancestry, but nonetheless, she was still a human being.

In 1968, Diana was sent to an an all-girls boarding school, and in her premature years she did not glow academically and was moved to a school in Kent, where she was considered a poor student, and where she failed all of her O-levels twice.

At the age of 17, Diana got her first job as a nanny for Alexandra, the daughter of Major Jeremy Whitaker.

She next moved to London, and even though she had known the Prince of Wales since her youth, it was an unavoidable turn of events that one day this youthful bashful girl, who they thought was that unintelligent that she would ultimately do as she was told and keep her mouth shut, was to one day in prison the hearts of millions by doing precisely what the Royal’s did not want her to do.

The engagement of Diana Spencer and the Prince of Wales became lawful on the 24th February 1981. Following their engagement, Diana left her appointment as a kindergarten teacher and moved to Clarence House. Twenty years old Diana became the Princess of Wales when she married the Prince on the 29th July 1981 at St Paul’s Cathedral.


Even though they stated that it was the fairytale wedding, which was viewed by worldwide television spectators, and millions scored the streets to grab a brief look at the bride, it certainly wasn’t a fairytale marriage.

In October 1995, Diana, Princess of Wales inscribed a letter to her butler, prophesying her own brutal demise. In the letter, she stated that her husband was designing a misadventure in her car. Break failure and a serious head wound.

In September 1997, Diana’s interment was held in Westminster Abbey where, on April 29th, 2011, her son William married Kate Middleton. William demanded that he and Kate were married at Westminster Abbey, and not St Paul’s Cathedral where his parents were married.

When William proposed to Kate, he as well gave her his mother’s engagement ring from her ill-fated, passionless marriage to Prince Charles. It was William’s way to ensure that his mother Diana did not miss out on the day.


In 1997, the demise of the Princess and her lover broke the world. Ten years later it leads to the longest most costly, and the most shocking inquest in British legal history and hundreds of witnesses were called. Nevertheless, some stories are never supposed to be told, and some can only be told as fairy tales.

The web is and is always going to be a worldwide toilet, a blend of veracity, fabrications, lunacy and comedy, and we perceived its capability and insanity when extracts from a new film were exuded onto Youtube, and snatched by US conspiracy theorists, who instantly began asserting that the CIA had killed Princess Diana, thereby permitting others to dismiss a documentary called ‘Unlawful Killing,’ a documentary as insane.

Ridiculing its critics as mentally ill, footage of Diana recollecting how the royals wanted her sent to a mental establishment, and the inquest coroner, again and again, inquiring the faculties of anyone who wondered if the collision was more than an unfortunate accident.

Here is Mohamed Al Fayed, a man many times outlined by the press as a lunatic, driven nuts by the demise of his son, and wildly accusing the Windsors of having planned the 1997 crash. Nevertheless, this man is of sound mind and humorous, but thwarted that Britain wouldn’t hold an inquest into his son’s death.


Michael Mansfield QC thought it was unjust as well, and fought for one to take place, which is why the longest inquest in British legal history eventually began in 2007.


Long before the inquest began, the very compos mentis Mansfield was convinced that there were dubious events encompassing the collision, and indications of a cover-up by the authorities.

As the inquest of Diana drew near, it was found in British newspapers, some which had run the ‘Was Diana Murdered. It was as well stated that the inquest was an entire waste of time. No objection was raised when effectively all the key French witnesses declined to take part, nor did they find it strange that one senior royal was ordered to appear, even though Diana had specified in a lawyer’s note that the Windsors were planning a misadventure to her car.

Nor did they raise the matter of a possible prejudice when legal activities involving the good character of the royal family were to be heard in the royal courts of justice before a coroner who would have sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

In October 1993, a woman wrote a letter to a friend prophesying her own brutal death at the hands of those closest to her. Four years later, she and her partner were dead. The finding of their inquest was unlawful killing, nevertheless, it wasn’t their inquest since it was the inquest of Diana the prince of wales. Her significant other was Dodi Fayed, however, he wasn’t in fact referred to that much.

Every principal UK broadcaster was asked to commission a Television documentary about the inquest, however, they declined to even think about such a proposal, so Keith Allen and Associated Rediffusion started filming and financing it themselves.

Shortly before the inquest started, Mohamed Al Fayed tendered to invest in the program, so they could make a feature-length cinema documentary instead. They agreed, on condition that they reported events in the way they saw them, and the deal was struck.

Unlawful Killing is not the conspiracy prior to the crash, but a provable conspiracy following the crash. A conspiracy arranged not by a single cunning arch-fiend, but collectively by the British institution. Judges, lawyers, politicians, police chiefs, secret services, even newspaper editors, all of whom had been scheduled to their positions because they were a safe pair of hands.

Just as compass needles all point north without being told to, so these people instinctively know what is expected of them when the state’s interests are under threat, and they act accordingly, quietly suppressing uncomfortable evidence or undermining the credibility of witnesses who’s evidence contradicts the official narrative.

Over a 100 notable witnesses were not called to the inquest or declined to appear. Blood tests supposedly showing the intoxication of the driver Henri Paul were considered biologically unexplainable by a toxicologist. A British crash specialist found that Diana’s seat belt had not been working, and so on.

Curiously of all was the press reportage of the verdict. Inquest substantiation showed conclusively that the crash was due to an unknown white Fiat Uno, and several unidentified motorcycles, vehicles that were unquestionably not paparazzi because uncontested police evidence confirmed that the paparazzi were nowhere near the tunnel at the time of the collision.

The jury accepted this, bringing in a decision of unlawful killing by unidentified following vehicles, yet inside of seconds, the BBC was misreporting that the jury had held the paparazzi responsible, and the rest of the press meekly followed suit. Which is why, three years on, hardly anyone registers what the jury’s troubling findings really were.

SAS assassins on motorbikes flocked around Princess Diana’s crashed car to finish her off. It was asserted on the 4th October. It’s believed a team of Special Forces soldiers camouflaged as press paparazzi had trailed her, and they were first to the stricken car after the crash in a Paris road tunnel to make certain that she did not remain alive.

However, they made one major error throughout their assignment. They rode heavy duty motorcycles, rather than the lightweight scooters that were favoured by the Paris paparazzi at the time.

A fair amount of years have been spent investigating Diana’s puzzling demise, and these investigations should be a part of Scotland yards investigations into the 1997 car crash.

A former member of the SAS, known as soldier N, maintains Diana was assassinated in an establishment conspiracy for fear she would threaten the monarchy by getting married to Dodi Fayed, 42, or even worse, becoming pregnant by him.


There was a group of motorcyclists, and they were spotted by quite a few onlookers in the space separating the place de la Concorde and the alma tunnel where the collision happened. These motorcyclists were riding heavy machines, large motorbikes.

It’s been shown that these motorcyclists were not paparazzi since the paparazzi were all accounted for and were way behind because they were on scooters. So, the question is, who was on these motorbikes, and is it feasible that M16 employed SAS employees to ride on those motorbikes?


One man is certain that SAS men were at hand to make sure Diana’s injuries were not survivable, as they proved to be. It was equally well believed that three senior M16 officers moved to Paris shortly prior to the crash to organise the operation.

Together with the assertions of ex-SAS sniper Soldier N are a development in working out the conundrum. Soldier N was examined by Scotland Yard after he informed his wife that security forces caused the collision by shining a bright light into the eye’s of Diana’s driver Henri Paul, however, former Royal Protection officers maintain that Diana’s death was just a catastrophic misadventure.


Ever since the demise of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed, Mohamed Al Fayed, Dodi’s father, publicly cited the British establishment of ordering their killing and awning it up later on. In September 2011, the UK Police got a letter from the former mother in law of an undisclosed SAS sniper, acknowledged only as Soldier N, who bragged to his wife that his unit ordered Princess Diana’s death.


Shortly prior to her death, Diana wrote a chilling letter to her former butler Paul Burrell saying she had crossed the threshold of the most treacherous stage of her life, and she talked of a conspiracy to interfere with the brakes of her car to cause a crash, and serious head injury.


The mother of Diana’s driver, Gisele, 83, said:

“We believe there was a plot to kill the Princess. We know in our hearts that our son was murdered and we still live in hope that one day the truth will be known. ”

Agonised by fears of an assassination, Diana as well appeared to foretell her own demise in the course of a private meeting with the late Lord Mishcon in 1995, and subsequently, he wrote an aide memoir of the discussion.

Part of it says:

“Efforts would be made if not to get rid of her, be it by some accident in her car, such as pre-prepared brake failure or whatever, at least to see she was so injured as to be declared unbalanced.”

She was certain there was a collusion going on, and Princess Diana was also keeping a journal in which she wrote about the carnal affairs of the British Monarchy. The case history she was putting together was powerful material, but it also directly jeopardised the monarchy.

It comprised what Charles liked in bed, women he had affairs with, and what he got up to with Camilla, and there are also pieces about senior royals and male servants, and the royal was reportedly accused of being found in bed with one of his servants, and this be one of the main reasons why Princess Diana was murdered.

Writer Brian Watson maintains that he was presented with threats on him and his family’s life, after asserting Princess Diana’s deadly crash was caused by hitmen, and prior to making his speculation public, he received a phone call threat:

“Drop the idea if you value your family’s life. ”


Following a rigorous investigation, he reached the conclusion that Diana’s Mercedes was guided into the 13th column support of the Paris tunnel, with the use of a remote control device. He is confident that the hitmen followed Diana’s motor vehicle in a white Fiat Uno, which was spotted by numerous eye witnesses, however, the Fiat Uno was never found by authorities.

Mr Watson now fears for his life and divulges that he may have been too close to the truth.

Diana said that you always believe you’re ready for everything and that you have the understanding of what’s going to happen to you, and even though she felt discouraged at the prospect at the time, she did, in fact, feel she would have had the support of her husband to be.

She believed that like any marriage, especially when you have divorced parents, that you want to try even harder to make it work because you wouldn’t want to fall back into that pattern you’ve seen happen to your own family.

She despairingly wanted her marriage to work because she desperately loved her husband, and she wanted to share everything with him, and at the time she thought they made a really good team. She wasn’t deterred by her duties that the role generated, to Diana it was a challenge.

Becoming Queen was never at the front of her mind when she married Charles, but the most intimidating facet was the press scrutiny because she was informed that when they got engaged that the media would go silently, and they didn’t, and then when she married Charles she was notified they would go in silence and they didn’t, and then of course, it started to centre very much on Diana, and she appeared to be on the front of the newspaper every single day, which to Diana was a really isolating experience, and the higher the media placed her, the bigger the fall, and she was very conscious of that.

It took Diana a very long time to comprehend why people were so fascinated by her. Nevertheless, she assumed it was because Charles had done a lot of magnificent work leading up to their marriage and their relationship.

Nonetheless, over the years she then saw herself as a superior commodity that sat on a shelf and sold well, and people were making a large amount of money from her – She was the fairytale story that everyone wanted to work.

And so it was, really isolating, however, it was a situation that Diana couldn’t gratify feeling sorry for herself, she either had to become submerged or swim to the surface, and she had to master that exceedingly quickly.

So, she swam, and she knew she had to do it, however, it almost finished her off there and then.  Nevertheless, she became aware of the effect that it had on her, and she had to sort herself out. Immediately, she realised she was a different person, and she became conscious of the sense of responsibility she had, and the level of strength and attentiveness she had to the people, and how challenging that role would be.

Diana found this all extremely formidable because as far as she was concerned she was this plump, portly young girl, and she really couldn’t comprehend the level of attention people had in her.

Diana wasn’t soft-soaped by the press attention because of that attention came a large amount of envy, and a considerable amount of complex situations appeared because of that. Diana was extremely at a loss as to what area she should go into, however, she then found herself being more connected to people who had been spurned by humanity, say with drug abusers, alcoholism, battered this, battered that, and in that amphitheatre, she appeared to have an empathy.

Diana had admiration for the integrity she found in these people because in hospices when people were terminally ill they’re much more open and more helpless, much more honest than other people, and she was grateful for that.

She said she was fortunate in the fact that she had found a role, and she was extremely conscious of it, and that she loved being with people.

In fact, the Royal Family grew extremely envious of Princess Diana’s role because she had the capacity to make people feel better about themselves when she was around them, and that was her motivation in life.  Nevertheless, what people didn’t perceive is that Diana was just a person, a human being just like anybody else, with idea’s and feelings.

Nonetheless, her life was just like an imprisonment, and living inside the Royal Family had no freedom at all. Her duties came with disconnection, particularly when it came to Charles. Diana and Charles’ marriage fell apart in the early 1990’s, and they’d already been seeing less and less of each other for years.

However, Charles’ marriage to Diana was a marriage of expedience, and Diana was just a baby-maker to the Royal’s so that they could produce more successors to the thrown, but they done it in the guidelines of the law, and found Charles’ a wife, when they already knew he had a secret lover.

They both alternated amid the two royal homes. Kensington Palace in London, and their country residence in Highgrove, and they kept their matrimonial difficulties off the record at first, however, after the press found out, it became a public scandal.

Both the Prince and Princess of Wales supposedly talked to the media via friends, each condemning the other for the marriage’s demise.  Diana said she found Charles’ unsupportive and unfeeling to her needs.  Of course, this was the case because Charles’ never loved Diana, she was a means to an end.

Charles’ stated that he found her needy and emotionally unstable and that her bulimia started as early as the first year into the marriage. This was a 20 something-year-old girl, hurled into a situation that she had no concept of, and she was never in fact brought up as a royal, and having royal blood does not instantly mean that you know what you’re doing as soon as you set foot on the royal steps. And of course Charles’, there was your affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles.  So, obviously with Diana being so needy and emotionally unstable, that made Charles’ fall into the arms of another woman, no of course not, it was just his exoneration to clear his name.

Charles’ was said to have terminated his old pre-conjugal affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles, but of course it never actually ended at all, and what attaches insult to injury is the royal house knew about it and brushed it under the rug.


There were three people in that marriage, and it was starting to get a bit overcrowded, and while she held Camilla responsible for their matrimonial problems, at some point Diana began to believe that Charles’ was having other affairs, and in October 1993 Diana wrote to a confidant that she thought Charles’ was now in love with Tiggy Legge-Burke and hoped to marry her.

Tiggy Legge-Burke had been employed by Prince Charles as a youthful companion for his sons while they were in his charge, and Diana was very irritated by Tiggy, and her association with her young sons, however, Diana also confirmed her own extramarital affair with horse riding mentor James Hewitt.

He had at the outset been sent for to instruct William and Harry, however, as the association developed, Diana herself mustered the bravery to beat her prepubescent dread of riding.  Diana’s affair with James Hewitt began in 1987, and it lasted 5 years, however, it began to cool down when Hewitt was sent off to Germany in 1989 and served in the Gulf War in 1991.


Contrary to gossip, James Hewitt repudiates being Prince Harry’s actual father, and Prince Harry was just a small child when Hewitt and Diana first met, so it would be out of the question for James Hewitt being Harry’s father, and granted they do look very much the same, nevertheless, if you look in depth at Diana’s bloodline, the Spencer’s, Harry looks the spitting likeness of them all.


Following Diana’s death, James Hewitt published books quoting specifics about their sexual relationship, and conveyed intent to sell her love letters – He certainly wasn’t in it for the cash, was he?

Even though Charles and Diana did their best to protect their sons from matrimonial strife, Harry was a very responsive child, and reacted to the ambience of situations, suffering lengthy and exhausting screaming fits that could only be calmed by his sibling William.

When his parents eventually made it public on their separation in 1992, it was Harry, then 8 years old, who begged, again and again, to know if there was anything he could do to make them both happy again. This is not uncommon in children where their parents separate, and it’s important to keep in mind that however you as an adult comprehend or experience the situation. Children see and experience it differently.

No matter what their age, children have a restricted capacity to comprehend what’s happening throughout their parent’s separation. That doesn’t stop them, however, from trying to figure out the larger picture, and younger children see things from their own viewpoint, that is, they see themselves as the foundation of events.

This is why younger children frequently hold themselves responsible or create fictional grounds for their parents’ separation or divorce, and are too frightened to tell anyone. They end up convincing themselves they are the only ones in the world who feels this way.

In December 1995, prompted by a Panorama interview, and to end the intolerable national speculation and allegations, the Queen put forward to Charles and Diana that they should get divorced. While Charles consented to this right away, it took Diana until February 1996 to agree to the divorce, discussing terms of the divorce along the way.

The divorce was completed on August 28, 1996, the day Diana told her confidant that it was the unhappiest day of her life.

Diana was given a lump sum settlement of about £17 million and had a right to keep her jewellery. She was no longer to be addressed as HRH, however, was permitted to keep her title as the Princess of Wales. As the mother of William and Harry, who they decided to raise together, she was as well allowed to live in Kensington Palace until they came of age.

If there was one thing that Diana was excellent at, was her capacity to care for people, and after her divorce, she centred her energy on a number of different non-profit organisations, and her prizewinning causes normally involved the most deprived, and the neglected.

In 1997, Princess Diana started a love affair with Dodi Al-Fayed, the son of the billionaire entrepreneur Mohammed Al-Fayed. In July 1997, Mohamed had summoned his son, Diana, William and Harry on a Mediterranean boat trip on his opulent yacht, where Dodi and Diana hit it off.

They were both divorcees, and a number of weeks later. Dodi and Diana holidayed in St. Tropez, where British paparazzi followed the pair to the south of France, taking snap shots of them canoodling and embracing on yacht decks and villa porches.

Diana was acquainted of the paparazzi’s existence, however, continued to amuse herself with the entertainment, and some were convinced that she was out to display to the world, including her ex-lover Hasnat Khan that she was having a jolly good time.

In August 1997, Dodi and Diana set sail for Sardinia, and the paparazzi followed, then the 30th August, they took a plane to Paris and had dinner at the Ritz, which is owned by Dodi’s father. Soon after midnight, trying to elude the skulking paparazzi, the pair escaped from the hotel’s backdoor and got into a Mercedes.

Inside the vehicle were chauffeur Henri Paul and the bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones. A group of paparazzi pursued the Mercedes down the Palace de la Concorde, and into the underground passage of Pont de l’Alma. Racing at 180km per hour, even though, the speed limit was 80km per hour, seemingly drunk Henri Paul smashed the Mercedes into the tunnel’s 13th pillar.


Not one of the four in the car were wearing a seat belt, and Dodi and Henri Paul died on the spot, however, Diana and the bodyguard were still breathing, and a doctor who was an eyewitness to the collision came to give first aid, and an ambulance appeared soon after, nevertheless, it would take an hour before Diana could be pulled out of the wreckage.

At 1.30am of August 31st. Princess Diana was brought into La Pitié-Salpêtriére Hospital, where they found that she was losing blood massively and internally, and attempted prolonged resuscitation endeavours, including an inner cardiac massage.

Eventually, Princess Diana was declared dead at 4.00am Paris time, as the world woke up to the horrifying announcement that Princess Diana was dead.

Prince Charles was accompanied by Diana’s sisters Sarah and Jane, who travelled to Paris to bring Diana’s body home. But the Queen and the Duke drove to their customary Sunday service that morning, where strangely enough Diana’s name was not once made reference to.

The public soon accused the Royal family of their lack of emotions, however, in the meantime, the world grieved for the demise of Princess Diana, which had an intense effect on the British public, as well as people in other countries.

It led to a groundbreaking rush of sadness and sympathy, and over 1 million bouquets of flowers were set down at Buckingham Palace.

Diana’s memorial on September 6, 1997, was observed by millions globally, and on the four mile ride from Kensington Palace to Westminster Abbey, Diana’s coffin was followed by her sons William and Harry, as well as Prince Charles, Prince Philip, her brother Charles, and five representatives from each of the 110 non-profit organisations she had supported.

The church service was attended by ministerial figures and some very famous people.

Charles, Diana’s sibling, gave this distinguished speech in the course of the service, where he accused the paparazzi of her demise, and pledged to look after her children. It was a disturbing bon voyage to the unique, the complex, remarkable Diana, whose allure, both internally and externally, will never be doused from peoples minds.

What would Princess Diana do if she were living today? And I’m certain a fair amount of people in all probability imagine the same thing because so many rumours were lost when Lady Diana, the Queen of People’s Hearts, with her bathing suits, short haircuts, who was the most compassionate person, but not in an eerie, frightening self-righteous way died, or was she killed?

Everything that we’ve heard and read in the tabloids neighbouring Diana’s demise appears without bias, an open and shut case. High speeds, inebriated chauffeur, a gloomy underground passage, a car collision. Paris in the 1990’s, but stop there, why would Diana and her incredibly rich lover get into a Mercedes with a markedly drunken driver?

Paul’s blood alcohol level was set at three times the French legal limit. The paparazzi giving chase at astronomical speeds, what’s this, a Bond film? Why weren’t Diana and Dodi wearing seat belts? Were the seat belts compromised?

What about those vehicles that retreated from the scene, never to be heard from again? And why was Diana’s body embalmed so swiftly? Was it to conceal the reality that she was expecting a baby with Dodi Fayed? All this evidence pointed to something ominous.

And by something sinister, we’re talking about the Royal family, because if anyone was out to get Diana, it was them. She had been a thorn in their side for years, skimpily educated, as one correspondent politely put it, media hungry, and at the nucleus of a humiliating divorce, following 15 years of matrimony, from Prince Charles, who married Diana in spite of his never ending devotion to his ex-lover Camilla Parker-Bowles.

However, in spite of everything, the Royals’ pursed their lips when it came to Diana, she was forevermore theirs as the matriarch of William Windsor, who would one day be king and little Harry.

There are two participating opinions as to why the Royals would have wanted Diana gone. The first is related to Dodi Al-Fayed, the extremely wealthy man that Diana had just begun dating before they were joined together in internal hellfire.

The offspring of Egyptian billionaire Mohammed Al-Fayed, who owned the English department store Harrods, and Dodi worked as a film producer but appeared mainly to party and squander his father’s finances. So, it’s strange that the Royals supposedly had a problem with him, because that’s essentially their technique, however, they did have a problem, but can you guess why?

If your response was because he was a Muslim, you’re right. Gossip was plentiful, and it was said that the love affair between Diana and Dodi was hotting up at an extremely swift rate and that Diana was pregnant with Dodi’s baby, and the pair were making preparations to get engaged.

Conspiracy theorists put forward that the Royal family would simply fall apart like a teacake at the inclusion of an Egyptian Muslim, or more tactfully put, a non-Christian, into their fold, and would sooner kill the pregnant couple and their embryonic child in cold blood, but make it look like an unfortunate accident, you know, for appearances.

The other hypothesis involves Prince Charles, our George W. Bush of the East. Charles did not come out looking good from the Diana divorce, not only because he is an unusually unattractive man, but because of the extremely grubby and creepy phone tete-ta-tetes between Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles that were leaked to the British press when Charles told Camilla that he wanted to be her tampon.

Anyhow, everybody knew all along that Charles had been in love with Camilla, and would in all likelihood marry her when Diana was out of the picture, however, that was the difficult situation. Even though they had divorced, Diana wasn’t getting out of the picture.

Their divorce had made her more well-liked than ever before, and she was still the Queen of People’s Hearts. She was giving remarkable interviews to TV reporters, and she was bringing the world nearer to tranquillity by eliminating land mines in Africa.

And her divorce made her all the more relatable, for now, she was a single mother, and to the everlasting irritation of the Royals, she was the most well liked person in their family, and she was hardly in their family. Nevertheless, Charles wanted to move on, to put a new princess in his life, or duchess, as Camilla eventually became, when they got married in 2005.

Nonetheless, no matter what, Camilla would be hated in Diana’s silhouette. So, as stated by conspiracy theorists, the option was explicit, and disposing of Diana would be a difficult job for the Royals, made a bit undemanding with the state services at their beck and call, including M16, or the CIA of Britain.

She was, after all, a danger to the saintliness of the Royal family, so why not utilise the secret state intelligence service to purge the nation of her? It was practically a patriotic venture.

As the conjecture goes, in addition to the engagement of headstrong and intoxicated Henri Paul, and a thrum of rowdy paparazzi, there were a lot of mystery vehicles connected to the collision, some of which were never located.

Evidence proposes these vehicles were Diana’s verifiable downfall, one of them, a white Fiat Uno, which made contact with Paul’s Mercedes prior to it collision in the underground passage that momentous night. Finally thrusting it toward its demise.

Were these cars tools of the M16? French police zeroed in on the motorist of the Fiat Uno in 1998, however, he took his own life in 2000, where his body was discovered in a burnt-out BMW in the French countryside, with a gunshot lesion to his head.

The hunt for answers in Diana’s demise is not a fertile one, and you can accept the answer that it was plainly an accident, or you can think like a Royal, that Diana was the most adored woman in the world at the time of her death.

She would only become more strong with Dodi Fayed’s money and child, both of which would blemish the structure of the Windsor tapestry. How could anybody move on with their lives? The well-being of the Royal family, the nations stabiliser, stretching back hundreds of years through various worldwide disasters, had to be thought about.

What was the most convenient choice?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a call to action to the people of Britain, saying that the following the killing of their cherished Princess Diana 18 years ago, the country must bring legal proceedings against the Royal family following undeniable evidence that has materialised that they were accountable for her murder.


In the course of a ceremonious Christmas luncheon at the Kremlin, Putin accused Queen Elizabeth, the late Queen Mother, Prince Philip, and Prince Charles of ordering the killing of Princess Diana by means of M16 envoys in Paris. He stated that after talking with Elton John on the phone, he was privy to indisputable proof that the Royal family had blood on their hands.

Throughout a casual and reflective talk, Putin informed a select group of colleagues and respected state approved reporters that Diana’s savage murder brought him unfathomably to tears at the time in 1997 and that he knew deep down that her demise was due to foul play.

Putin, who pledges to demolish the Illuminati in 2016, stated that the departed and exceptional Princess Diana was a thorn in the side of the dishonest British institution, and served as a continual danger to their way of life owing to the reality that she knew way too much about what the Illuminati had in store for mankind.


Holding back the tears, Putin stood up at the table with a glass of Vodka raised, and declared that Diana was about to go on the world’s stage and tell an extremely horrifying truth, and he said she now knew the truth and was ready to let the world know as well.

He stated, that the person sitting in Buckingham palace isn’t some guiltless wrinkly old primate, that she is wicked in a human form, and that the whole decaying family needs to be got rid of.

According to one of the reporters in attendance, the gathering broke out into impulsive clapping at the man they have affectionately nicknamed, the Illuminati Killer in Moscow.

After instituting a theme with a hint that Martine Monteil, the head of the Paris police investigation team was looking into the case as an assassination case, and that the M15 was a suspect. The centre of the story was an exclusive interview with Glyn Jones, a former member of the elite military unit that observed Diana from 1985-1989 on orders from the MI5.


When Das Neue questioned Jones about his 1985-1989 assignment, he tells that he was with the Royal Marines, then, and was operating upon instructions coming from MI5.

The occupation of his team was not to spy on members of the Royal Family, and foreign agencies informed the MI5 at that time, that there was a threat to Diana.  That is why she was surveilled, and that implied that they would have had to assassinate her if they were not able to stop an abduction.

The principle objective of the team was to safeguard the Royal House, Prince William, the future King, and the Anglican Church.  All of that was threatened by Diana’s so called poor behaviour, and Jones declared, when Das Neue questioned whether the drunken chauffeur, Henri Paul, didn’t play a part in the unfortunate accident, Jones stated that in the end, it was a motive.

However, why did this tragedy happen, in the first place?  Why was the French police not able to single out the two men, that stood on the overpass over the underground passage, who was blazing shots on the vehicle?  Two shots were fired at the tires.

So far, this has not been made public, they are attempting to cover it up, and Jones declared that traces of the bullets would not as a consequence be found, since this would be contingent on the gradient at which the shots strike, this can scarcely be scrutinised, if the tire is torn into bits.

This, at least, is how it’s done in anti-terror measures in Northern Ireland when an outside implication is to be covered up.  Jones stated that it is not French sloppiness which stops an actual inquiry in Paris, but that it rather suggests that the French secret service is co-operating with the British secret service.

There are close contacts, and it would not be in the interest of the French government to let such things get out to the public, and the discussion was accompanied by a receptacle, which described how the sniper assault on Diana’s car could have happened.

First of all, the British SAS is provided with a remarkable gun, the Five-Seven, which is manufactured by the French firm, FN Herstal.  This is an ultra-light weapon, which works like a heavy firearm, nevertheless, it’s bullets can penetrate through steel and bulletproof vests, from 200 meters away.

These unique bullets, only have a mass of 2 grams each, leaving no evident tracks in the target, and weapons specialist Bernard Sacrez described to Das Neue that with this weapon, you can slice the tires of a car as if a razor blade was used, and no tracks of the ammunition can be found, since the 2 gram bullet dismantles totally, afterwards.

Al Fayed’s security team comprised 8 former SAS agents, and Dodi’s bodyguard Alexander Winfield was one of them, and he changed over shifts with Trevor Rees-Jones, the bodyguard that survived that night.  Glyn Jones declared that it looked like an orchestration because the drivers also changed over shifts that night.

There was a cargo of discussions with a dozen well-placed sources and witnesses in Paris and London, EIR had brought together the most all-inclusive account, yet to be brought to print, of the occurrences August 31, 1997, surrounding the killing of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul.

While numerous key uncertainties continue to exist and are unresolved, one deciding reality appears from the gathered testimony.  The French authorities had systematically stifled evidence, bullied and silenced key witnesses, incompetently mishandled the most essential forensic tests, and put a stop to any external organisations, comprising the relatives of the departed, from even raising questions about the behaviour of the French officials handling the investigation.

Furthermore, as one American source well known with the investigation put it, the fiasco of the French emergency medical team at the location of the collision, to get Princess Diana to a hospital where she could have been given life-saving attention, for nearly two hours, would have resulted in manslaughter prosecution of the responsible officials had the crash happened in the United States.

And who were these officials?  As stated by a number of sources, interviewed by EIR, the Paris Police Prefect, police chief, Philippe Massoni, was at the crash location in the underground passage beneath the Place de l’Alma, and, the French interior minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, was at the Pitie Salpetriere Hospital prior to the arrival of the ambulance conveying Princess Diana.

On November 10th, Tim Luckhurst, the assistant editor of The Scotsman, and the co-author of the comprehensive investigative report on the happenings that emerged in the Place de l’Alma underground passage immediately following the collision established that Massoni was in the tunnel, supervising the rescue and preparatory forensic investigation.

Even the French press announced that, along with Massoni, other top ranking French officials were as well at the underground passage, including Patrick Rioux, chief of the Judiciary Police, and Martine Monteil, head of the Criminal Brigade.

The very existence of these high-ranking French government officials, as a consequence placed them in charge of the so-called rescue attempt.  The evidence can be seen that Princess Diana’s demise was almost unquestionably the direct result of criminal negligence by these French authorities.

Unless the ongoing cover-up by French officials is broken, there is no question that the demise of Princess Diana, Dodi Al-Fayed and Henri Paul will go down in historical events as one more Dreyfus Affair, in which the French government’s bungling of a momentous case led to its undoing.   French authorities made public that they do not think that they would finish their official investigation of the car crash till the end of 1998.

The Ritz Hotel is located between the Place Vendome and Rue Cambon in the heart of Paris.  It’s one of the most stylish hotels in the metropolis.  It’s next door to the Ministry of Justice.  Yet, as a breed of roughly 35 paparazzi congregated in front of the hotel, shortly after Diana and Dodi got back from their aborted attempt to have dinner, there was no move by French police to supply security to the couple, or even place barriers between the couple’s vehicle and the paparazzi, in spite of earlier incidents of hostile paparazzi intimidation of the couple, and the threatening behaviour from the driver of a Peugeot.


These minimal efforts, which the French authorities chose not to take, could have potentially saved the lives of the three crash victims.  In addition to the widely known infantry of paparazzi, there were other eyes circling the couple during their closing hours.  Virtually all the buildings in the locality of the Ritz Hotel have advanced close circuit television cameras, both inside and outside.

Much of the activity of the paparazzi and the other spectators had been caught on tape.  Yet, the French police, in answer to questions from the relatives of the three victims, again and again, have repudiated the existence of any CCTV film footage or still photographs that shed any light on the events of that night, and sources have provided EIR with some particulars of what those CCTV shots do, in fact, divulge.

Mixed in with the throng of paparazzi, congregated outside the Place Vendome main entrance to the Ritz Hotel, were a lot of other individuals, carefully observing the location.  A number of these spectators were also in the hotel.  At roughly 9.45pm, at about the time that Diana and Dodi were coming back to the Ritz Hotel, two English-speaking men, were trying to appear as if they were paparazzi, they came into the Ritz and sat down at the main lobby bar.  They ordered a few rounds of drinks, and remained in the bar, carefully observing the lobby, till shortly after midnight.  Their names remain undisclosed, however, their dubious presence inside the hotel lobby is significant.

As stated by a number of sources familiar with the particulars of Diana and Dodi’s final hours alive, Dodi Fayed made the decision that he and Princess Diana would leave the hotel by the back entrance at 38 Rue Cambone, in a backup vehicle that was called to the hotel just hours before the momentous last ride.

The idea was to have one of Dodi Fayed’s security guards, Alexander Wigfield, walk out of the front door of the hotel and gesture the drivers of the Mercedes and the Land Rover, which was the trail vehicle, that the couple would be coming down in five minutes.  At that moment, Diana and Dodi got into the back seat of the Mercedes 280-S, driven by Henri Paul, with Dodi’s other regular bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, in the front passenger seat.

As they sped off, the paparazzi were still in front of the hotel unaware to their leaving.  Had this been simply a typical paparazzi photo stakeout. The plan would have probably have been successful, and the couple would have slid off into the night.

Tragically, this was all but a regular stakeout.  The CCTV cameras show that there was a spotter at the back of the hotel, who quickly recognised what was transpiring.  That still unidentified man quickly placed a call on a mobile phone.  A second later, the paparazzi in front of the hotel were on their bikes, following behind the Mercedes.

Sources familiar with these events advise that it should not be assumed that the mobile phone call by the spotter was necessarily placed to one of the paparazzi in front of the hotel.  However, additional activities were allegedly triggered by that call, comprising at least two vehicles that were lying in wait for the Mercedes bordering the Place de L’Alma tunnel.

The failed deception attempt, in fact, turned into a game of opportunity for a vehicular crime, and it was the only time in which Dodi and Diana ever travelled in a car, without a trail car carrying security guards.  As Mercedes 280-S left the back of the Ritz Hotel, several dozens of the paparazzi were subsequently warned of the detour, as they set out in hot pursuance. Even though the developments of the next several seconds are not sufficiently known, the Mercedes sped through the center of Paris, and a half-dozen witnesses have claimed that, as the Mercedes took a right turn onto the Voie Georges Pompidou, a road traveling beside the right bank of the Seine River, roughly two kilometers from the opening of the Place de L’Alma tunnel, there were a number of vehicles and bikes aggressively following behind.

An American businessman from California was driving in a taxi adjacent the Voie George Pompidou, when he noticed the Mercedes 280-S riding past, with two bikes and other vehicles right on its rudder. He informed anchors from NBC Dateline that the Mercedes was moving at a fast, but sustained speed, of about 60 miles per hour, but that there was definitely additional transportation attempting to irritate the Mercedes, as it progressed near the tunnel opening. He additionally recorded that the motorist of the Mercedes seemed to be quite in control of the situation, and gave no indications of being intoxicated.

Brenda Wells, a London-born secretary residing and operating in Paris, informed police that her vehicle was run off the road near the approach to the Place de L’Alma tunnel by a dark coloured Fiat Uno that raced past her in pursuance of the Mercedes. Brenda Wells went missing from her home for many weeks, and there is unusual interest that she had become a prey of foul play.

Mohamed Medjahdi and Souad Mousakkir were driving on the Voie Georges Pompidou at approximately 50 mph in their Citroen, in front of the Mercedes, and Medjahdi reported to Fox TV that he observed two vehicles breeze past the Mercedes, as others were coming up menacingly from behind.

Francois Levy, a retired ship’s captain from Rouen, France, was also riding in front of the Mercedes, as the vehicles came into the tunnel. He contacted lawyers for the Ritz Hotel, who gave his report to the French police.

He said that in his rearview mirror, he noticed the car, the Mercedes in the middle of the tunnel with the motorcycle on its left, trailing forward, and then veering to the right in front of the car.   As the motorcycle swerved and before the vehicle lost direction, there was a burst of brightness, but then he was out of the tunnel and heard, but did not see, the impact.   

He quickly pulled his car over to the kerb, however, his wife said that they should get out of there because she believed it was a terrorist attack. There were two people on the motorbike.

On Sept. 7th, Journal du Dimanche printed accounts with two other eyewitnesses, who asked to remain unidentified. The chief eyewitness reported to the newspaper that the Mercedes was riding on the right hand, shortly before the entrance to the tunnel, led by a dark coloured vehicle, of which make he could not say.

This vehicle definitely was trying to make the Mercedes to brake. The motorist of the Mercedes swerved into the left-hand lane and then entered the tunnel. The bystander stated that his observation was drawn to the scene by the noisy din of the Mercedes’ gears being abruptly reduced.

The other eyewitness questioned by Journal du Dimanche was strolling along the Seine River when he was alarmed by the vibration of a motor droning really powerfully. He stated he noticed a Mercedes driving behind another vehicle, and he thought the reason the Mercedes quickened so abruptly, was tantamount to an attempt to swerve into the left lane and pass that car.

Bernard Dartevelle, the lawyer for the Ritz Hotel, told Associated Press’s Paris reporter, Jocelyn Noveck, on Sept. 8th, that he had been given images of two photos seized by Paris police, that showed chauffeur Henri Paul dazzled by a blinding beam of light. Dartevelle reported the two pictures.  One that sees very clearly the driver dazzled by a flash.

One sees quite plainly the bodyguard at his side, who with a quick movement drops the visor to shield himself from the glare, and one sees quite clearly Princess Diana twisting to look behind the vehicle, and one sees quite clearly the yellow headlight of a motorcycle. Dartevelle continued that the photo taken before the first photo of the collision points the Mercedes taken from quite nearby.   

A motorist, who is perhaps a photographer, and a motorcyclist, also perhaps a photographer, are quite directly involved in this accident.

The combined reports of these witnesses confirm that the Mercedes carrying Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana was under invasion by various vehicles and motorbikes, operating in tandem, at the point that the Mercedes careened off the tunnel columns, hit the right wall of the tunnel, and then smashed headlong into column number 13.

There are suggestions of a blinding beam of light, as illustrated by Dartevelle, and confirmed by other observers. Safety specialists have affirmed that both British and French secret services have produced, and deployed portable lasers, which momentarily dazzle a target, and further, cause abrupt, intense, paralysing injury to the optic nerve.

These anti-personnel lasers, which have been used in Africa, the Balkans, and in the Persian Gulf War, are light and portable, and could easily be used from the back seat of a vehicle. One type of these laser machines generally available in Europe is the size of a fountain pen, and can be purchased for as little as $35.

Such weaponry may have been employed by the attackers. Additional sources reported to EIR that several of the paparazzi carry cameras that are furnished with super-powered flashes, that are able of penetrating bulletproof glass, and dark tinted glass, to photograph riders within marked vehicles.

These flashes give off near blinding beams. Contrary to accounts leaked by the French officials, the Mercedes 280-S that was taking Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana on that last drive, was not bullet proofed. Nor did it have specifically shaded casements.

Was a blinding laser employed in the assault? Or, were other blinding lights used to deliberately incapacitate Henri Paul moments before the fatal collision? These are amongst the mysteries that may never be solved. 

However, further inquiries are being slowly answered, including whether the Mercedes was hit by a different car within the tunnel, just before the collision.  From the time that the first witnesses came forward to speak to the media and the French police, there was news that a dark-coloured vehicle had crashed into the Mercedes a split second before the accident. These statements were in line with all of the witness statements listed above. For two weeks, the French officials leaked account after account to the newspapers, rejecting the notion of a second vehicle as pure nonsense, and downright meddling in their inquiry.

The same day, a different eyewitness, who asked to remain unnamed, said France 2 television, that at that time he noticed two vehicles. One a vehicle of a dark colour that accelerated sharply, and from that instant, the Mercedes, which was going really fast, crashed into the vehicle and lost power.

It would be another two weeks before the French officials eventually agreed that they had, admittedly, found the paint marks of a Fiat Uno on the right side of the mangled Mercedes. They had further discovered pieces of a rear brake light fixture embedded in the front of the Mercedes, and other pieces of a Fiat Uno near the crash locality.

However, no Fiat Uno keeper had come forward to report to the police that he or she had been implicated in the accident, as one would presume an honest person to the collision, to do. Neither has anybody addressed the tabloid newspapers to report that they were almost killed by Diana’s thoughtless driver, and make monetary requests on the Ritz Hotel. The vehicle continues to be missing. The keeper and driver are unknown.

In a sad irony of Inspector Clouseau, the French police, a month following the collision, subsequently started their hunt for the lost Fiat Uno. The belated exploration has been further complicated by a succession of French police leaks, which have scattered further uncertainty about the colour of the lost vehicle.   

The original statements, consistent with all the eyewitness accounts, described the lost Fiat Uno as dark blue. However, subsequent reports, all leaked by the French police, reported the lost vehicle as black, red, and white. French officials are now stating that the hunt for the Fiat Uno, alone, will need the resources of one-fourth of the investigative team of the Paris police, and will take near to one year to finish.

At the time of the accident at the Place de L’ Alma tunnel, London lawyer Gary Hunter was in Paris with his wife. They were in their quarters on the third floor of the Royal Alma Hotel, at 35 Rue Jean Goujon. In an exclusive discussion with EIR on Nov. 12th, Hunter recounted what he heard and observed. At about 12:25 a.m., on Sunday, Aug. 31th, through the open windowpane of his hotel quarters, Hunter heard the noises of the car crash within the tunnel.


He went to the window. Hunter, contrary to original reports in the London Sunday Times on Sept. 21th, had no range of view on the tunnel, which was behind the hotel. Nevertheless, he did notice two vehicles turn left, onto Rue Jean Goujon, inside less than two minutes of the collision.

The first vehicle was a dark vehicle, which was promptly followed by a white vehicle, which, he thinks, was a Mercedes. The two vehicles raced past the hotel at breakneck velocity, at nearly reckless momentum.

Hunter said to the Sunday Times that he believed they were moving at 60-70 mph. The two vehicles were racing in tandem, with the white vehicle almost on the bumper of the smaller dark vehicle.  The two vehicles raced up to the corner past the hotel, where there is a traffic loop.

They raced out of view. The abnormal performance of the two vehicles, according to Hunter, made him think it may be connected to the impact noises in the tunnel, and his first observations were that these were people escaping from something.

At that moment, he noticed the two vehicles racing past his hotel, Gary Hunter had no thought that the wreck in the tunnel beneath the Place de L’Alma had involved Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. He did not hear of their deaths until the following day, and, as Hunter explained it to EIR, he and his wife were shattered by the discovery.

On Monday, the Hunters returned to London. By Tuesday A.M., Hunter decided that what he had witnessed may have been important.   He communicated with lawyers for the Al Fayed family. They made an arrangement to convene on Wednesday, which was delayed.

They eventually convened, in London, on Thursday morning, and Gary Hunter told the attorneys what he had heard and observed. The lawyers affirmed to him that his spoken report would be forwarded to the French officials investigating the accident.

Admittedly, on Friday, Sept. 5th, Hunter was called by the Al Fayed lawyers, who reinforced that his statement had been given to the proper French administrators.

Hunter never heard another sound from the French police for weeks. On Sept. 8th, Hunter returned to Paris, where he was programmed to give an interview on NBC-TV. Whilst in Paris, he communicated with the French police and proposed to give them a statement.

They refused to see him. Hunter told EIR that his choice to give an interview to the London Sunday Times was prompted by concern that the French refused to talk to him. Two days following his interview surfaced in the Sunday Times, he got an acknowledgement, of sorts.

The London Evening Standard printed a story, based on unnamed origins in the French investigative squad, stigmatising Hunter’s account as ridiculous. Unnamed administrators were cited as stating that they were bored by the interfering in their inquiry.

It was only following the Fiat Uno account was subsequently confirmed, and Hunter’s comments plucked up by different media, that the French police eventually asked Scotland Yard to take a report from him.

That took place at the end of October.

Gary Hunter was, by no means, the only single extremely reliable, unbiased eyewitness, who was treated shabbily by the French police. Brian Anderson, the California businessman who observed the Mercedes 280-S being hounded by other vehicles and bikes, tried to give a report to the French police. For his pains, he had his passport seized for hours. However, the police never came to take a formal report from him.

Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed both perished immediately in the collision in the Place de L’Alma tunnel. Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, positioned in the frontal passenger seat, had buckled his seat belt shortly before the accident. This seemingly spared his life.

Princess Diana also endured the accident. She sustained severe injuries and was bleeding internally, although the first doctor on the scene of the collision thought that she would survive, with proper emergency medical attention.

Dr Frederic Mailliez was riding through the Place de L’Alma and happened to be on the site, just moments following the collision. According to a lengthy news report, printed in the Scotsman on Sept. 29th, Dr Mailliez did not think that Princess Diana’s situation was extreme.


He later said to a French medical journal that he believed her life could be spared.   Dr Mailliez was an accomplished emergency medical expert, who served at one time for the SAMU, the French government’s emergency ambulance service, before going to work for a private medical response outfit called SOS Medecins.

Dr Mailliez found Princess Diana lying on the back seat of the Mercedes, according to his statement to The Scotsman. Contrary to accounts leaked by French officials to the newspapers, she was not pinned in the rear compartment. The rear seat of the Mercedes had not been severely damaged in the collision, and there was no difficulty in getting at Diana. The French officials announced these initial fake statements in reply to questions why it had taken an unbelievable one hour and 43 minutes, from the time that the first ambulance arrived at the collision site, to deliver Princess Diana to the hospital four miles away.

Moreover, Romuald Rat, one of the most thuggish of the paparazzi, who was later charged with potential conspiracy in the Mercedes accident, was witnessed by one of the onlookers at the collision site, leaning over Princess Diana as she lay semi-conscious in the back seat of the Mercedes, just before the first emergency rescue team arrived.


Dr Mailliez moved Diana’s head to allow her to breathe. He called the emergency hotline to report the particulars of the collision on his car telephone. He was informed that ambulances had now been dispatched to the scene.

He then gave oxygen and assured that Diana was not going to choke to death or swallow her tongue. When SAMU appeared on the scene, Dr Mailliez left, certain that she would be immediately brought to a nearby hospital.

He had now concluded, on the evidence of Princess Diana’s vital signs, and her movements, that she was bleeding internally.  The first doctors to appear with the ambulance and other emergency transportation reached the same conclusion, according to reports given to The Scotsman. One doctor who requested to remain unnamed stated that she was perspiring and her blood pressure had lowered. She had obvious symptoms of internal haemorrhage.

Diana was lying over the back seat of the Mercedes, with most of her body leaning outside the vehicle, when the ambulance appeared, about 15-16 minutes following the accident, according to one of the ambulance crew, who also talked to The Scotsman. She was almost instantly removed from the vehicle.

However, Diana remained at the accident site for another hour, before she was placed in an ambulance and transported, at less than 25 mph, to a hospital on the other side of the Seine River, four miles away. The decision to take Princess Diana to La Pitie Salpetriere Hospital was apparently made by the senior French government officials on the scene, Paris Police Chief Massoni and Interior Minister Chevenement. Massoni was in the tunnel, and Chevenement was now at La Pitie Salpetriere, in telephone communication with the rescue team in the tunnel.

However, there are five additional hospitals adjacent to the accident site, all with excellent emergency skills.  One very important French doctor who practises in emergency response said to EIR, in an exclusive discussion, that Princess Diana should have been taken to the Val de Grace, which is much closer than La Pitie. That is a military hospital.

All plitical figures who is in a car accident or is injured are taken there.  The firemen, who appeared on the scene of the collision, were part of the Army. They undoubtedly notified the Val de Grace, which has the best unit of injury professionals on duty around the clock. Had she been helicoptered her in.  She would have been on the operating block several minutes following being stabilised. This woman was a member of the world’s most important and powerful people. She would usually have been provided special preference and top treatment. She was not.

Not only was Princess Diana not taken to Val de Grace. She was not taken to Cochin Hospital, the Hotel Dieu, Lariboisiere, or the private American Hospital, all of which were closer than La Pitie Salpetriere, and all of which had qualified staff and crisis departments to repair the damaged arteries.

There is not any conceivable reason for why the French emergency workers at the scene waited for longer than an hour to put Princess Diana into the ambulance. There is not any credible reason for why the four-mile journey, through desolate Paris streets, took 43 minutes!

There is definitely no conceivable logic why the ambulance stopped for ten minutes outside the French Natural History Museum, just a few hundred yards from Le Pitie Salpetriere Hospital, as confirmed to both The Scotsman and the British weekly The People!

In a situation where a crash victim has been diagnosed as suffering from internal bleeding, there is only one decent route of action. The victim should be stabilised, and then be rushed to a hospital for surgery. Unless the internal bleeding is arrested, the victim bleeds to death.

This is precisely what occurred to Princess Diana.

What is confusing about the treatment given to Diana is that she was not hospitalised until her health had declined to a significant degree. She underwent a succession of heart attacks in the tunnel and on the way to the hospital and had a huge cardiac arrest inside moments of arriving at La Pitie Salpetriere.

The fact is that she was dead on arrival in the operating theatre, though the surgical crew fought against all the probabilities to awaken her.

No credible evidence has been provided for the delay. The surgical crew at the hospital had a long time in which to plan for the arrival of their victim.

They were in phone contact with the doctors in the tunnel from the very start and were on formal alert from 1 a.m. Diana did not appear till at least one hour later.  Next, the account leaked by the French officials altered, apparently because the results of the blood tests done on chauffeur Henri Paul revealed that he had alcohol levels in his bloodstream three times the allowable limit.

Quickly, the paparazzi were excused, and the whole world media responsibility for the demise of Princess Diana and Dodi changed to the drunk driver, Henri Paul.  In the weeks that ensued the initially leaked post-mortem conclusions, the French officials adorned the story. A purported second post-mortem showed that Paul had been also high on two strong prescript medications, one of which, not coincidentally, was frequently prescribed to confirmed alcoholics. Some weeks later, the French officials leak stated that additional examination showed that Paul had been on a drinking spree for many weeks, preceding to the accident, according to analyses of his hair.

From the outset, there was apparent conflicting data. Colleagues, co-workers, and relations completely opposed the media efforts to describe Paul as a silent, sad addict.  Moreover, Paul had gone for his yearly physical exam, to pass for a restoration of his pilot’s licence, 48 hours before the accident.

He not only passed the physical exam. According to the Doctor who gave the exam, there were no signs of any harm to Paul’s liver, a common sure-fire indication of insobriety. The French post-mortem report further established that Paul’s liver was normal at the time of his passing.

It has been shown that between 10 p.m. and midnight, Paul downed two glasses of Ricards and water at the Ritz Hotel bar. The alcohol content of those drinks was quite tiny. However, for the blood alcohol analyses to have been true, Paul would have had to have gone through three bottles of strong red wine, or a twelve glasses of alcohol, earlier in the day, to have still presented such clear alcohol presence in his blood at 12:25 a.m. on the morning of Aug.31th, at the time of the collision.

Both the doctor who normally did the yearly pilot’s licence harsh physical exams and Paul’s own doctor informed the media that Paul had never been diagnosed as an alcoholic, and had never obtained prescripts for each of the two narcotics supposedly discovered in his bloodstream.

Ultimately, the French police said that there was no account anyplace in France of such prescripts in Henri Paul’s name. However, this did not in any way prevent the ongoing media characterisation of Paul as the drunken motorist.  There is a separate account for this oddity. Postmortem on Paul was either badly botched by total ineptitude, or the results were tampered with. Here are the details as told to EIR. You, the browser, can form your own judgements.

From the time that the French officials began leaking the purported criminological verdicts, that Paul had been racing the Mercedes intoxicated on alcohol and prescript medications, his family began asking that a separate, independent post-mortem be handled.  French officials declined to allow the Paul family to use their own criminological pathologist to handle an objective collection of examinations. In fact, French officials only would free Paul’s body to his family, for a decent funeral, if they acknowledged that the body would be cremated or buried without any more examinations.

Eventually, French officials allowed issuing a duplicate of the recorded outcomes of the initial post-mortem to the relatives of the departed. Two independent teams of well-known criminological pathologists reviewed the written report, and their conclusions were startling.  Dr Peter Vanezis conducted one of the reviews with a co-worker from Lausanne. Dr Vanezis is a well-known British pathologist who holds the Regis Chair of Forensic Medicine at Glasgow University. He was exploited by the United Nations in both Bosnia and Rwanda, to conclude whether genocide had happened, following the uncovering of mass graves.

He was the criminological pathologist who discovered that the woman who had become the pretender to the Romanov throne, was a fraud.  Dr Vanezis and his associate spent 12 hours, examining the first post-mortem report. They discovered, first, that the report confirmed that there was no degeneration of Paul’s liver, in itself evidence that the prolonged alcoholic line was fiction. The remainder of the report was a horror fabrication of incompetence, breach of approved procedures and protocols, and pending questions. The staff who performed the analysis simply entertained it as a backyard variety auto collision.

The statement did not identify the temperature at which the body was stored. From the moment it was removed from the vehicle to when the examinations were done. There was not any string of administration given.  Henri Paul’s remains had been pulverised in the collision. His abdomen, heart, and innards had been crushed and ruptured wide. Therefore, the entire breast cavity was seriously contaminated with other body fluids, food debris, and so on, combined collectively with the blood. Under such conditions, it is usual practice to take blood specimens from other members of the body, especially the limbs, which are a long way from the contaminated breast cavity.

However, the first post-mortem statement was just conducted on the blood used from the contaminated breast cavity.  French officials had leaked to the newspapers that there had been two objective post-mortems conducted, and both had shown the same appearance of high numbers of liquor in Paul’s haemoglobin. The statement gave to the families showed that the so-called empirical examinations had been done on the same contaminated blood specimen from the chest, which had been cut in half and given to two separate labs to examine.

Thus, in actuality, there was just one analysis. Furthermore, French officials insisted that a urine specimen had been taken as well. Although the statement conferred no results of urine analyses.  Dr Vanezis and his assistant provided a detailed memorandum, asking all of their concerns about the forensic statement. Their memorandum was transferred along to the judges in the custody of the investigation, Herve Stephan and Marie-Christine Devidal. Dr Vanezis’s statement required answers to a handful or more troubling enigmas he had posed.

The family of Paul and additional victims of the crash required that they are sanctioned to have an objective, external post-mortem done on Paul’s body. The French officials would only allow a French doctor to conduct such an outside analysis, and, not surprisingly, not one qualified French criminological pathologist was prepared to get involved with such an objective examination.

The second team of leading criminological pathologists in Lausanne, Switzerland, in the meantime, had been sent the original criminological report. They formed nearly equal conclusions to those in the Vanezis report. They, too, were appalled over the obvious inadequacy and breach of the most basic procedures by the French government staff.

A third objective review of the initial post-mortem was conducted by a team at St. Georges Hospital in London and their conclusions were identical.  Therefore, at best, the only criminological proof, the only proof period, that revealed Henri Paul to have been drunk on the evening of Aug. 30th, 31th, was inadequate, insofar as it was completely inaccurate.

At worst, it was another case of deliberate subversion and cover up by the French government. Furthermore, this was not the last of the French wrongdoing and misleading.  There are numerous other deliberate untruths that have been reported by the French authorities and dutifully put out by the world media. All of these distortions, taken separately, could be written off as irrelevant. However, taken as a combination, they create a deliberate attempt by the French authorities to cover up evidence, that Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul was the scapegoats of a murder conspiracy.

Given the reality that Princess Diana’s demise was at the hands of the French government, at the greatest plane of the Jospin Socialist Party administration, it should come as no shock that their account of the collision at the Place de L’Alma tunnel, from beginning to end, was a series of distortions.

Here are some of the most outrageous distortions, revealed by the EIR investigative team.

The speedometer showed Henri Paul was driving at a dangerously fast rate. Virtually all news reports in the immediate hours following the accident stated that the speedometer of the Mercedes had been frozen at over 180 kilometres per hour when the first rescue operators and eyewitnesses appeared on the scene.

This evidence was applied to prove that Paul was speeding dangerously at the moment the collision happened. Following the so-called post-mortem results were leaked, indicating that Paul had been intoxicated and high on prescript medications, much of the world media said the case a cut-and-dried case of drunken driving.

In fact, EIR has established that the speedometer of the Mercedes was at zero!

This is compatible with claims by the car’s maker, Daimler-Benz, that when a Mercedes 280-S is in a collision, even a collision at fairly moderate pace, the speedometer will arrest at zero. It is no wonder that the French authorities refused Daimler-Benz’s proposal to send a team of safety technicians to France to help in the crash probe.

Diana was trapped in the back seat. For weeks, the French officials explained the lengthy lag in getting Princess Diana to a hospital with claims that the back section of the car had been crushed, and it needed a long effort by French firefighters and rescue operators to pry her body free from the back seat.

Finally, after a number of early witnesses within the tunnel came forth, the French government was obliged to remove the fabrication, and acknowledge that the back section had not been damaged in the collision.

The Mercedes was a faster, bulletproof vehicle. Original media articles, provided by the French authorities, had identified the Mercedes carrying Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed as the much quicker 600 design. Initial articles further alleged that the car was armoured. In fact, the Mercedes 280-S, a four-cylinder vehicle incompetent of attaining high speeds instantly, had been called up from a supply of vehicles accessible to the Ritz Hotel merely hours before the fateful drive.

EIR has recently learned that the French police have confirmed that the absent Fiat Uno is a turbo design made between 1984 and 1987. This Fiat has a greater acceleration speed than the Mercedes 280-S and a greater head velocity.

This suggests that the Fiat was able of moving and cutting off the Mercedes, and accelerating to avoid severe injury in a crash.

Henri Paul had encouraged the paparazzi, saying, “You won’t catch me tonight.” Initial media coverage, based on leaks from the French government, stated that, as Paul was leaving the Ritz Hotel, he had mocked the paparazzi, yelling, “You won’t catch me tonight.”

In fact, as we set out at great length before, Paul at no time had any communication with any of the paparazzi. The Mercedes left the Ritz Hotel from a back door and there never was any conversation among him and the paparazzi.

The goal of this fairy tale was tantamount to further the notion that Paul was intoxicated and out of control shortly before the collision. CCTV footage, taken from cameras at the Ritz Hotel and from nearby buildings, completely prove EIR’s description of events.

There are not any photos of the pursuit. All along the route that the Mercedes took, from the Ritz Hotel, along the Voie Georges Pompidou, to the entry to the Place de L’Alma tunnel, there are both outside CCTV cameras, and special radar-activated cameras installed by the French police.

If, at any time, the Mercedes or the vehicles and bikes following after it had gone beyond the speed limit, detector cameras should have automatically snapped images. These images should have given the police with a time-sequence account of the closing minutes before the collision.

However, the French authorities have always maintained, through press leaks, and in answer to questions by the families of the departed, that no such images exist. Are we to think that every one of the cameras was either broken or out of film?

However, other motorists, who were passing along the Voie Georges Pompidou shortly before the Mercedes pursuit, were indeed later contacted by French police and told that there were images proving that they were speeding.

Strangely, the French officials further continued to adhere to that none of the external CCTV cameras on any of the structures along the route show anything related to the collision probe.  The paparazzi was nowhere near Henri Paul’s vehicle at the time of the collision. Some reports, based on French administration exposures, declared that the nearest paparazzi were 400 metres behind the Mercedes 280-S at the time the collision took place.

This deception, directed at pinning the whole liability for the collision on the speeding drunken chauffeur Henri Paul, is questioned by the statement of Anderson, Levy, and Wells, as well as half-dozen other witnesses who have asked to remain unnamed.  Henri Paul was not equipped to operate the Mercedes. Paul had received speciality chauffeur instruction from Daimler Benz in Germany. Counter to some French newspapers claims, Paul was not obliged to have any sort of specific chauffeur licence, in order to drive the Mercedes 280-S.

The combined outcome of these lies, all traced back to French government sources, to date, has been a relentless cover-up on the part of the French, who apparently have a great deal to hide.

This blemish on the Royal family is why they have to be examined since they’re now on the hook of mortification, and the reason, everyone knows what they executed.  People will come to their own determinations, but the Royal family has to understand that there are specific laws that they have to endure and killing is not one of them.

We exist by specific expectations, a belief some might call it, but, some don’t see that as doctrine.  It’s legislation that we do not murder another human being, and that legislation says that if we do, we need to be disciplined for it, and this embraces everybody, incorporating the Royal family.

It takes determination to murder another human being, yet, it doesn’t take much backbone if you’re directing somebody else to do it.  You can just hide your head and imagine it wasn’t you that done it, it was just somebody else you directed to do it.

Let’s make it transparent the Queen and Diana did not get on, portraying the deceased Princess of Wales as seriously broken by her childhood and impossible to understand.  The Queen, or anybody else, would never really understand what Princess Diana was about, it would be unfeasible.

One could assume she was seriously wounded by her past and her childhood. It is hard to know. She had several admirable qualities. It must have been extremely hard for the Royal family to deal with the rest.  When reports started to trickle through from Paris to the Royal Family’s Highland retreat at Balmoral during the small hours of August 31st, 1997, that Princess Diana had been involved in a serious automobile accident, the Queen could hardly consider what she was hearing.

At first, it was thought that, although the car accident in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel was serious. Diana had not been killed. According to one eyewitness present, when the Queen heard the initial announcement, she reflected out loud: ‘Someone must have greased the brakes.’ That surprising statement shows something of the unusual and difficult relationship linking her and Diana, a connection brought into visible relief with the printing of never-before-seen images of Diana’s wedding day.

There was an insufficient indication of affection among the two women or even a glimmer of joy on either face, a glimpse, maybe, of their underlying fears and the immeasurable emotional distance between two such differing characters.  So what did the Queen really make of her daughter-in-law?

On September 9th, the Queen surpassed the 63 years and seven months that her great-great-grandmother Victoria was the monarch, making her the longest ruling sovereign in British history. It appears impossible that anything could throw a shadow over her rule.  It is hard now to understand how severely battered the sovereignty was merely 18 years ago when, after years of matrimonial feuding and gossip among the Prince of Wales and his estranged wife, the discovery of Princess Diana’s passing traumatised the nation.

When Lady Diana Spencer first visited Balmoral, aged 19, she beguiled all the Royals and the Monarch particularly. Her father, Viscount Althorp, had served as an equerry to the Queen between 1952 and 1954, and to George VI for the two years before that.  Her matriarch, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, was a familiar and lady-in-waiting to the Queen Mother.

The family resided at Park House on the Sandringham property and the Queen had observed Diana growing up, her elder sibling Sarah was a previous sweetheart of Prince Charles and the other sibling, Jane, was partnered to Robert Fellowes, the Queen’s assistant and later her private secretary.

The Queen remarked to a friend that Diana was one of them, a genuine Royal, and that she was really enamoured of all three of the Spencer girls.  At Balmoral in 1980, Diana married in with the after-dinner pastimes, laughed at Prince Philip’s anecdotes, fell into bogs and got wet, and answered all the right things.

She was delivered affectionately into the imperial circle.  However, what the Monarch did not see was the teenager’s shallowness.  Diana was innocent and not given to see past the moment. By variation, the Queen constantly had one eye on tomorrow, even as a teenager.  When she was told, aged ten, that her uncle, Edward VIII, had renounced and her family, with her father as the current King, must move into Buckingham Palace, she asked at once: ‘What, forever? ’

Diana was charmed by the glamour of her own situation. With a beautiful egg-shaped sapphire on her engagement finger, the same one, of course, now worn by the Duchess of Cambridge, she felt she had, in her words, ‘caught the big fish’.  It was after she discovered herself with a permanent police escort and was residing in the Palace’s former nursery suite on the second floor with all her former liberties reduced that she started to think about the actuality of life as a Princess.

The Queen made a big fuss of her prospective daughter-in-law, attempting to show that she was interested in Diana for her personal qualities and not just for what she represented, as the consort of the successor to the sovereignty.  However, Diana ran out of things to say to her. Naturally shy, she didn’t want to have luncheon on her own with ‘Brenda’, her nickname for the Monarch, taken from the paradoxical publication Private Eye, and made apologies, even creating non-existent friends to bypass the invitations.

The Queen could see the extremely youthful woman was troubled. Yet had no suspicion of her emotional difficulties or understanding of concerns such as bulimia, the eating disease that would torment Diana for years.  The wedding at St Paul’s in July 1981 was a grand event on a scale never witnessed previously, not even for the Queen’s Coronation.

Each detail was intensified beyond imagination, the palace reception ahead the ceremony was the most extravagant in more than half a century, with just about each European royal, as well as America’s First Lady Nancy Reagan, and a float of prime ministers and Commonwealth leaders on the guest list.

On the day itself, a large congregation assembled in the Mall to see Charles and his bride emerge on the balcony. Hearing the cries, Diana announced to her husband: ‘They want us to kiss.’ They did, and the moment was made available by global TV viewers of 700 million.  That night, the Monarch attended a gathering at Claridges, where video screens replayed the vows, seen by the sovereign, the First Lady and Princess Grace of Monaco, placed collectively on a curved sofa.

However in the subsequent months, the Monarch was disturbed by the constant media attention. The Papers just couldn’t get enough of Diana and all other royal interest blanched by example, particularly when knowledge revealed in November of her pregnancy.  Pointedly, throughout that year’s Christmas broadcast, the Queen did not dwell on the wedding celebrations yet singled out what she characterised as a somewhat different scene, a garden party at the Palace for 3,500 guests with disabilities.

Concerned about the fact that Diana was not coping well with all the attention, the Queen instructed her press secretary to ask all Fleet Street’s editors to a meeting.  In an almost bizarre move, she pleaded to them to line in their coverage, talking to them alone or in small groups.  This appeal from the heart worked, although not for long. It didn’t help that Diana disliked any change of focus away from her.

The christening of her first child, Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, for example, fell on the Queen Mother’s 82nd birthday, so that she and not the child were the focus of attention.  Two years later, following a complicated second pregnancy that left her exhausted, emotional and completely miserable, Diana spoke to friends, stating that she was not made for the production line.

The Queen understood, however still believed her daughter-in-law would learn to adjust to royal life, and the Princess’s carefree, casual manner in public, after all, meant her notoriety was unmatched.  In the ensuing years, the Queen would blame herself for not noticing how much pressure the Wales’s marriage was under.

She acknowledged she was not a tactile parent, and similar to several distinguished parents of her generation, she had transferred much of the childcare to nursemaids and her own mother.  Despite never giving way to emotional anxieties, she sometimes criticised the disintegration of not only Charles’s marriage, but Anne and Andrew’s as well on her peculiar remoteness when the children were growing up.

The Prince of Wales must have sensed it, too, since when he wanted to spill out his heart about his difficulties with his wife, it was to the Queen Mother he turned and later to Camilla Parker Bowles, never to his own mother.  The extent of Diana’s sadness became obvious, particularly when she colluded with reporter Andrew Morton on a book that became a list of matrimonial complaints, as one biographer provided a description.

She provided off-the-record transcripts and allowed her friends and family to talk to Morton.  When the book emerged, sparing no detail, the Queen adhered to the misconception that Diana could not have been involved.  The Princess lied to the face of Palace private secretary Robert Fellowes, her own brother-in-law, and dismissed all collusion. The Queen believed her.

Just a week later the secret got out when she pointedly attended one of the book’s named sources, Carolyn Bartholomew. Diana was a certified accomplice.  Fellowes did the noble thing and gave the Queen his resignation. She rejected it on the grounds that he was not the one liable of deceiving her.

Six days after the saga happened, Diana stood with her mother-in-law on the Palace terrace after the Trooping the Colour, as if nothing was wrong.  However, the facade had to break. At Ascot the ensuing week, Prince Philip ignored Diana in full view of everybody in the Royal Enclosure.

Even then, the Queen firmly believed in discretion. She asked for a six-month cooling-off period to let tempers subside.  However, she had again failed to understand why the Princess acted in such an unusual, intriguing way.  Charles’s tolerance snapped when he planned a hunting weekend at Sandringham with his sons, who were then at prep academy, only to find out that Diana had taken them to Windsor by herself.

Raging on the telephone to his mother about his wife’s latest planned indignity, Charles forgot himself and yelled down the line at the Monarch, screaming at his mother that Diana was insane.  Diana did nothing to dismiss the indictment when she began suggesting darkly that Palace attendants were planning to slander her by using the Secret services to monitor on her private conversations.

The Queen dismissed this as rubbish yet, declined to allow the family to discuss the Charles and Diana position openly.   Princess Margaret, the Queen’s sibling, confided in friends that the subject was so loftily off-limits that no guest would risk referring to it.

Like her own mother, the Queen has perpetually coped with difficult emotions by keeping the multiple challenges of her rule in sealed compartments and never confronting the unsavoury.  However, the marriage collapse couldn’t be ignored permanently. On December 9th, 1992, Prime Minister John Major announced to the Commons that with disappointment, the Prince and Princess of Wales have taken the decision to separate.

The Queen was at Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate with only a few staff when the decision came.  It was an emotional setting, here, in 1919, in this redbrick dwelling concealed from view at the end of a tree-lined driveway, her 13-year-old uncle, Prince John, had died of an epileptic seizure.

Rather than viewing the announcement to Parliament, the Queen did what she usually did when disturbed, and took her corgis for a stroll through the wintry woodlands and over the cultivated Norfolk fields.  When she got back, she dried the dogs off, and almost instantly took them out again, clothed in her typical country attire of wellington boots, Loden coat and headscarf.

As she returned for the second time, an elder member of staff approached to give his sympathies. The Queen answered quickly ‘I think you will find it’s all for the best’, and stepped out once more into the rain.  The following five years brought little reprieve. Particularly upsetting was a biography of Charles by the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, which displayed his relationship with his parents as remote, the Queen was described as distant, the Duke of Edinburgh as a bully.

The Queen was so concerned at the continuous faultfinding of her and her family that she became convinced, in May 1995, that the people would revolt against the Royals during the 50th-anniversary ceremonies of VE Day, and that the masses would stay away from the Palace.

During the early morning, she kept staring anxiously out of the window, to monitor whether her subjects were waiting to see her.  To her inexpressible relief, by the time she made her balcony entrance with her sibling and their 94-year-old mother, the Mall was crowded.  The Queen was touched, a member of staff explained later. When she went on to the balcony she remained stony faced for fear of revealing too much excitement. She was indeed near to tears.

The masses that congregated outside the Palace two years later were in a much different mood. As days progressed following Diana’s passing and there was no news from the Palace, they were swerving perilously near to becoming a mob.  Multiple people denounced the Royal Family vociferously for staying in Balmoral, rather than returning to London, and for refusing to fly the flag at half-mast over Buckingham Palace.

The Queen was confused by these critiques. The interest of the flag was insignificant etiquette. She was not in residence, so the flag was not flown.  Far more important, she wanted the family to remain in Scotland to give her grandsons an opportunity to grasp the trauma of their mother’s passing as far as possible from the public eye.

Her first priority was tantamount to shield them.  On the morning that Diana died, Charles revealed the colossal news to his boys before the entire family went to church at nearby Crathie. Following that, the boys were encouraged to mourn in private.  The Queen saw prime minister Tony Blair’s public announcements were much better suited to the sweeping mood, however, his strategy was not one she could use.

She eventually returned to London on September 5th and was driven straight to the Palace where, with Prince Philip at her side, she left the security of her vehicle and went to mingle with the masses near the flower-covered railings.  Dressed in black, she strolled along the path of mourners in complete muteness until an 11-year-old girl gave her five red roses, and the Queen inquired if she would like her to put them down for the little girl, but the little girl said that they were not for Diana, they were for the Queen.

An aide recalled you could hear the masses start to clap, and he remembers thinking, gosh, it’s all right.  By the time she made her live newscast that night, the Monarch was more her normal self.  She greeted the public as your Queen and as a grandmother and gave praise to Diana, saying she was just an extraordinary and talented human being. In good times and bad, she never lost her ability to smile and laugh, nor to encourage others with her passion and compassion. The Queen told everybody that she admired and respected her, particularly for her dedication to her two boys.

Charles had been spending more and more time with Camilla, the consort of Guards officer Andrew Parker Bowles, and the affair had even reached the ears of the Queen.

In April 1980, Charles had taken Camilla with him to Zimbabwe, where he was called upon to represent his mother at the country’s independence celebration.  Apparently, Camilla was travelling over to see her husband.  However at a communal feast in Harare, the pair philandered blatantly and Charles fumbled underneath the table with his concubine whilst her husband stoically looked the other way. The episode was so obvious that news of it reached the Queen.

And there were are occasions when the Queen and Prince Philip were baffled by their beloved son that they had created.  It was little surprise, then, that Charles’s parents were so relieved to greet Diana to the fold. It helped, too, that she’d known the Royal Family since childhood when her father Earl Spencer rented a ten bedroom farmhouse on the Sandringham estate.


That November whilst Diana was visiting Sandringham. Crowds of journalists and cameramen circled the residence.  Characteristically, the Queen declared nothing to Charles directly, however, she did talk to Philip, who communicated to their beloved son a prudently thought letter.

Media pressure was creating an extreme situation, said Philip, which indicated that Charles must now come to a speedy decision. Either he must offer Diana his hand, or he must break off the relationship to bypass jeopardising her reputation.  Charles would furiously bellow to friends in the following years that he was pressured into the marriage. However, the letter that his father addressed to Charles was actually pretty helpful, and his father was attempting to be helpful. It unquestionably did not read as a demand.

On the wedding day itself, in July 1981, Her Majesty was as dizzy as everybody else with the intense excitement of the day. That night, she watched the wedding all over again on wide screen televisions put in place in Claridge’s.  Dry martini in hand, she considered her own reflection closely, pointing delightedly whenever the cameras caught one of her famous sullen expressions. It was noted how she smiled with joy whenever images of her new daughter-in-law appeared.

She did not leave till 1.30 in the morning, hitching up her skirt and doing a tiny dance as she said her farewells. ‘I’d love to stay and dance all night,’ she stated.  Three weeks later, she greeted Charles and Diana back from their ocean-going honeymoon with comparable enthusiasm.

As they neared Balmoral in an old pony trap, the Queen ran alongside, jumping and hopping to keep up, whilst her husband pedalled on an antique bike before rushing off ahead to welcome them at the door.  However, it was quickly obvious that something was wrong. At midday, the Queen would arrive in the hall in her headscarf to take the women guests to luncheon with the men on the grouse moorlands. It went without saying that no one should be a second late.

So they were all waiting in the hall, making friendly conversation, however, Diana was nowhere to be viewed.  Then after some time, the Queen sent a servant off to figure out where Diana had got to, he went off, and then came back looking very flustered, stating that the Princess of Wales would not be joining the gathering for luncheon.

The Queen was pretty quiet, and friends noticed the danger signs, the pursed lips, the extra swift flicker of the eyes.  In the monarch’s opinion, staying in your room at lunchtime was something you simply did if you were unwell, and it was very strange.  However, one had to make adjustments.

Diana was a new girl in the fold, who was finding it really hard to get used to everything.  However, it was a bit more complex than that, for, in the year since she made her first triumphant arrival at Balmoral, Diana had made the startling revelation that her husband’s profound emotions were assigned to another woman.

‘Whatever happens, I will always love you,’ she’d heard him telling Camilla on the telephone whilst taking a bath.  Both this and her discovery that his concubine had given him new cufflinks highlighting their entwined initials inspired a string of unfortunate disputes.

‘She’s not like the rest of us, ‘ revealed the Queen. ‘She’s very young’

That autumn in Scotland, Diana would be beaming one minute then bursting helplessly into tears the next, and her new mother-in-law worked laboriously to support her.

Thinking about what had happened to the happy girl who’d been game for anything one year earlier, Elizabeth referred the dilemma to specialists.  By the close of September 1981, Diana was on a plane to London to meet with leading Harley Street psychoanalysts, and having done what she could to assist Diana with her hidden demons, the Queen asked the editors of Fleet Street, and asked them to give her more space.

Nevertheless, the only solution to her dilemmas was that Charles stopped his romance with Camilla Parker-Bowles, that was the only quandary that Diana had.  She loved her husband completely, furthermore, that was everything she desired, she just desired the man that she had married – Charlie boy!

However, her only goal in the union was a successor to the throne, a baby maker for the Royal sovereignty.  Charles did not marry Diana out of passion, he married her because he had to, it was his obligation to take a wife to father, and produce a successor.  The purpose of the British Royal Family is procreation; its principal responsibility is to produce at minimum one heir to the throne. Each heir has to produce a child that will ensure the continuation of a sovereignty that started with Athelstan, the first king of all England in 926.

Once reigning, a Monarch can, still, renounce from the throne abandoning their claim to be King or Queen. This was the situation with King Edward VIII who renounced in 1936 to marry twice-divorced American girlfriend Wallis Simpson. As head of the Church of England, the King wasn’t permitted to marry Simpson as she was divorced.

This doesn’t appear particularly just, considering Camilla Parker-Bowels was similarly divorced, however, Charles was allowed to marry her following Diana’s premature departure, rather convenient, don’t you think?  If Diana had been alive now, would Charles have really been allowed to marry Camilla, perhaps not?  There would have been an uproar from the country’s audience of people.  The Queen would never have heard the end of it, and it made it, even more, easier for the Royal family to get rid of her since she was in a relationship with Dodi Al-Fayed.

Placed all together, and you can come to your own determination, Princess Diana was a liability, a liability that had to die so that Charles could marry Camilla Parker-Bowels, and promptly out of sight out of mind, the people then embraced Charles marrying Camilla without a second thought to the beautiful Princess Diana.

It shouldn’t matter how noble you are, having respect for another human being should be paramount above all else.  Just because Charles is of nobility, and was formerly married to Diana, did not make her lower in status, in fact, it made her majorly higher ranking than he was since she was the mother of his children.

Sadly, the Royal family appear to think that they have jurisdiction over all, including human behaviour.  We all have needs, particularly when in marriage to another person, and we should not be compelled into a situation because of a need, or because the law commands that there should be a successor to the sovereignty.

Most people mate for love, though in some nations there are arranged unions, however, we’re not in those countries, and even the Royal family should be able to choose a spouse for love and for life, though that’s not invariably the situation because, in this day and age, most marriages break down, even the Royal family, however, we don’t live in an ideal universe, we exist in a flawed society, and not all is black and white.

If the Royal family are not careful, they will dive into an abyss, and sit wearily at the bottom, and it’s just to say will never recover their position since people will realise that they are not all that they make themselves out to be.

Edward had a status as a playboy and there had been numerous liaisons with married women whilst he was Prince of Wales.  Nothing created more embarrassment than his involvement with Mrs Simpson, as it became apparent that the pair had fallen in love.

Elizabeth, the descendant of a Scottish noble, and Wallis, whose father was a prosperous Baltimore flour merchant, moved in corresponding polished societies and was merely four years apart in age.  However, disposition and style-wise they was total counterparts and disliked one another from their first meeting.

Wallis, the small and chic American socialite who liked dark colours, was forever pitched as the evil sorceress opposite Elizabeth, the English rose who clothed in pastels and had a severe sense of decorum.  There was one unfortunate meeting, in 1935, at Edward’s countryside retreat Fort Belvedere in Windsor Great Park.

Wallis named Elizabeth, the Dowdy Duchess, or the fat Scottish cook, whilst the future Queen just termed her the American, that woman, or a certain person.  In one letter Elizabeth said that she considered Wallis as the lowest of the low, a thoroughly immoral woman, who she tried her best to avoid.

She is further supposed to have described the sheer vulgarity of Edward and Mrs Simpson.  Their mutual hatred developed into distrust and permanent bitterness as the abdication disaster unfolded, following the passing of King George V in January 1936.

Elizabeth revealed that she felt quite overcome with horror and emotion when it grew clear that Edward could not be discouraged from marrying Wallis.  She considered her brother-in-law a feeble man who had been led adrift by a manipulative femme fatale.

Compelled to choose between the sovereign and Wallis, Edward opted for the latter and renounced.  King Edward VIII did something that sovereigns do not have the indulgence of doing, he fell in love. King Edward was in love with Mrs Wallis Simpson, not only an American but further a married woman already once divorced. However, in order to marry the woman he loved, King Edward was prepared to give up the British throne, and he did, on December 10, 1936.

Yet, Charles was not stifled with this, he was allowed to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles, despite being a divorcee.  Hence, presently, what was not good enough for Edward, is now good enough for Charles and the Royal family, and Camilla has been granted a title as well, she is now recognised as the Duchess of Cornwall.

For millions of women the world over, the best time to reflect profoundly on their family is when they are doing mundane household duties. For the Queen, it is when she is sorting within the candle store at Balmoral.

It was there, between the peace of this comforting ritual, when our famously prudent ruler chooses which candles to keep and which are burned so low that they must be abandoned, that she made up her mind about Charles and Camilla, and, unusual for the Queen, said what amounted to an order, that this game of cat and mouse could not go on.

The game was the way Charles and his concubine Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles were continuing to meet furtively less than two years following Princess Diana’s passing. Obviously, it was too early for them to endorse marriage, although the Queen’s opinion was that they should be honest about the association.

Her candle-cupboard epiphany came after Charles had held a party at Buckingham Palace for 80 guests, comprising Camilla. The Queen and Prince Philip was away at Windsor organising Prince Edward’s wedding to Sophie Rhys-Jones.

It was Camilla’s first time officially inside the Dwelling since she had been forbidden from ruling premises, and dismissed from its guest list several years beforehand by the Queen, following the trauma of discovering that her son was having a relationship with the wife of a brother officer in the Brigade of Guards, something that was just not done.

Banning Camilla was a tough choice since the Queen had known her for ages, and the Queen Mother was her husband Andrew Parker Bowles’s godmother. Relationships had been friendly and cordial.

Camilla proposed a different threat, not so much to the Queen as to the sovereignty itself. The Queen was afraid that if Charles became king as a single man with Camilla his shadowy concubine, it could plunge the Sovereign into an instant disaster.

On the other hand, if he and Camilla married too soon, whilst visions of Diana were still fresh, there would be public resentment towards the Palace.  Following Diana’s passing. The Queen knew how great emotions were flowing about Camilla. They knew they had to get rid of the mistress label. However, it was a matter of timing.

Camilla had previously appeared in public with the prince, at The Ritz hotel in London, and the Queen acknowledged that Charles’s unyielding emphasis that Camilla was non-negotiable was directed as much at her, his mother, as it was to the populace.

With the Queen’s support, her then private secretary Sir Robert, now Lord Fellowes had personally meddled with Charles, delivering to him that he should give up Camilla for the welfare of the sovereignty. It was a sensitive mission for Sir Robert as his wife, Lady Jane, was one of Diana’s two elder sisters. Charles’s answer was an unyielding rejection, which simply confirms that Charles never loved Diana in the first place, and was simply made to marry her for an heir to the thrown.

The utter reality that the Queen approved of Charles in his attempt to marry Camilla, just proves how blameworthy she was as well.  Since he did not flirt with just one woman, he did so with several women, however, his designs were largely on Camilla, but who knows what might have occurred if his intentions had sequentially shifted to somebody else.

Finally, they would be allowed to marry with the clause that Camilla performed no role in royal duties, and absolutely should not be called Princess of Wales. This may have been the Queen’s decision, however for the ever-climbing Camilla, only the last clause still continues unimpaired today.

So, where does the well-being of the Royal family actually lay, and does their survival lay in the balance?  Perhaps, with a breeze, it might all be gone before we even squint our eyes, and could we actually imagine if Charles was to become King, that Camilla Parker-Bowles might one day become Queen, I dread the thought.

Two months before the departure of the Princess of Wales, Prince Charles concluded it was high time to tell his boys about the woman he loved.  He sat them down collectively and attempted to tell them how Camilla Parker Bowles had re-entered his life, following an adolescent love affair, and made him very happy. When he’d stopped talking, William and Harry were pretty quiet.

It was obvious. Charles revealed later to a friend, that William, in particular, just didn’t want to know. For the time being, no more was spoken.  In truth, it wasn’t as if William, then 15, didn’t now know more than he’d ever needed to about the woman who’d rekindled her relationship with his father whilst both were still married.

More than everything else, it was discovering Camilla was back in the picture that had angered his mother and destroyed the ambience at home.  Diana had gone into meltdown, despite the reality that her own unfaithfulness had started years beforehand.

From then on, she and Charles could hardly stand being in the same room as each other, let alone under the same home. They saw their personal friends, did their own things and lived mostly separate lives.  On the times they were together, there were blistering fights, tears and hysterics, anger and rage, all detected to some extent by everybody in the residence. Kensington Palace was tiny and poorly soundproofed, yet not even the stone walls at Highgrove were solid enough to extinguish their caustic exchanges. 

For two impressionable adolescent boys, it was an anxious and troubled time. And while Charles never welcomed Camilla to both of his houses whilst the boys were there, William, at least, was completely conscious of the reason for Diana’s grief.

What William didn’t know for a prolonged time was that Diana’s suspicions were for numerous years simply unsupported.  They went back to the early days of her association with Charles when she’d happened to come across a gold-coloured trinket that Charles was preparing to post to Camilla.

In fact, the trinket was one of the numerous items of jewels he’d purchased for individual friends as a thank you for having looked after him in his bachelor years. And it had never occurred to Charles, who was surprisingly ignorant in such things, that Diana might have a dilemma with a previous sweetheart remaining in his group of friends.

After she made it clear that she did, he simply separated all connection with Camilla. Yet Diana’s doubts smouldered, and years later she convinced herself that her husband was back with his former girlfriend.

Charles, meanwhile, fell into a disturbing hole. Finally, his old friends became terrified, fretting he might be on the brink of feelings of self-destruction.  It was Patti Palmer-Tomkinson who put him back in touch with Camilla, whose own marriage had long been a pretence because of her husband’s unfaithfulness. Camilla, thought Patti, was seemingly the only person who might be able to repair Charles’s spirits.

As the world found in January 1993, she absolutely thrived in doing that. For Charles, publication of the so-called Camillagate tape, a tape of a late-night private discussion he’d had with his concubine, was the ultimate embarrassment.

It wasn’t so much that the successor to the throne had talked about wanting always to be with the woman he loved. What prompted harsh response was that he pondered about turning into a tampon to accomplish this.

Even Diana, whilst experiencing a little entertainment from this, was mortified on his account. Also Charles’s biggest concern at the time, he said to friends, was not just for William and Harry, but also for Camilla’s children, Tom and Laura, who were a few years older.

He was quite right to be worried. With each chapter in the publicly crumbling marriage of his parents, William was growing less brave, bold and cheeky.  In particular, he was strongly affected at the age of 12 by the portrait and documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby, in which his father confessed infidelity. However, as the youthful Prince became more benumbed, his brother, still too green to completely know what was going on, seemed to bloom.

It was growing obvious that William was taking on to his young shoulders the weight of burden for his parents’ well-being and happiness. However, since he loved both his parents, his devotion and emotions were split down the centre.

To be asked, on top of all that, to understand his father’s love for Camilla was way too much. Sensibly, the Prince of Wales allowed the controversial subject to be dismissed.  Whilst William’s parents appeared hell-bent on self-destruction, the balance that came from different grown-ups about him may well have stopped him from careering off the rails.

Then there was the ditzy fashionable aristocrat called Alexandra Legge-Bourke, known as Tiggy, who Charles appointed after parting from Diana to work in loco parentis to the boys at Highgrove, his home in Gloucestershire when he had responsibilities elsewhere.

At 28, Tiggy was a bundle of joy, a cross between a kind, benevolent mother and a somewhat wild elder sister. Impulsively, she spoke of her royal commands: ‘I give them what they need at this stage: fresh air, a rifle and a horse. She, their mother gives them a tennis racket and a bucket of popcorn at the movies.’

Tiggy was refreshingly uncomplicated and William and Harry loved her.

She encouraged them to saddle their ponies into waggons and took them to gymkhanas and polo lessons.  Together, they went rabbit hunting, fishing, climbing, shooting and go-karting.

Diana, nevertheless, appeared usurped. She began a rumour that Tiggy and Prince Charles were having an affair, evidence of which was an innocent peck on the cheek caught by cameramen.

Next, the Princess left a string of annoying messages on Tiggy’s answering machine. Her crusade climaxed with Diana supposedly going up to her at the staff Christmas party and muttering: ‘So sorry about the baby.’

As the Princess knew, Tiggy had recently been in the hospital for a minor procedure, so the assumption was that she’d had an abortion. This was wrong and resulted in a lawyer’s letter, however, Diana continued to dislike Tiggy.

When she found that Tiggy had helped Charles with the invitations to William’s confirmation, in March 1997, she went through the roof. If that woman was going to be there, she warned, she wouldn’t be attending herself.

What should have been a happy and religiously important event for Prince William turned into another family nightmare.  Not only was Tiggy forbidden from the ceremony, but his grandmother, Frances Shand Kydd, was also absent since Diana was going through a period of not talking to her. In fact, the Princess had been directed to summon 40 people but invited no one.

It’s undeniably obvious that there was a lot of tit for tat when it came to Charles and Diana, however, it’s also undeniable that his affection for Diana or lack of admiration for Diana spanned from before the marriage and following the marriage.

Diana knew of his conjugal ventures with Camilla, which must have made Diana really upset, and not feeling particularly admired by Charles.  The entire engagement and marriage had been a deception, but not only to Diana but the entire world. 

Everyone likes a fairy-tale wedding, of course, they do, we wouldn’t be human if we didn’t.  We want things to look real, even if they’re not.  What was important was that Diana resembled the character on the day and that she was like a fairy-tale Princess.

Yet unbeknown to everyone else, she actually was this submissive adolescent girl whose behaviour was shy, yet, in the end, there was an uprising of rebellion.  What happened, the Royal family never in a million years thought would occur, Diana resisted, not with a chirp, but with a roar.

She was not putting up with it any longer, her well-being was of more consequence, she had to sink or swim, and she swam, and swam, and as long as she was doing that, the Royal family were powerless to restrain her any longer.

She was a human being, and they could no longer keep her at bay, yet she was never uncouth about it, she perpetually did what she did with style.  She had gone from the ugly duckling, who never achieved passing her exams at school, to a somewhat intelligent woman, since she was no longer that uneducated that they could not do what they wanted with her, to mould her to do as they desired at will.

At the end of the day, it’s a really depressing story, yet it’s not a story at all, it all actually occurred, and you can define your own judgments as you want, but what befell Diana should clearly never repeat itself again since the event was ruinous.


Diana will forever be Queen of People’s Hearts, and her impact on the people of Britain will never be forgotten, and should not be forgotten, and there might be people out there that will still attempt to destroy her honour, however, she greatly gratified the people of England, even if she did not do so to the Monarchy.

Published by Angela Lloyd

My vision on life is pretty broad, therefore I like to address specific subjects that intrigue me. Therefore I really appreciate the world of politics, though I have no actual views on who I will vote for, that I will not tell you, so please do not ask! I am like an observation station when it comes to writing, and I simply take the news and make it my own. I have no expectations, I simply love to write, and I know this seems really odd, but I don't get paid for it, I really like what I do and since I am never under any pressure, I constantly find that I write much better, rather than being blanketed under masses of paperwork and articles that I am on a deadline to complete. The chances are, that whilst all other journalists are out there, ripping their hair out, attempting to get their articles completed, I'm simply rambling along at my convenience creating my perfect piece. I guess it must look pretty unpleasant to some of you that I work for nothing, perhaps even brutal. Perhaps I have an obvious disregard for authority, I have no idea, but I would sooner be working for myself, than under somebody else, excuse the pun! Small I maybe, but substantial I will become, eventually. My desk is the most chaotic mess, though surprisingly I know where everything is, and I think that I would be quite unsuited for a desk job. My views on matters vary and I am extremely open-minded to the stuff that I write about, but what I write about is the truth and getting it out there, because the people must be acquainted. Though I am quite entertained by what goes on in the world. My spotlight is mostly to do with politics, though I do write other material as well, but it's essentially politics that I am involved in, and I tend to concentrate my attention on that, however, information is essential. If you have information the possibilities are endless because you are only limited by your own imagination...

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: