Death of Diana - accidental or murder? - Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums

I, Brian · 20th October 2003, 02:33 PM

There's an interesting claim in the news here - the former butler to Diana, Princess of Wales, is publishing a letter from Diana where she apparently expresses a fear that her car is going to be sabotaged - namely her brakes - so that she will be killed...thus allowing Charles to marry again.

Although the timing of the letter is to coincide with Paul Burrell's book launch, it has to be noted that at no point has there been an inquiry into Diana's death here in the UK - a fact that rests uneasy with the British public.

There's also a general suspicion among a significant number of the British public who believe that everything isn't as clear as we are being led to believe - ie, that it was a routine traffic accident.

Have to admit, I'm in the crowd - the accident itself sounded like an event from a political thriller. And the fact that it wasn't her usual driver, and that his body showed immense levels of alcohol (which is also a common breakdown product of many organic compounds) hardly helps negate suspicions.

Anyway, it's actually hard to see how the letter can reveal anything concrete other than Diana's fears - which is different from making any substantive arguments on the matter.

Here's some of the BBC article pasted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3206486.stm

Diana 'feared car accident plot'

Princess Diana feared the brakes of her car were going to be tampered with, 10 months before she died in a crash in Paris, her former butler has claimed.

The princess allegedly wrote in a letter to Paul Burrell: "This phase in my life is the most dangerous".

She reportedly named someone who was "planning an accident in my car, brake failure and serious head injury."

The alleged letter, which Mr Burrell kept secret until now, has been published in the Daily Mirror.

The name of the alleged person has been blacked out by the newspaper for legal reasons.

Diana and her lover Dodi Al Fayed were killed early on the morning of 31 August, 1997 when a Mercedes driven by chauffeur Henri Paul crashed in the Pont D'Alma tunnel in Paris.

In the alleged letter, Princess Diana reportedly believed the plot was "in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry".

It was reportedly written a couple of months after her divorce from Charles was finalised in October 1996.

A French inquiry in 1999 blamed Mr Paul, concluding he had taken a cocktail of drink and drugs and was driving too fast. In August, Surrey Coroner Michael Burgess announced he would conduct inquests into the death of Diana and Mr Fayed, but did not specify a date.

The inquests will be the first official public hearings in Britain to examine the circumstances surrounding the Princess's death.

BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt said a key question remained about why Mr Burrell did not reveal the alleged letter earlier, particularly immediately after the fatal crash.

"Why didn't he reveal it during the week-long exclusive interview with the Daily Mirror last year, for which he received a considerable sum of money? "The absence of answers to the questions will prompt the cynics to suggest he hung on to it in order to help his book," Peter Hunt told BBC News24.

littlemissattitude · 20th October 2003, 06:10 PM

I'd heard a headline on this, but nothing more, so thanks for posting the article. I wasn't aware that there had been no UK investigation. I find that to be a little unusual. While I'm not ready to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon yet, I certainly have wondered about a few issues surrounding the event. The most curious, I think is the alcohol level alleged in the driver. It seems to me that if he had that much alcohol in his system, he wouldn't have been able to get to the car, much less drive it. Another thing - I don't know how true it is, but I've heard reports that it took medical help an unconscionably long time to get to the scene and get to work. Certainly, I'd like to see these issues clarified a bit.

Edited to add a thought that just occured to me as I clicked on the "post" button: All the theories of possible conspiracy in Diana's death have revolved around marriage and divorce issues. But, if there was a conspiracy, isn't it just posssible that it might have had something to do with Diana's activism, especially in the area of the abolition of land mines?

dwndrgn · 20th October 2003, 06:42 PM

I'm not much for conspiracies either (they make for good reading though) but I always thought the whole thing was rather fishy - I mean the whole story just didn't sound right at all. As far as the letter is concerned, I also find that very fishy. Why would Diana tell him that someone was planning on 'brake failure and serious head injury', instead of just saying that she thought someone would be tampering with her car? And what would make her think that? If she feared an accident of some sort from a specific person, fine - but unless she overheard said person saying specifically they would tamper with the car...it sounds unrealistic for her to have specifically mentioned something like that instead of that she thought someone was going to try and kill her. Plus, if this was a true fear, she was quite able to use a different car at any time without any trouble and she could have easily told someone that she was afraid of specific attempts at harm.

As far as Charles being able to remarry, he couldn't remarry after the divorce while she was alive? Is that some sort of dynastic rule? If there isn't any rule like that why would she need to be eliminated once they had already been divorced?

littlemissattitude · 21st October 2003, 05:36 AM

Quote:

As far as Charles being able to remarry, he couldn't remarry after the divorce while she was alive? Is that some sort of dynastic rule? If there isn't any rule like that why would she need to be eliminated once they had already been divorced?

I was wondering about that, as well. As a Yank, I don't pretend to know anything about the ins and outs of life as a royal. Don't think I'd want to know, actually - I'd hate to be in the position of everyone knowing, or thinking they knew, or wanting to know, everything about my life and how I live it. Which, really, is the position the royals are in. It's bad enough living in a small town where way too many people thinks my business is theirs.

Anyway, I know there was a lot of controversy over the divorce (it almost seems like it should be capitalized - The Divorce), especially right after it happened. But, from this side of the Pond at least, it looks like everyone is pretty much all right with Camilla moving in with Charles without benefit of a marriage license. Why would they have more trouble with a marriage? Unless there are Church of England prohibitions on remarriage after divorce, as there are in the Catholic church, I can't see why there would have been a problem that would have led to so drastic a step as assassination.

Foxbat · 21st October 2003, 06:48 AM

Quote:

As far as Charles being able to remarry, he couldn't remarry after the divorce while she was alive? Is that some sort of dynastic rule? If there isn't any rule like that why would she need to be eliminated once they had already been divorced?

Although the monarch is classed as Defender of the Faith in the Church of England (of which I do not belong -being neither English nor a believer in God)
It's probably got more to do with public acceptance. They loved Diana and detested Camilla at the time.

I don't believe there was a conspiracy. I go with the ordinary accident theory - which is a shame because I would love us to have an excuse to get rid of the whole sorry, neurotic lot of them (I am, in case you haven't guessed against the principle of a monarchy).

As for Burrel: should he not a have come forward with this info at the time of the accident? It was probably his publicist who advised against it.
And if he loved Diana so much, what about the hurt he is now causing her children with this revelation?

I, Brian · 21st October 2003, 07:35 AM

Although I certainly find events fishy, I can't pin-point any particular motivation that would be worth all the risk of carrying out an "assassination". Diana was a complete embarrassment to the Royal Family and her activities constantly damaged them. But, then again, Fergie was hardly a favourite of theirs either! I'm not normally an advocate of conspiracy theory - and certainly this letter shows merely that Diana feared, rather than had any real evidence to offer.

There's alot about the death of Diana that doesn't make sense, though. Maybe it was indeed an accident - but if so, the entire situation has been curiously mis-managed. For example, whenever anyone from Britain dies abroad, apparently there *has* to be an inquest on British soil - yet there never has been in the case of Diana. My understanding of the French investigation is that it was also conducted behind closed doors. So no wonder some part of the British public is often inclined to consider that the matter has not been properly addressed, let alone closed.

I, Brian · 21st October 2003, 07:41 AM

PS - As for the issue of divorce in the British Royal family - that's actually a very touchy subject. Remember that King Edward VIII had to abdicate in 1936 because he wanted to marry a divorcee.

I'm not quite sure of the exact position, but remember that the British Monarch is the spiritual and figurative head of the Church of England. Being divorced would be bad enough, but re-marrying could possibly be seen to be even more messy. At least if Diana was dead it should indeed be possible to push away any ongoing criticisms that may get in the way with regards to Charles marrying Camilla Parker-Bowles. Does that mean I personally believe it's a motivation for having Diana killed? No, not really.

littlemissattitude · 21st October 2003, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

PS - As for the issue of divorce in the British Royal family - that's actually a very touchy subject. Remember that King Edward VIII had to abdicate in 1936 because he wanted to marry a divorcee.

I'd quite forgotten about Edward and Wallis. Seems like things would have liberalized at least a little bit since then, though. Maybe not. I don't know.

I, Brian · 6th January 2004, 06:55 PM

A formal investigation is finally going to be carried out in the UK. Now, that should be most interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3371053.stm

excerpt:

Quote:

Britain's most senior policeman is to investigate whether the car crash which killed Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed was more than just an accident.

The announcement was made as separate inquests into the couple's deaths were opened and adjourned until 2005.

Coroner Michael Burgess said Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, would look at rumours surrounding the 1997 Paris crash.

Dodi's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, said he hoped "the truth" could now emerge.

On Tuesday it emerged that Paul Burrell, Diana's ex-butler, is to hand the inquest a letter in which she apparently claimed there was a plot to kill her in a crash.

The Daily Mirror claimed the letter appeared to show that Diana believed Prince Charles was behind the plans, although it pointed out the claims were probably "preposterous".

20th October 2003, 02:33 PM	#1 (permalink)
I, Brian Admin and Tea-boy Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 5,452 Blog Entries: 1	Death of Diana - accidental or murder? There's an interesting claim in the news here - the former butler to Diana, Princess of Wales, is publishing a letter from Diana where she apparently expresses a fear that her car is going to be sabotaged - namely her brakes - so that she will be killed...thus allowing Charles to marry again. Although the timing of the letter is to coincide with Paul Burrell's book launch, it has to be noted that at no point has there been an inquiry into Diana's death here in the UK - a fact that rests uneasy with the British public. There's also a general suspicion among a significant number of the British public who believe that everything isn't as clear as we are being led to believe - ie, that it was a routine traffic accident. Have to admit, I'm in the crowd - the accident itself sounded like an event from a political thriller. And the fact that it wasn't her usual driver, and that his body showed immense levels of alcohol (which is also a common breakdown product of many organic compounds) hardly helps negate suspicions. Anyway, it's actually hard to see how the letter can reveal anything concrete other than Diana's fears - which is different from making any substantive arguments on the matter. Here's some of the BBC article pasted: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3206486.stm Diana 'feared car accident plot' Princess Diana feared the brakes of her car were going to be tampered with, 10 months before she died in a crash in Paris, her former butler has claimed. The princess allegedly wrote in a letter to Paul Burrell: "This phase in my life is the most dangerous". She reportedly named someone who was "planning an accident in my car, brake failure and serious head injury." The alleged letter, which Mr Burrell kept secret until now, has been published in the Daily Mirror. The name of the alleged person has been blacked out by the newspaper for legal reasons. Diana and her lover Dodi Al Fayed were killed early on the morning of 31 August, 1997 when a Mercedes driven by chauffeur Henri Paul crashed in the Pont D'Alma tunnel in Paris. In the alleged letter, Princess Diana reportedly believed the plot was "in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry". It was reportedly written a couple of months after her divorce from Charles was finalised in October 1996. A French inquiry in 1999 blamed Mr Paul, concluding he had taken a cocktail of drink and drugs and was driving too fast. In August, Surrey Coroner Michael Burgess announced he would conduct inquests into the death of Diana and Mr Fayed, but did not specify a date. The inquests will be the first official public hearings in Britain to examine the circumstances surrounding the Princess's death. BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt said a key question remained about why Mr Burrell did not reveal the alleged letter earlier, particularly immediately after the fatal crash. "Why didn't he reveal it during the week-long exclusive interview with the Daily Mirror last year, for which he received a considerable sum of money? "The absence of answers to the questions will prompt the cynics to suggest he hung on to it in order to help his book," Peter Hunt told BBC News24. Attached Thumbnails

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

20th October 2003, 06:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
littlemissattitude Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 3,406 Blog Entries: 9	I'd heard a headline on this, but nothing more, so thanks for posting the article. I wasn't aware that there had been no UK investigation. I find that to be a little unusual. While I'm not ready to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon yet, I certainly have wondered about a few issues surrounding the event. The most curious, I think is the alcohol level alleged in the driver. It seems to me that if he had that much alcohol in his system, he wouldn't have been able to get to the car, much less drive it. Another thing - I don't know how true it is, but I've heard reports that it took medical help an unconscionably long time to get to the scene and get to work. Certainly, I'd like to see these issues clarified a bit. Edited to add a thought that just occured to me as I clicked on the "post" button: All the theories of possible conspiracy in Diana's death have revolved around marriage and divorce issues. But, if there was a conspiracy, isn't it just posssible that it might have had something to do with Diana's activism, especially in the area of the abolition of land mines?

20th October 2003, 06:42 PM	#3 (permalink)
dwndrgn Fierce Vowelless One Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,670	I'm not much for conspiracies either (they make for good reading though) but I always thought the whole thing was rather fishy - I mean the whole story just didn't sound right at all. As far as the letter is concerned, I also find that very fishy. Why would Diana tell him that someone was planning on 'brake failure and serious head injury', instead of just saying that she thought someone would be tampering with her car? And what would make her think that? If she feared an accident of some sort from a specific person, fine - but unless she overheard said person saying specifically they would tamper with the car...it sounds unrealistic for her to have specifically mentioned something like that instead of that she thought someone was going to try and kill her. Plus, if this was a true fear, she was quite able to use a different car at any time without any trouble and she could have easily told someone that she was afraid of specific attempts at harm. As far as Charles being able to remarry, he couldn't remarry after the divorce while she was alive? Is that some sort of dynastic rule? If there isn't any rule like that why would she need to be eliminated once they had already been divorced?

21st October 2003, 07:35 AM	#6 (permalink)
I, Brian Admin and Tea-boy Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 5,452 Blog Entries: 1	Although I certainly find events fishy, I can't pin-point any particular motivation that would be worth all the risk of carrying out an "assassination". Diana was a complete embarrassment to the Royal Family and her activities constantly damaged them. But, then again, Fergie was hardly a favourite of theirs either! I'm not normally an advocate of conspiracy theory - and certainly this letter shows merely that Diana feared, rather than had any real evidence to offer. There's alot about the death of Diana that doesn't make sense, though. Maybe it was indeed an accident - but if so, the entire situation has been curiously mis-managed. For example, whenever anyone from Britain dies abroad, apparently there has to be an inquest on British soil - yet there never has been in the case of Diana. My understanding of the French investigation is that it was also conducted behind closed doors. So no wonder some part of the British public is often inclined to consider that the matter has not been properly addressed, let alone closed.

21st October 2003, 07:41 AM	#7 (permalink)
I, Brian Admin and Tea-boy Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 5,452 Blog Entries: 1	PS - As for the issue of divorce in the British Royal family - that's actually a very touchy subject. Remember that King Edward VIII had to abdicate in 1936 because he wanted to marry a divorcee. I'm not quite sure of the exact position, but remember that the British Monarch is the spiritual and figurative head of the Church of England. Being divorced would be bad enough, but re-marrying could possibly be seen to be even more messy. At least if Diana was dead it should indeed be possible to push away any ongoing criticisms that may get in the way with regards to Charles marrying Camilla Parker-Bowles. Does that mean I personally believe it's a motivation for having Diana killed? No, not really.