Diana Inquiry More Complex Than Expected

[Syrinx]

An inquiry into the death of Princess Diana is "far more complex than any of us thought," the official leading the investigation said Friday without commenting on the conspiracy theories that persist nearly nine years after her death.

Lord Stevens, the former head of London's Metropolitan Police, acknowledged that some of the issues raised by Mohammed al Fayed _ whose son, Dodi, was killed in the 1997 car crash with Diana _ were "right to be raised." He did not elaborate.

Mohammed al Fayed, the owner of London's famous Harrods store, has claimed Diana and his son were killed by British intelligence officials and their deaths resulted from a plot instigated by Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and Diana's former father-in- law.

Lord Stevens, speaking in a recorded interview to Britain's GMTV Sunday Program, did not reveal which of al Fayed's concerns he believed were correct.

*snip*

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/27/D8FD3PTG9.html

[oldtime dfl_er]

1. Nothing that governments do

surprises me anymore. The farther away her death recedes into history, the more it appears beyond coincidental, timing-wise. Accidents do happen, and there is a possibility this was an accident but I am bothered by certain aspects. Particularly troubling is the story of the guy who owned a Fiat, and was found a year or two after Diana's death, locked in his car, dead, the car consumed by fire. I can probably find a credible link if anyone is interested.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1161236

[NJCher]

2. interested

Cher

[oldtime dfl_er]

4. photogs name was Andanson

If you don't want to read the whole piece, just do a browser search on
his name. I was a little bit wrong - he wasn't found in the Fiat but in a BMW. But he owned a white Fiat.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/48hours/main612794.shtml


http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1097640

[henslee]

7. I always wondered if Ross Perot was telling the truth regarding his

family's lives being threatened, as ridiculous as it sounded at the time.

[tanyev]

14. I thought of that when I read "All the President's Men"

and it casually mentioned that one of the standard dirty tricks was to have someone follow potential primary candidates and their family members.

[Vidar]

16. Are you kidding? Of course he was! A bush was involved

[Cha]

41. That's real easy for me to

believe now.

[zann725]

54. If she lived, Chaz would've had to pay approx $1 Mil or more/yr settlement

Not being entirely tin-foil, BUT the Royal Family were really never fond enough of the young woman who told the Truth about their dysfunctions to pay THAT kind of money for very long. Just long enough to NOT look 'involved' in her unfortunate accident. Nor would they pay that kind of money very long to a "spare" in the castle who would bear no more heirs to the Royal Family. And Di WAS a "spare." And throughout Royal history, what becomes of "spare" ex-queens or (would be's). Also, as I recall, it was approx. one year from the time of her Divorce settlement with Chaz, that the accident happened. And there WAS an unusually longggg delay in beginning her crucial medical care at the hospital. A delay, as I recall, involving Chaz's needed "approval." And Camilla and Chaz certainly wanted to move forward...pleeese. With Diane, a National "favorite"...Camilla never could fill that role (without being villanous...nor could Chaz)...as long as Diane lived and continued to entrance the World with her geniuine warmth and caring. With her gone... in time...their unity is politely accepted now (so it seems) by the British public.

Though Di will always be there favorite.

[LisaL]

78. Oh give it up with that nonsense.

Why on Earth would the hospital need Charles approval to treat his ex-wife? They didn't deliver her to the hospital right away because they have a different philosophy and try to stabilize a patient in the ambulance, unlike here in US where they try to get to the hospital ASAP. Which in her case proved to be a wrong philosophy, but it had nothing to do with Charles.

[MADem]

3. Wow, just in the nick of time!!!

Can't have people getting TOO excited over a filibuster possibility--you have to wonder if the Monkey got the Poodle on the phone and asked him to time this release to eat up weekend air time...if they are talking about Diana, they aren't talking about Alito!

[WinkyDink]

70. One CAN actually hold several diverse thoughts

simultaneously.

[ronnykmarshall]

73. Oh come now ...

we all know this whole Diana story is all part of the Bush Plan!!! :evilgrin:

[bluedeminredstate]

5. Not that I don't sport the tin foil on occasion,

but why plot something that would make the family look so appallingly insensitive and cause the public to start serious debate about doing away with royalty? If it was a plan it wasn't well though out, although I've always thought Philip was a major dick...maybe he's stupid too.

:tinfoilhat:

[Rich Hunt]

8. I agree

Whatever you think of the Royal Family - come on, this makes no sense.

If anything, it's a case of paparazzi being reckless and showing disregard for people's safety.

[dflprincess]

23. I've always maintained that if the someone had killed Diana

they would have used a car bomb and blamed the Irish Republican Army.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. One small request.

Breitbart, from what I understand, is basically a friend of Matt Drudge, who makes money by being the website Drudge links for AP pieces. It might be useful to locate the piece from a different source.

[lavenderdiva]

10. here ya go...

here is the AP article as printed in the Houston Chronicle:

link: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/celebrities/3617217.html


Unfortunately, the story is listed under 'entertainment', rather than 'news'. Just an observation. I do think certain aspects of the investigation have merit, and should be investigated.

[pitohui]

9. not so complex

the only complexity i see is dealing w. a rich twit's ego

his son died in a drunk driving accident, sad, pointless, tragic, so he's going to spend the rest of his life hunting conspiracies of why this cannot be?

i guess we all grieve differently and if we're rich enough no one will tell us honestly when we're being an idiot

[MrPrax]

12. Bravo!

Good to see someone using Occam's Razor... ;-)

The driver could have just stopped and pulled over... :eyes:

No conspiracy here other than 'rich twit' covering up his playboy 'bad muslim' kid and his cokehead trophy princess.

The only thing I think Br Intel is involved in, is keeping the French from releasing the full autopsy report.

[ronnykmarshall]

75. How charming.

[NVMojo]

25. uh, what about the fact that this is a "brown" person who knocked up

someone from England's royal blood?? I think it needs investigation and has always needed investigation.

[tenshi816]

35. Diana being pregnant with Fayed's child

is just a rumour started by the tabloids and encouraged by Dodi Fayed's father.

Also, Diana did not have "royal blood". She was part of the nobility, but she was not part of the royal bloodline. There's a big difference between the two. Her "royal" status was conferred upon her when she married Prince Charles. It was taken away from her when they divorced - she was no longer "Her Royal Highness", although she was allowed to keep her Princess title. Diana was a royal by marriage only and only for the duration of the marriage.

[LisaL]

77. She was not pregnant, as is "knocked up" at the time of her death.

[melm00se]

11. if this was a "hit"

on Diana, causing a car accident would not be the best way to ensure the death of the target. I would guess that an auto accident has a less than 50/50 chance of being certainly fatal for all occupants

[Raster]

21. mind you, I'm not saying it was.... however, if you wanted to kill one of

the most beloved women on the planet and her Muslim lover, a faked auto accident (or small plane crash) would be the way to do it.

[LisaM]

13. Well, unless this was a lie too, 3 of the 4 weren't wearing seatbelts

There was one survivor, who did wear a seatbelt. Now, that is what was printed at the time and it could be untrue, but if it is true, they might have been able to save themselves.

[Lindacooks]

18. I've always wondered if the seatbelts in that car were even in working

order. Or if it was possible to determine that after the car was totalled in the crash. I've always thought it was very strange that the bodyguard was wearing the seatbelt, but not the other three. The driver can be explained - he was smashed drunk. But Dodi and Diana - were their seatbelts working?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. Was the driver "smashed drunk"? We were told that he was....

...so it must be so....right?

[Mind_your_head]

29. I never thought of it before, but since you mention it......

Does it make sense that the ONLY person in the car wearing his seatbelt is the one who is DRUNK? Is that what people who are drunk generally do? If they're drunk they're not thinking 'rightly'? Do they (and not the sober people) firstly think, "Hey, I'm gonna buckle up for safety!"

:shrug: ;-)

[Henny Penny]

31. I thought the only one with a seat belt was the body guard.

He survived, but we don't really hear much about him.

If you did want to kill Diana, it would make sense to make it look like an accident as there would be no need to look for a killer or a motive.

As to the driver being drunk... that is possible. It is also possible that his drink was spiked as claimed by his family.

Diana was known to be in the habit of fleeing the press in high speed car chases. So spike the driver's drink, pose as a paparazzi and force the car off the road at a point where it was likely to have reached a good speed, and where the surveillance cameras had been disabled.

et Voila!

[Mind_your_head]

48. You're right Henny Penny. I remembered incorrectly.

The only one who was wearing a seat belt was the bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones. NOT the driver, Henri Paul (who some people say was drinking alcohol that night, although Rees-Jones ~ who was actually THERE ~ says Henri Paul wasn't drunk).

Thanks for the correction! (I hope I didn't mislead anyone by my stupid post #29. I'll be more careful when I post in the future).

--------------

Here's a snip of the transcript of the interview of Rees-Jones when he was on the Larry King Live Show (guest hosted that night by Greta Van Susteren), where Rees-Jones basically states that the driver, Henri Paul, was not intoxicated that night.

<snip>

REES-JONES: There was absolutely nothing at all in his behavior, in his speech. He was behaving exactly the same as he had that morning. As I said, as far as we were concerned, he was working. There's a -- it's a dry jump. There's a -- you know, a categoric rule: There's no drinking on the job.

So there was nothing about his behavior that would have suggested to us he had a drink.

VAN SUSTEREN: How far away were you from Henri Paul when you were sitting down in the hotel before you left?

REES-JONES: Not much further than I am to you now, so...

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you smell any alcohol?

REES-JONES: Didn't smell anything at all, no.

VAN SUSTEREN: What do you make of the fact that the reports say he had a significant amount of alcohol in his bloodstream?

REES-JONES: It shocks me that -- if I any suggestion, if I even thought he had one drink, he wouldn't have driven that night. I accept what's -- the findings of the French investigation, but it shocked me as a behavior as that of someone who was stone cold sober.

VAN SUSTEREN: When you got into the car, you sat in the front passenger side, is that right?

REES-JONES: Yes, correct, yes. VAN SUSTEREN: Do you remember any conversation in the car as it left the Ritz?

REES-JONES: My memory stops after we waited at the rear of the Ritz, getting into the vehicle, and then as the vehicle pulls away, I notice that there was a small, light-colored hatchback vehicle, and a couple of motorbikes or scooters with photographers on them followed us. and that's where my memory stops. I don't remember anything about the journey or anything late -- until 12 days later in the hospital.

<end snip>

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/21/lkl.00.html

[Henny Penny]

68. Don't worry... we're all guilty of that now and again!

You were right about one thing, some things in this case don't make sense. Maybe that's just life, or may be there's more to it. Either way, it is an interesting case.

[pitohui]

39. i see drunk drivers buckle up all the time

often one of the signs that a driver is drunk is that he is more careful on the roads than normal drivers who are not trying to over-compensate for drink

dodi's dad is deranged by grief, either that, or he's really a sick self-promoter, good point was made by the other poster abt this shrine he's set up at harrod's to draw tourists into the store to worship at the shrine of diana

[Mind_your_head]

49. I made a mistake....my whole post #29 was stupid

It wasn't the DRIVER, Henri Paul, who was wearing the seat belt. It was the bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones who was wearing one.

My apologies to the folks on the DU board. Oops@me. :blush:

[tenshi816]

34. Yes.

If we believe what Diana's former butler Paul Burrell said, she was convinced that there would be an attempt made on her life via a car crash. If she was that concerned about it, you'd think she'd have buckled up every time she got into a vehicle. (I tend to doubt a great deal of what Paul Burrell says anyway. He's a strange little man, still completely obsessed with Diana and still making a living out of talking about his relationship with her. Since there were no witnesses to much of what he claims Diana said to him over the years, there's no way to determine whether he's telling the truth or not.)

It's always been reported here (in the UK) that neither Diana nor Dodi Fayed was wearing a seatbelt, and until there's compelling evidence to the contrary I see no reason to doubt that. I still remember the first news reports on BBC radio after it happened, and it was said from the get-go that they hadn't worn seatbelts.

In the years since the accident, there have been occasional comments in the press made by some of Diana's friends that her romance with Fayed was just a "summer fling" and that she had no intention of settling down with him. If that was the case, there would have been nothing gained by the royal family putting out a "hit" on Diana.

Whether Diana was in love with Dodi Fayed or whether it was a temporary infatuation of hers (he certainly wasn't the first or only one she had) we'll never know, but Dodi's father, Mohammed al Fayed, is unable or unwilling to contemplate the possibility that it was just a fling. He's set up a bizarre shrine to Diana and Dodi at Harrod's department store (which he owns) in London. I think it looks creepy.

[lanlady]

15. Dodi's dad

was spinning royal conspiracy theories within an hour of Diana's death. He wants everyone to forget that it was his son, his hotel, his car, his driver on that tragic night. The blame and shame are on the Fayed family and he can't deal with that.

[Raster]

17. Horse puckey!!! Evidently it's not that simple...

An inquiry into the death of Princess Diana is "far more complex than any of us thought," the official leading the investigation said Friday without commenting on the conspiracy theories that persist nearly nine years after her death.

Lord Stevens, the former head of London's Metropolitan Police, acknowledged that some of the issues raised by Mohammed al Fayed _ whose son, Dodi, was killed in the 1997 car crash with Diana _ were "right to be raised." He did not elaborate.

[Cha]

42. Right! It was all Dodi's father's

limo and everything but it wasn't his men who were chasing them!

I remember that so well when it happened..I was freaked for some reason!

[lanlady]

69. true. They were being chased by paparazzi

so what? Where's the conspiracy? There were approx. 25,000 car fatalities in France in 1997, the year of the Diana tragedy. A large proportion involved drunk driving and speed. Should we be suspicious about all of them?

The only reason anyone is still listening to the al Fayeds is that they're filthy stinking rich and they make a lot of noise. It still doesn't erase the fact that the family put the Princess of Wales in the hands of a drunk Ritz Hotel employee. The family is practically criminally negligent for her untimely death.

[lovuian]

19. First off this Investigation wouldn't even be taking place

if it wasn;t for that Diana is a Scottish citizen and Scotland was going to begin its own investigation of her death... England saw that Scotland was going to investigate and it would look terrible if they didn't which they are 9 years late in doing... And it took Dodi Fayed many years getting enough evidence to warrant and investigation...

Theres just too much here that is suspicious
the video tape of the tunnel not working
the ambulance time taking so long
the autopsy of Jean Paul
the changing of cars at the last minute
never finding the Fiat
the guy dead and finding Jean Paul was MI5 agent
The wiretapping of Diana's phone by the US
Yes there is much here
Motive for Killing diana
She was more loved than any of the Royal family
she wasn't controllable
she had a great heart working with Aids and LandMines
She divorced Charles because she knew she was used by him as a breeder for his prince line... Camilla couldn't
She blocked Charles chances of being King
But I really think King Phillips involvement did have to do with the Muslim issue... yes she was murdered... if you think Kelly suicide happened Mel Carnahan died of a plane crash and Wellstone and John John's plane crash were all coincidental then you need to know about the phenomen of synchronism or look at Cliff Baxters suicide. And why agents jump off buildings and they leave their shoes
Oh Ya there is more here than meets the eye...

[GemMom]

20. I'm with you

There's just too much.... coincidence, perhaps, for all those things to have taken place. There was no way the Royals were going to be satisfied having the potential King to have 1/2 Arab 1/2 brothers.

[Matilda]

28. One simple way to keep the Princess in check

would have been to tell her if she married Dodi, she would lose custody
of her sons, and all rights to supervise their upbringing. They have
that kind of power, and it would have stopped her in her tracks, IMO.

Sorry, but I think Fayed is a man who just can't accept the death of
his only son, and the responsibility that Dodi bore for the death of
the Princess. He's in serious denial.

[NVMojo]

27. good point about the Scottish side of this. That was shame for the British

for not doing it! Go Scots!

[Henny Penny]

32. The real point about the Scottish investigation was that it

would have been an investigation and who knows what it might have uncovered...

I thought it was interesting when Stevens was brought in to head the inquiry. He was involved in the final stages of the Stalker inquiry in Northern Ireland where there was a mountain of embarrassments under the carpet and even the naivest were beginning to notice.

From the establishment's pov, Stevens is a safe pair of hands, revealing just enough of the truth to keep all sides happy. His report might be interesting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Diana was not Scottish

Al Fayed tried to get a Scottish inquest held, on the grounds that he (the father, Mohammed, not Dodi, who died in the crash) owns a castle in Scotland, and his son was killed in the crash. Scotland said they had no jurisdiction, and refused to hold an inquest (Dodi lived in England). The English inquests were opened after the French investigation had finished - they said they didn't want to prejudice the French one.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3746829/

http://www.surreycoroner.info/inquests.html

Get the basic facts right before you start constructing theories.

[lovuian]

43. Diana Spencer WAS A SCOTTISH CITIZEN let me explain

She was a United Kingdom citizen
A United Kingdom
consists
of
Wales Scotland and England and all Commonwealth Colonies

Therefore she was a Scottish citizen due to the fantastic Scottish Heritage of the Stuarts

Much of Britain's history in the past four centuries, from Mary Queen of Scots to Sir Winston Chuchill, threads through the family tree of Princess Diana. Lady Diana Spencer, four times descended from king Charles II (1630-1685) and once from James II (1633-1701), boast no fewer than six lines of descent from MAry Queen of Scots, whom Queen Elizabeth I ordered beheaded in 1585.

This is from Wikepedia Encyclopedia
News reports are unreliable and handing out Disinformation and if you were covering up something this politically explosive yes disinformation would be the way to go

but here is the Wikepedia statement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

The French investigators' conclusion that Henri Paul was drunk was made largely on the basis of an analysis of blood samples, which were stated to contain an alcohol level that (according to Jay's September 1997 report) was three times the legal limit. This initial analysis was challenged by a British pathologist hired by the Fayeds; in response, French authorities carried out a third test, this time using the medically more conclusive fluid from the sclera (white of the eye), which confirmed the level of alcohol measured by blood and also showed Paul had been taking antidepressants. <7>.

The samples were also said to contain a level of carbon monoxide sufficiently high as to have prevented him from driving a car (or even from standing). Some maintain this strongly indicates the samples were tampered with. No official DNA test has been carried out on the samples, and Henri Paul's family has not been allowed to commission independent tests on them.

The families of Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul have not accepted the French investigators' findings. In the Scottish courts, Mohamed Al-Fayed applied for an order directing there be a public inquiry and is to appeal against the denial of his application. Fayed, for his part, stands by his belief that the Princess and his son were killed in an elaborate conspiracy launched by the SIS (MI6) on the orders of the "racist" Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. This was apparently based on the grounds that the Duke abhorred the idea of his grandsons potentially having Muslim or half-Arab siblings.


The reason the English papers and US papers are saying that England was waiting for the French to get done with the inquest is Bull... They hoped things would die down and they could neatedly sweep it under the rug... But Dodi did the unespected and went to the Scottish courts and that set up ALARMS
and then the English decided to do the investigation... if they don't do the job then Scotland will take up the banner for its famous Stuart ancestor...
I don't care what anybody thinks the FACTS are NOBODY knows the FACTS not until the investigation is done and even then do we trust the government ...

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Let me explain, being British

Diana was born in England. Her mother was born in England. Her father was born in England. She lived in England. This makes her English. More English than Charles, whose father was born in Greece.

I too am English. This also makes me British. It does not make me Scottish, any more than a Californian is a Floridian. England and Scotland are parts of the United Kingdom.

The Scottish courts rejected al Fayed's request to hold an inquiry into his son's death in Scotland at every level. He did not ask for an inquiry into Diana's death in Scotland, since he knew there were no grounds for it. He claimed that, as next of kin to Dodi, he had a right to have an inquiry held there, where one of his residences was. The Scottish courts said that this was incorrect.

Everything above is simple fact.

Your opinion that the reasons the English coroner gave for delaying the start of the inquest is 'Bull' is subjective, and you haven't backed it up with any evidence. The coroner says the French evidence wouldn't be released until all appeals in the French courts had finished. If you have evidence to show he is lying, then show it.

Mohamed Al Fayed went to the Scottish courts about his son, and they turned him down. They will not "take up the banner for its famous Stuart ancestor" - perhaps you have watched 'Braveheart' too many times. No one has claimed they have any jurisdiction over the death of Diana. They have none.

[lovuian]

51. Maybe at the time the Scots thought their were no grounds

but that doesn't mean that given new evidence the case could be tried in the Scottish courts
Just to let you know since you are British that the Scots separated their parliamnent and court system from England all based on Braveheart... They got tired of English monarchists telling them what to do...


So lets wait to see what Stevens finds sounds like he may have found some DISTURBING information... Some ilegal things perhaps... Its an INVESTIGATION... we had one here on 9/11 where 3000 people were murdered and we had our government tell us all kinds of stuff that was misleading and newspapers which were full of disinformation... we found out that our own government flew out Saudi Bin Laudin relatives during the No fly zone and guess what we just found out we have been wiretapped so PLEASE EXCUSE ME for being suspicious of the government ... They have lots of motive for getting rid of Diana and she left tapes letters and evidence that she was terrified for her life....

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. It's not about evidence, it's about jurisdiction

Diana and Dodi both lived in England. They died in France. Scotland has no jurisdiction.

No, the Scottish court system is not separate 'based on Braveheart' - it's always been separate. When the United Kingdom was formed, Scotland kept its own legal system. http://www.scotlandspast.org/union.cfm

[lovuian]

71. Doesn't Parliament make laws too and the Scottish Parliament

was just established in 1998. Isn't that part of the LEGAL system of Scotland...

From Wikipedia

The original Parliament of Scotland (or 'Estates of Scotland') merged in 1707 with the Parliament of England through the Act of Union to form the Parliament of Great Britain. The current Parliament was established by the Scotland Act 1998. The first meeting of the new Parliament as a devolved legislature was on 12 May 1999.


So the Scottish Parliament up to 1998 was part of the English Parliament but brokeaway by the Scotland Act of 1998...

So there is a NEW PARLIAMENT in town and isn't under the "Prince Charles favorite fan club infact they are calling for the "getting rid of the monarchy"

and believe it or not this NEW SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT was made with the inspiration due to Braveheart... The Countess of Carrick remember was Robert the Bruces title... how fitting Diana carried that title...

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. The Scottish Parliament has responsibility for criminal law in Scotland

but it's not completely independent. It can't enlarge its own powers, and the Scottish law courts have already confirmed that the Dodi case is not under their jurisdiction. As I said, no-one has ever claimed that Diana's death is anything to do with Scotland.

You do the Scots a great disservice by saying that a film made by an Australian-American in Ireland inspired the idea of regaining a Scottish Parliament. The movement for devolution started long before that movie (for instance, the vote on devolution that took place in the 1970s), and the Scottish Constitutional Convention, begun in 1989, was mainly responsible for the form that devolution took.

The Scottish Parliament has not called for getting rid of the monarchy. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but they're giving you a lot of duff stuff. Some members of the Scottish Parliament want a republic, and a couple of the small parties have it as a policy, but you can say the same about Westminster.

[FormerRepublican]

45. Rats. If this were true, I'd be a Scottish citizen too and could emigrate

I'm decended from a bunch of Scottish kings, have a bunch of Hamiltons from Hamilton in the family tree, as well as a boatload of other Scottish folk. Heck, my great grandfather was born in Scotland. With Bush in charge, I wouldn't mind spending a few lovely years in Scotland - which is a beautiful place - without the hassles of trying to convince someone that an American middle aged woman on SSDI should be allowed entry. If only my family hadn't taken that little boat ride on the Mayflower in 1620... Rats.

No go, friend. Citizenship is determined by RECENT ancestry, not ancient history.

[lovuian]

55. Well Scotland has different rules in divorce than England

(The procedures in Scotland for the divorced wives of Scottish peers are different, so Diana could use the Duchess of Rothesay and Countess of Carrick names as if she were a widow rather than a divorcee.)

And the Countess of Carrick ...is connected to Earl of Carrick and thats a generation line that goes all the way to Robert the Bruce

so I ask you How could Scotland deny the deceased Countess of Carrick her due wouldn't William Wallace turn in his grave...

The Woman was Princess of England for goodness sakes does that mean she would be denied through the Scottish courts

or the better title would be
Diana will be Lady Diana, Duchess of Rothesay under Scots law, which treats divorced wives in the same way it treats widows, she would be able to retain the Rothesay "name"

But alas Diana can not be Duchess of Rothesay anymore because Camilla has that title...

I can not believe Scotland would deny its Duchess her rights...

perhaps Titles and citizenship are different there... I stand corrected...

[FormerRepublican]

59. Eh? Titles would not be relevent.

I think jurisdiction was the issue at hand, and England would have it.

[lovuian]

61. Well lets agree to disagree but its good to know in British

law Titles are irrelevant cause here in America if your President you can break any law you want and get away with it...

I just saw the duchess of Cornwall when she crosses over the Scottish line turns into the Duchess of Rothesay...silly titles they are so irrelevant...boy the papers make sure to get it right...

Somehow with enough pressure if Princess Diana doesn't get her due in the british Courts perhaps the Scots will give it to her... Time changes many things... Lets see what the investigation shows...

[Obamarama]

53. Oy vey. FYI, Phillip is a prince, not a king.

[lovuian]

56. We have a President Bush who asks like he's king

and Phillip sure acts like he's king...
I stand corrected on his title...

Like I said Titles are really facades!!!

[1932]

24. They'd all have to abdicate if the investigation revealied Prince Phillip

was involved.

[lovuian]

26. It would be fitting that her death spells death for the Monarchy

If you look in History of England the Royals have been a blood thirsty lot
Richard III killed the children that were the heirs... Its got a track history...

[FormerRepublican]

46. I'm decended from them, and so are a lot of other Americans.

Are you trying to say I'm a closet murderer because my ancestors were?

That's a bit of a stretch....

[lovuian]

57. I didn't say that you did

And I wasn't trying to say that...

[FormerRepublican]

58. Well...

You said: "If you look in History of England the Royals have been a blood thirsty lot
Richard III killed the children that were the heirs... Its got a track history..."

This implies that our common (and revolting) ancestors somehow influence our current behavior, which is what I was objecting to.

[lovuian]

60. You misunderstood my point... It wasn't about ancestry it

was about History thats our ancestors... Its about the History of POWER and how people will murder Lie Cheat and steal to get it... Thats why the Royals have such a track record because they were Rulers of the British Empire...Thats Power... Wealth ... etc... thats my point...

If I made you think that I apologize...

[LisaL]

76. Well, our ancestors do influence our behavior-through our genes.

I have no doubt of it whatsoever.

[earth mom]

30. I read somewhere that Harry wasn't Charles' son...

but instead Dianas' lover James Hewitts' son-they do look a LOT alike. I've since wondered if the royal family was afraid she would spill the beans about it since it would have been quite the scandal and in addition there would be no "spare" to inherit the throne if something happened to William....

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. But since she didn't meet Hewitt until after Harry was born

that theory doesn't hold much water. Harry looks quite like the Spencer family - compare him to his uncle:

[earth mom]

38. My bad...Thanks for letting me know. eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Now I have to possibly correct myself - there's a new claim he did

JAMES Hewitt has claimed for the first time that he was sleeping with Princess Diana by 1982 - just months after her marriage to Prince Charles.

The former Army major made the startling confession while under hypnosis for a new TV documentary.

Hewitt, dubbed a "cad" for previously revealing details of their affair, has always said that the relationship did not start until after 1985.

But, under hypnosis, he told "past-life regressionist" Tony Rae that she first kissed him on the sofa at a friend's house "in 1981 or 1982".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16147029&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=hypno-di-sed-name_page.html

I'm rather doubtful about this - it is, of course, perfectly possible to lie under hypnosis (eg stage hypnosis) - but the claim has now been made.

[FormerRepublican]

47. It would never be confirmed - without proof, it's just allegations.

Not enough reason to commit murder, IMO.

Now a terrorist angle (or fear of one) might have some merit.

[lovuian]

65. ya know all it would take is a DNA sample from harry and Hewit

and paternity can be confirmed...

[FormerRepublican]

66. Yes, but no royal would ever submit to that, especially if scandal ensued.

[lovuian]

72. Didn't Harry join the Army now and he has probably had blood

samples owned by English Army... But I have always believed Harry was Charles...

[Matilda]

50. I think Hewitt's a bit desperate.

He'll do anything to keep his name in the papers, and hope that someone
will pay him money for yet another tell-all story.

I think it was pretty obvious to all that in the first four years or
so, Diana was mad about Charles. It seems to have fallen apart only
after 1985.

[CJCRANE]

33. I don't think it was instigated by the Royal Family

It's more likely that the top US and British spooks could see that if Diana ended up marrying Dodi, a MUSLIM ARAB, then that could make things very difficult for the Royal Family and British political classes (and by extentsion US/British foreign policy).

Diana was already outspoken on certain issues like landmines. Now imagine if she had married a muslim and had muslim kids (while still being mother to the 2nd in line to the throne - Prince William). Do you think Prince William would be so keen to go to Iraq now if he had arab half-brothers and sisters. It would be a completely different Royal Family/Britain if Diana had lived.

[Redstone]

52. Please, PLEASE spare us more of this.

Haven't we suffered enough?

Redstone

[Lori Price CLG]

62. She was killed right after convincing Clinton to sign anti-landmine

legislation.

[LisaL]

63. The fact that investigator thinks it's a complex investigation

hardly means somebody actually ordered her dead.

[lovuian]

64. It means that its a complex investigation that could mean

that somebody killed her or that it was a complex accident...Theres a bunch of questions that need to be answered... We await Stevens results and are amazed it took lets see years before it was conducted...

[ronnykmarshall]

74. I never forget that weekend.

I was at a movie with my ex-boyfriend and I heard someone in the lobby say something about Diana being dead. I didn't think much about it until we got back to his place and turned on the news. I was in shock. It seemed like everyone in the Castro in SF was sad. There was a memorial set up at the corner of 18th and Castro that was massive. Later next week there was a huge candle light march for her. It was so sad. I really loved her. She was one of the first national figures to really speak out about AIDS and for that I'll always be greatful.