Apparently the rumours about the marriage as were those about her being pregnant were completely untrue and peddled by his father for his own reasons. She was in a relationship with someone for 2 years of a different religion and there had been discussion about marriage and the RF apparently didnât have a problem with it. She did an interview about the failure of her marriage. Is that a reason to kill someone? Charles had already said he wanted to be a tampon so he could be closer to Camilla. Surely that was more embarrassing for the RF.
OK conspiracy thread then
Not doing that either. I reject the introduction of the term in the first place.
1 Like
âThe rumours about marriage and being pregnant were completely untrue and were peddled by his fatherâ. You know this how?
1 Like
Oh yes, thatâs all there was to it alright. Iâm sure the Firm wonât have looked askance on that interview at all. 
Letâs remember what this whole fiasco is all about. Itâs about a member of the Royal family, married in, breaking ranks and being critical in a very high profile interview. She happens to be the daughter-in-law of someone who did pretty much the same and according to the inquest, was unlawfully killed.
I think itâs relevant. I donât think historians of the future are going to have any issue calling it out as fucking dodgy. I understand why people do today.
1 Like
So that we are clear, do you believe that she was murdered?
Doesnât matter what I believe. An inquest ruled that she was unlawfully killed, which is as close you can get to murder without blaming specific individuals.
There is plenty of information out there about there debunking the various conspiracy theories.
Killed by a drunk driver driving above the speed limit would qualify as being killed unlawfully wouldnât it? If she was murdered, where is the evidence of murder?
Eh?
âUnlawful killing is the closest you can get to murder without blaming specific individualsâ.
Doesnât really correlate with the drunk driver thing. The Diana inquest is what I am talking about. What are you talking about?
1 Like
Unlawful killing includes death by dangerous driving, which would seem highly appropriate in the circumstances, but giving that we upsetting our friend in Poland I shall bail at this point.
You donât have to bail. You just have to be okay with other people having very different opinions from you without trying to derail them.
Iâve deliberately been very specific on what I think made it dubious. Itâs something on the public record, something that straings credibility and is worthy of discussion in this context.
You went Conspiracy Nut on reply #1 and if you look back on your input since then, youâre the only person propagating any of them, like the rodeo gunslinger throwing his own cans into the air to shoot them down.
If youâre at the stage where youâre asking to people to affirm their beliefs, itâs not good.
Thereâs always a âneighbourâ, or a âcolleagueâ, or âacquaintanceâ with you. Makes what you post seem very disingenuous.
Diana didnât wear her seat belt because she never used to - check old photos if you want. This sounds like good research. To me, the fact that it hasnât been investigated further, and the target was killed, makes it seem like a VERY professional job.
If they thought Dianaâs injuries werenât that bad, then she would have been taken to hospital straight away. Itâs only if theyâre trying to stabilise a patient at the scene before getting to hospital that it takes a long time.
Diana made the Royal Family look like mugs with various affairs, and especially with the Queenâs favourite son Charles, with one of her Princeâs potentially Jimmy Hewittâs son.
There was definitely motive, there was massive inconsistencies, coincidences and bizarre situations with what happened, and there was death.
Theres every chance it could have been a hit.
4 Likes
Phew.
Yes, she was.
1 Like
I thought we were supposed to get back on topic but as you have brought up the subjects, yes I have a neighbour who was a colonel in the military intelligence. I mentioned his comments because it was relevant. I know other people surprisingly and on occasion, if they have said anything pertinent to a conversation we are having I mention it. If you chose not to believe me that is down to you.
As for her not wearing a seat belt, I didnât say that she always did. I said that if she had worn one on this occasion it probablyy would(according to official reports) have saved her life.
There is a timeline online somewhere which shows exactly what was done medically and why and debunk the conspiracy theories. You might recall that it also took a while to cut her out of the car.
Regarding the parenthood of Harry, if you look at any official account Diana hadnât met James Hewitt until well after Harryâs birth.
If people want to believe that she was professionally killed that is down to them. Again I would say what has she done that warranted being killed and if that was the case, why would a professional killing unit try and kill her in such a way that was not guaranteed to cause her death. Again, she would probably have lived if she had worn a seat belt. Seriously, why would they Royal family sanction the killing of the mother of a future King of England just because her marriage failed and she talked about it? Plenty of people have bad mouthed the RF or caused them embarrassment and guess what, they are still alive.
Sorry Phil. I appreciate your efforts to move the thread back to where it was meant to be.
1 Like
Seriously Pap? Full conspiracy nut? I mentioned the conspiracy theory that is hardly going full nut. Barry sent me a load of PMs on the Ugly last week which I discounted but I can see what he means now.
Do you think her death was caused by the entire âcircusâ that her life had become?
Diana was anther one that used, and rebuffed, the press as suited her.
1 Like
The Beef Thread (in honour of Barry)