Diana's Friends, Lovers and Bodyguards


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
... but if it serves their agenda to discredit her then nothing will stop them.
[my bolding] Not "their" or "them" but Mohammed Al Fayed and his legal team. Yet another example of the grubby manner in which Al Fayed conducts his agenda.
 
I've taken out a couple of posts discussing Charles and Diana's marriage.
As this thread was prompted by the Al Fayed lawyers naming Diana's alleged "other men" at the Inquest, we should confine the discussion to that subject.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator
 
I've taken out a couple of posts discussing Charles and Diana's marriage.
As this thread was prompted by the Al Fayed lawyers naming Diana's alleged "other men" at the Inquest, we should confine the discussion to that subject.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

I don't like the title of this thread at all... It makes Diana into a lind of maneater and while I'm known to have only very little respect for the late princess I still don't believe she was such a callous and promiscuous person. She had a difficult character and was unfortunate in the choice of her male companions but a whore she was not, I believe.
 
my point is that i don't think this information drags her name thru the mud or discredits her character. how could it do all that now if it didn't do it when she was alive. this is old information.
 
I think the given is that it's not allowed to talk about Diana's other partners is an old one and is increasingly frustrating. It's long been a double standard that every detail of Charles's life has been played out in the press whilst Diana was protected - we knew about these men but excuses have always been made. What the latest story does is openly admit that there were lovers who were simply that - lovers. And the fanzines can't handle it. As to whether their names should be included in an inquest, well, yes they should. The claim by Al Fayed is that the Royal Family killed her because they disapproved of her lifestyle and plans to marry his son. Therefore, the court needs to know what her lifestyle was and that includes her relationships. It's a matter of course.
 
That may be what al-Fayed says but I think his real reason is to bring Diana down a notch.

A lot of people were angry that the dirty al-Fayeds defiled their favorite fairytale princess. I think al-Fayed is just going to show that the fairytale princess that he and his son supposedly brought down wasn't as pure as driven snow when they met her and therefore he doesn't look so bad.

I don't think he's making a strong case that the Royals really did away with Diana.
 
He isn't making a strong case at all but the allegation is there and if they're doing this inquest, they may as well do it properly and entertain every nutter's theory.
 
Right. If this were Diana No-Name we were talking about rather than Diana, Princess of Wales, everything would have been much more low-key and the inquest wouldn't have had a jury. It would have all probably been over sooner than 10 years after the death.

All this inquest is doing is causing a needless distraction for Diana's loved ones and making some lawyers a lot of money.
 
I don't like the title of this thread at all... It makes Diana into a lind of maneater and while I'm known to have only very little respect for the late princess I still don't believe she was such a callous and promiscuous person. She had a difficult character and was unfortunate in the choice of her male companions but a whore she was not, I believe.

I'm sorry Jo if you understood this title like an accusation or an insult, I didn't mean it this way. Like Warren said, it was just to illustrate the article and the subject. I don't mind if you want to change it, perhaps you'll have to ask a Moderator. It was not my intention to shock by calling the thread like that, I actually wanted to express the scorful tone which was used to state them. :flowers:
 
Last edited:
I don't like the title of this thread at all... It makes Diana into a lind of maneater and while I'm known to have only very little respect for the late princess I still don't believe she was such a callous and promiscuous person. She had a difficult character and was unfortunate in the choice of her male companions but a whore she was not, I believe.

You read my mind, and took the very words out of my mouth. I cringed when I read the title of this thread!
 
You read my mind, and took the very words out of my mouth. I cringed when I read the title of this thread!

I apologize if my choice of title disturbs so many of you :neutral: but that's what came to my mind while reading the report of the shocking (IMO) statement. Like I said below, we can always change it. :flowers:
 
I apologize if my choice of title disturbs so many of you :neutral: but that's what came to my mind while reading the report of the shocking (IMO) statement. Like I said below, we can always change it. :flowers:

Please don't apologize to me. I am sure you were not being spiteful at all.
 
There is no need to change the title of thread--it conveys the point of what we are discussing here very accurately--whether or not the inclusion of Diana's lovers has relevence in this context. I have to agree with BeatrixFan because the claim is that due to Diana's lifestyle the Royal Family had her murdered; her relationships with men were part of her lifestyle so there is relevance in bringing it up.
That being said, she was unhappy in her marriage, she and her husband couldn't work it out, both had extramarital relationships, they divorced, and then had relationships after that. We can't really discount or discredit this information because it is true. I think that what so many people are upset about is that for long everyone has made Prince Charles and Camilla out to be the ones who were sneaky and furtive in their relationship, and now it has come out that Diana was behaving similarily and everyone's view of her being the victim is being shown to be not quite true.
All that being said, it must be hard on the boys to hear these things about their mother, who regardless of her personal life, was an exemplary mother.
 
I apologize for my previous post and having to refer to Charles I did not mean it in any negative way but my point that I was trying to make was as many have said she wasn't perfect and I agree with many here that naming all these men in my opinion has nothing to do with the inquest.
 
I"m sure I'm going to get flogged for this, but why is this inquest still going on? Does anyone out here really, truly, honestly believe that the Royal Family had the mother, beloved by all, of a future Monarch killed? It boggles my mind that everything has come this far.
 
It's something I've said for yonks Janet. And as if this will stop conspiracy theories. Those who say she was killed will just say the jury were bribed or the court was ordered to give an accidental death verdict by the establishment.
 
Al Fayed refuses to put some blame on the accident on himself. He' made outrageous claims against the royal family including Prince Philip, I don't think he's going to stop.
 
I'm sorry Jo if you understood this title like an accusation or an insult, I didn't mean it this way. Like Warren said, it was just to illustrate the article and the subject. I don't mind if you want to change it, perhaps you'll have to ask a Moderator. It was not my intention to shock by calling the thread like that, I actually wanted to express the scorful tone which was used to state them. :flowers:

TheTruth, really, it was not meant as an accusation.:flowers: But just as a statement of emotion and nothing personal at all. :flowers::wub:

I know you're much more positively inclined towards the late princess than I am - so how could I have blieved for a moment that you meant it the way I described? :flowers:

But it's true that I feel that way when it is presented at the Inquest as it is, as if the late princess was a Royal whore whose history now can be submitteld to scaveninging...

I have the feeling we're in accord when it comes to this so I send greetings to France! :flowers:
 
LOL :D, and I send mines to Germany :flowers:. I know you didn't mean anything toward my view of the princess but it bothered me that people could think it was my opinion of Diana through the title I chose.:flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Al Fayed refuses to put some blame on the accident on himself. He' made outrageous claims against the royal family including Prince Philip, I don't think he's going to stop.

Well, surely once the verdict is in, any claims against the RF amount to libel?
 
Al Fayed refuses to put some blame on the accident on himself. He' made outrageous claims against the royal family including Prince Philip, I don't think he's going to stop.
Exactly and the thing that drives me nuts is that he changes the story 100 times so it's even more obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyways back to the topic.
 
That may be what al-Fayed says but I think his real reason is to bring Diana down a notch.

A lot of people were angry that the dirty al-Fayeds defiled their favorite fairytale princess. I think al-Fayed is just going to show that the fairytale princess that he and his son supposedly brought down wasn't as pure as driven snow when they met her and therefore he doesn't look so bad.

I don't think he's making a strong case that the Royals really did away with Diana.

but that doesn't make any sense. MAF's dream was to get his ticket to the upper echelons of society, hopefully thru the Queen. when that didn't work the next best thing was to go thru the mother of the future king...why would he want to bring her down a notch. diana was at the top of heap, bringing her down a notch would make her look less important and that would go against everything he wanted. no, mentioning her lovers doesn't bring her down a notch, i agree with the earlier post that it only serves to say that were other lovers.
 
but that doesn't make any sense.
That's exactly the point. The fact that Diana may have had other lovers is hardly new, so the question that has to be asked is why did the Al Fayed legal team raise this as an issue at the Inquest? Since most of the named men had involvement with Diana prior to the divorce, it seems odd to be using former lovers as a reason for the Royal Family wishing to kill her after the marriage had legally ended. As with so much from the Al Fayed side, there appears to be little logic involved.
 
That's exactly the point. The fact that Diana may have had other lovers is hardly new, so the question that has to be asked is why did the Al Fayed legal team raise this as an issue at the Inquest? Since most of the named men had involvement with Diana prior to the divorce, it seems odd to be using former lovers as a reason for the Royal Family wishing to kill her after the marriage had legally ended. As with so much from the Al Fayed side, there appears to be little logic involved.

It's like saying the Spencer would have killed Prince Charles because he had an affair with Camilla. It's crazy. And why killing her after all the bad was done ? It wouldn't have erased the affairs she had with her lovers nor the press scandals.
 
That's exactly the point. The fact that Diana may have had other lovers is hardly new, so the question that has to be asked is why did the Al Fayed legal team raise this as an issue at the Inquest? Since most of the named men had involvement with Diana prior to the divorce, it seems odd to be using former lovers as a reason for the Royal Family wishing to kill her after the marriage had legally ended. As with so much from the Al Fayed side, there appears to be little logic involved.

i'd already pointed out that these names had been public knowledge for years. but saying that they were trying to bring her down a notch doesn't make any sense. yes the question is why would they bring them up again? we'll have to wait and see where that line of questioning goes.
 
i'd already pointed out that these names had been public knowledge for years. but saying that they were trying to bring her down a notch doesn't make any sense. yes the question is why would they bring them up again? we'll have to wait and see where that line of questioning goes.

Now after the letters from Princess Diana and Dodi have come out it makes no sense to bring up all those other men. I don't know what al Fayed's lawyer were trying to accomplish, but to me it her hurt her family and fans. I just don't understand why they did it.:flowers:
 
Interesting article Casiraghi trio. Couple of things that strike me about it:
Diana's insecurities (combined with plain arrogance/selfishness, the result of always being treated 'royally'??) which manifested itself in her constant need for affirmation and attention. And that it was this combo that Khan eventually tired of. Can't say I blame him.

The fact she'd insist on speaking to him when he's busy fixing a patient's heart...can't say I'm surprised as it somehow squares with the very selfish seeming, self-occupied woman who talked to that rat of a Bashir in that infamous interview in 1995. In which she said her sons were the most important thing to her...the irony being the harm that was undoubtedly done to these same sons by giving such a revealing interview full of mud slinging to said sons' father, but anyhow.
That interview was when my personal 'love' affair with Diana died. She seemed like an insecure hollywood-star, who can't stand having been told to vacate the stage.

What I'm saying is...makes me realize Charles had a point to run for the hills being married to someone like that!

The other thing though that struck me in that article is that it claims that by the time Diana died, Khan no longer loved her. How would they know that? Khan being so discrete, he was hardly the type to vent these kinds of feelings.

I also don't like how he reportedly told his family he couldn't fathom marriage with her. So mean, coming from someone from his culture where courtship would lead to commitment, i.e. marriage. So if marriage was out of the question, what on the planet was he doing hanging out with her? Not fair to her, it seems to me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom