The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 01-10-2004, 04:07 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East of the sun and west of the moon, United States
Posts: 6,422
AP

LONDON - British police have doubts about the authenticity of the blood sample that led French investigators to conclude drunk driving caused the car crash that killed Princess Diana, a newspaper reported Saturday.

The Times of London reported that senior officers were concerned that no DNA test was conducted to prove the blood sample belonged to Henri Paul, chauffeur of the car that crashed in a Paris underpass on Aug. 31, 1997.

Princess Diana, her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and Paul were all killed in the crash, which a French court ruled in 2002 was an accident caused by Paul's speeding and being under the influence of alcohol.

A police spokesman said Saturday the force had no comment on the Times report.

French police inspector Jean-Claude Mules, who played a central role in the investigation, told The Times there was no mistake about the blood sample. "We are very serious people and no errors are allowed," he was quoted as saying.

Many people continue to believe that Diana was the victim of a conspiracy, however, variously pointing to the royal family and intelligence agencies.

British coroner Michael Burgess, who opened an inquest into the deaths of the princess and Fayed this week, has asked London's Metropolitan Police to investigate whether there is any evidence the deaths were not the result of a "straightforward road traffic accident."

The Times said there were "high-level concerns" that Paul's blood could have been mixed up with another sample in a laboratory or the mortuary where his body was taken.

It said the sample tested contained extremely high levels of carbon monoxide that could have rendered Paul incapable of driving.

Fayed's father, Mohammed Al Fayed, and Paul's parents have repeatedly said they are not convinced the blood sample tested was Paul's and have drawn attention to the high carbon monoxide level.

A French court-designated expert said in 1999 that the carbon monoxide level was due to Paul inhaling gas from the car's air bags. "
__________________

__________________
WYAO
  #22  
Old 01-10-2004, 04:27 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 386
I also feel for William and Harry. The thing that angers me is that the peope that control the tabloids have to know what this is going to do to these two boys and how it will make them feel, what they are suppossed to be happy. The editor or owner of the Daily Mail said the only reason he made the name public was because it was going to be sensational, he doesn't even believe it!!! Its' disgusting.
__________________

__________________
  #23  
Old 01-10-2004, 04:46 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East of the sun and west of the moon, United States
Posts: 6,422
"The editor or owner of the Daily Mail said the only reason he made the name public was because it was going to be sensational, he doesn't even believe it!!!"

This is disgusting.
__________________
WYAO
  #24  
Old 01-10-2004, 08:16 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 281
I don't blame the Daily Mail though.

Paul Burrell is being a hypocrite - he gave (sold) the Daily Mail the letter, and now that they've published the name he says he'll be seeing his lawyer??

What did he expect?
__________________
  #25  
Old 01-10-2004, 08:23 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 281
And, just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

From The Sun..

Burrell 'to tell all on stage'
By PAUL THOMPSON

BIG-mouth butler Paul Burrell wants to spill yet more Royal secrets — on the STAGE.

Several theatres in London’s West End have been approached about staging a one-man show featuring Princess Diana’s former flunkey.

It would be called An Evening with Paul Burrell and he would talk about his Royal service.

Pals say Burrell, 42, now on a book tour, has grown “addicted” to fame and has told his agents to get new projects.

The Ambassadors Theatre Group in London confirmed an approach.

Meanwhile Health Secretary John Reid, visiting a planned mental health project in Sunderland with the Prince of Wales, said the public should be supporting Charles and “getting off his back”.
__________________
  #26  
Old 01-10-2004, 08:30 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 386
I don't know what Paul Burrell was thinking. He sold the Daily Mail the letter and expected them not to reveal the name, he sold it to a tabloid for goodness sake!!!
__________________
  #27  
Old 01-15-2004, 03:27 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East of the sun and west of the moon, United States
Posts: 6,422
Odd.

"An account by a witness to the Paris car crash which killed Diana,
Princess of Wales, has added weight to the theory that it was a
tragic accident.

The testimony, published for the first time, reportedly comes from
the driver of a grey Citroen BX which was in front of the Mercedes
when it crashed in the Pont D'Alma tunnel on August 31 1997.

Mohamed Medjahdi's account would be handed over by French police to
British investigators looking again at the events which led to the
deaths of the Princess, her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and driver Henri
Paul, the Daily Mail said.

The Algerian-born 29-year-old, whose girlfriend was also in the
car,told the newspaper the car had been "slewing out of control",
hurtling towards him.

He accelerated away just before there was an explosion and the
limousine crashed into a concrete pillar and the tunnel wall, he
said.

He told the Mail: "It was a dreadful sound, like a bomb exploding,
magnified and echoing around the underpass. Even today, six years
later, I can't get the sight and sound out of my head. I can still
hear the screeching of those brakes."

He insisted there were no other vehicles or photographers in sight
when the crash happened.

He added: "I am absolutely convinced, clear and certain, that this
was a tragedy - but it was an accident."

The French inquiry concluded that Mr Paul, high on a cocktail of
drink and drugs, lost control of the Mercedes car while speeding in
the Pont D'Alma tunnel.

Inquests into the deaths of Diana and Dodi were opened and
adjourned earlier this month by royal coroner Michael Burgess. He has asked
Metropolitan Police to investigate speculation that the deaths were
not the result of a "straightforward, road traffic accident"
__________________
WYAO
  #28  
Old 01-16-2004, 05:20 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Paul Burrell is really asking a lot if he expects people to believe that he wrote his book simply as a tribute to Diana and to set the record straight after attacks by others, and then wrote all sorts of personal things about her boyfriends and printed extracts of a letter that should have been handed over to the French authorities years ago if it really contained anything relevant to the accident. He's just money spinning, and I'm surprised Prince William even entertained the thought of meeting with him since that would have been yet more fodder for the money mill.

When his book came out, I asked the people in our local bookstore if it was selling well, and they said it really wasn't. I was very pleased to hear that.
__________________
  #29  
Old 01-17-2004, 02:23 PM
Gabriella's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,746
I found an articles while looking through the Time Magazine website. It's pretty long:

Haunting Diana

A British coroner asks police to investigate the death of the Princess of Wales, reviving all those wild conspiracy theories. Will they ever let her rest in peace? Never, says royals reporter STEPHEN BATES, even as he debunks the myths
For a man attending the inquests into the death of his beloved son and his son's girlfriend, Mohammed al Fayed was anything but mournful. Accompanied by a phalanx of lawyers and p.r. flacks, the Egyptian-born billionaire emerged last Tuesday morning from an inquest session in London with an unmistakable air of triumph. And no wonder: the coroner, Michael Burgess, had just announced that he had asked Scotland Yard to help investigate the August 1997 deaths of Dodi Fayed and Diana, Princess of Wales. After identical proceedings in Reigate, 30 km south of London, al Fayed Senior — who owns the iconic London store Harrods and Fulham Football Club but has long felt shut out by the British establishment — gave the media pack his personal, oft-repeated verdict. "I suspect not only Prince Charles but Prince Philip, who is a racist," he announced. "It is absolutely black-and-white, horrendous murder." With that, the tycoon eased into a dark red Mercedes, looking altogether self-satisfied.

Nearly six-and-a-half years after that fatal car crash in a Paris tunnel, al Fayed finally had an entire nation (and a sizable chunk of the world) paying attention to his claim that Diana and Dodi had been murdered by British agents. Until now, it was mostly Diana worshipers and some paranoid Arab commentators who bought the conspiracy story; after all, al Fayed had provided not a jot of proof for his claim. But by calling in the police, Burgess had — wittingly or not — fired the imaginations of people around the world who suspect royal skulduggery. ("They have to investigate," says Sayed Ragab, a Cairo bookstore worker, "because there was surely foul play.") And if more fuel were needed, the U.K.'s Daily Mirror had supplied it that very morning: the tabloid revealed that in a letter written to her butler, Paul Burrell, 10 months before her death, Diana expressed the fear that she might be murdered in a car crash arranged by her ex-husband Charles, heir to the British throne.

And al Fayed's claim got another boost at week's end: the London Times reported that French investigators into the crash failed to conduct dna tests to confirm that a crucial blood sample, showing Diana's driver Henri Paul was drunk at the time of the crash, did indeed belong to Paul. The billionaire would no doubt take special pleasure in other reports that Charles and British intelligence agencies will face police questioning.

Coroners are sober folks, representatives of one of the oldest and most independent arms of the arcane English judicial system. They usually work in dusty rooms at the back of courthouses, establishing the cause of unexpected deaths. Few ever find themselves in the glare of the world's TV cameras. But Burgess might as well get used to it. A gray-haired, bespectacled lawyer, he is a pivotal figure in the latest chapter of the Diana saga. Not only is he Britain's royal coroner, in which capacity he is looking into Diana's death, but he is also coroner for the county of Surrey, where Dodi is buried, and is thus responsible for finding out his cause of death as well. (The conspiracy theorists may decide that this can't be mere coincidence.) The two inquests were opened separately Tuesday, but may eventually be held jointly since the two people died in the same crash.

As the reporters track Burgess's progress, they will inevitably find themselves jostling for space with a hardy band of Diana devotees — webmasters and hobbyists who incubate and nurture all manner of stories about the "truth" behind her death. Burgess must know that no matter what he finally concludes, they will never believe anything but that she was murdered. After all, they remain unmoved by the French investigation, carried out over two years by 30 detectives, who interviewed 300 witnesses to produce a 6,000-page report. The verdict: it was an accident. Diana and Dodi were being driven too fast, into a tunnel with a curve and a difficult road camber, by a chauffeur, Paul, who was not used to driving the powerful Mercedes S-280 and who was incapacitated by alcohol and prescription drugs. Paul, the investigators concluded, lost control of the vehicle and three of the four people in the car died. The survivor, bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, was the only one who had bothered to buckle up his seatbelt.

The sudden or violent death of any public icon is invariably attended by fanciful, often crackpot conjecture. That Diana, in death, should go the way of John F. Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe and Martin Luther King Jr. was presaged by the worldwide spasm of grief in the week following the crash. The speculation began almost immediately: a website called the First Diana Conspiracy Site was up and running within 13 minutes of news of her death. Fingers were pointed at the Freemasons, the British government, the Vatican, the I.R.A., even the global-arms industry. One instant theory was that a paparazzo who had been chasing the Mercedes was actually in the employ of Britain's MI6, and had shot out the tires. Another suggested the lovers were alive and had been spirited away in a van.

The rumors took hold quickest in the Arab world. Within hours of the crash, Egyptian writer Mohammad Hassanein Haykal wrote for the mena news agency:
They have to investigate, because there was surely foul play

— SAYED RAGAB, Cairo bookstore worker



"A conspiracy-type question arises here was something arranged to kill the two most famous lovers of the closing years of the 20th century?" A day or two later, Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi weighed in during an official broadcast: "British and French secret services mounted and executed the assassination of the Princess of Wales and the Arab citizen who were planning to get married." Gaddafi didn't explain how he had come by this information, but a poll a couple of days later showed that 47% of Palestinians believed the crash had been arranged. Soon paperbacks with titles like Did Diana Die a Muslim? were on sale in Cairo. Another — Who Killed Diana? Order From the Palace — said she was killed because she "threatened to bring down the Crown."

Mohammed al Fayed waited several months before making his allegation to the Daily Mirror on Feb. 12, 1998. He was, he said, "99.9% certain it was no accident. That car did not accidentally crash. There was a conspiracy." That August he offered a reward of up to $20 million to anyone who could prove it. A year after the crash, a poll found that nearly a quarter of Britons believed there had been a conspiracy — a figure that has held to this day (a recent Sunday Express poll found 27% believed it, while a highly unscientific call-in poll netted a whopping 85%).
Al Fayed has never stopped believing. The Harrods boss has a thirst for vengeance against an establishment that has denied him British citizenship and refused to take him to its bosom. He seems convinced that the pinnacle of that establishment — the royal family — had his son killed because he was about to seize Diana, its crown jewel. So the billionaire has funded endless litigation and appeals, so helping delay the inquest for half a decade. Now he has hired one of the most expensive, able and left-wing lawyers in the country to make his case. Michael Mansfield specializes in defending victims of miscarriages of justice — such as the Birmingham Six, Irishmen wrongly convicted of being I.R.A. bombers. It is fair to assume that he will subsidize his pro bono work through his work for al Fayed. He certainly has a talent for getting up the nose of British officialdom.

Ranged against al-Fayed's team is ... nobody. Since this is not a trial, there are no plaintiffs or defendants. But as last Tuesday's events showed, there is an accused: Charles. That the Prince cannot defend himself against the charges in a courtroom — unless he sues for libel, which he has never done — must be especially galling for him. Reviled in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death, Charles was subsequently able to rehabilitate his image, proving a loving and attentive father to his sons, Princes William and Harry, and even winning popular approval for his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles. But he has suffered a bad-press relapse in recent months. Amid allegations of lurid goings-on among the servants, he has had to deny unsubstantiated and far-fetched tales about his own sexual behavior, all contributing to an unsavory impression of life at his court. Now the Windsors can only watch and wince as the investigators begin their work and the conspiracy buffs clog the airwaves. Here are some of the wildest hypotheses:

Charles ordered it. Like al Fayed, many theorists believe British agents acted on the Prince's orders to kill the couple. Why would Charles want her bumped off? To prevent her marrying Dodi. Never mind that Diana hardly knew Dodi, having met him only six weeks before, or that she had, according to her close friends, no intention of marrying him.

Diana was pregnant. The story goes that she was carrying a child by Dodi — or possibly by her previous lover, the Pakistani-born surgeon Hasnat Khan. The Princess was said to be keen to have a "beautiful brown baby." Al Fayed and many in the Arab world have assumed that the Windsors could not bear the idea of an Islamic strain in the royal bloodline. ("Can you imagine his son Prince William, the would-be King of England, having a half-brother who is Muslim?" asks Manila cab driver Abdil Causal.) Never mind that she was no longer a member of the royal family following her divorce from Charles. The conspiracists claim that the formaldehyde injected by the French to preserve her body might have disguised any chemical evidence of her pregnancy. Last week the former royal coroner, John Burton, one of only two people present at Diana's postmortem examination, tried to quash the rumor once and for all. "She wasn't pregnant," he told a British paper. "I have seen into her womb." But he conceded that "when it's all over, 95% of the people will still disregard the facts and want to go back to their conspiracies."

The white Fiat did it. Conspiracists are divided over the assassins' modus operandi. Perhaps Henri Paul was blinded by flashlights pointed at his eyes by agents standing on the sidewalk — the Diana equivalent of the grassy knoll. A more popular theory is that the driver of a mysterious small white car veered into the Mercedes and deliberately caused it to crash. The French investigation into small scratches of white paint found on the side of the wreckage of the Mercedes established that they could only have come from a Fiat Uno car made between 1983 and 1987. Although one was spotted by a couple driving through the tunnel just before the accident, the car itself and its owner were never found. The police decided that, although the Mercedes might have touched a Fiat in a glancing blow, that was not what caused it to crash. In any event, how many secret services would use a 10-year-old jalopy as the murder weapon? Also, the couple had decided on their route only a few minutes before setting off from the Ritz Hotel. There was no way for anyone else to anticipate what direction they were taking, no time to finalize or carry out a plot.
The paparazzi did it. Since the Mercedes was being followed by several photographers on motor scooters, some have surmised that one or more tried to get too close to Diana's car — and sent it careening out of control. The trouble is, Henri Paul had left the pursuing photographers far behind by driving at 160 km/h. The French investigators castigated the paparazzi, even arrested some for a time, but ultimately decided they did not cause the crash.

Most objective analysts finger Paul for the crash, pointing out that he was in no condition to drive when Fayed Senior ordered him to do so. But the conspiracists will pounce on last week's report about the lack of DNA tests. Already, there have been allegations that the French postmortem tests showed Paul's blood had a very high level of carbon monoxide. But this appears to have been achieved by conspiracists adding the results of two different samples of his blood — one from his heart, the other from his groin — instead of taking an average between the two readings. Closer examination of the blood test shows that taking account of the fact that he had been smoking all evening, the carbon monoxide level was not abnormally high.

In short, none of the theories stacks up. Why, then, do they survive — and keep on getting new twists? One reason is that the original conspiracy theorist was Diana herself. She claimed someone had tried to take a "potshot" at her in London's Hyde Park, and darkly warned during the time of her divorce that she would one day be killed on Charles' orders in a helicopter crash. And last year, her former butler Burrell revealed the contents of her letter speculating that Charles would have her killed in a car accident. The Prince's name was blacked out, apparently for legal reasons, in Burrell's book, but the Daily Mirror revealed it last week. Diana's distraught letter didn't say why Charles would want to kill the mother of his two young sons — or think he could get away with it.

It's not hard to convince some of Charles' subjects that he was dastardly in his treatment of Diana. As the British know from long experience, the Windsor family is as secretive as it is dysfunctional. So many stories about them — brazen adultery, stingy treatment of servants — have proved to be true. In 1936, the then placid London papers were the last to report that King Edward VIII was planning to abdicate for his American mistress Wallis Simpson. They have never been so tardy or respectful since, ignoring no sliver of a rumor, however sleazy and unlikely, lest it be true. They supply their readers with a steady diet of soap-opera tales, the information coming mainly from royal staff eager to cash in. And by golly it's interesting stuff: Charles throws plates when angry, the Queen cares more for her pet corgis than people.

Diana may not have understood how to cope with the royal family, but she knew her soap operas and she knew her media. She would have enjoyed the fact that she can still give her former husband hell, and that she remains a global icon, the beautiful princess who triumphed over the ghastly family and eventually slipped the surly bonds of earth.

So now the royals have yet another problem. Michael Burgess's decision to hand the conspiracy theories over to the police means that the straightforward explanation for the accident can never win. Even if the theories are fully discounted and dispatched, that will only be seen as incontrovertible proof of a cover-up.
__________________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars. ~ Les Brown
  #30  
Old 01-17-2004, 02:26 PM
Gabriella's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,746
Here is another from time.com:

What Michael Burgess Is Looking For
Why did Britain take more than six years to start the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed? The inquests had to wait until the completion of lengthy French police investigations and judicial proceedings, which were delayed, among other things, by the many appeals filed by Dodi's father, Mohammed al Fayed.

Why are there separate inquests for Diana and Dodi? Under English law, inquests into unexpected deaths are conducted by a coroner appointed by the county in which the victim dies or is buried. For deaths within the extended Windsor family, inquests are conducted by the royal coroner. Michael Burgess, the coroner for Surrey, where Dodi is buried, just happens also to be coroner of the Queen's Household, and is therefore responsible for the Diana inquest. He may yet merge the two.

What is Burgess looking for? The inquests are not public inquiries, but aim to establish how, when and where a death occurred. An inquest does not apportion guilt, but evidence thrown up by an inquest can lead to actions in civil or criminal courts.

But why did Burgess call in the police? He said he was aware that there was speculation about the cause of the deaths, and felt that police findings would help him decide on whether the inquest should investigate these rumors.

But wouldn't such an investigation be beyond the scope of an inquest? No, the coroner must ensure the causes and circumstances of these deaths are thoroughly investigated.

What is Burgess's timetable? He has adjourned for 12 to 15 months, to examine the results of the French proceedings. He will then hear witnesses and could record the verdict himself, if he decides against summoning juries.
__________________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars. ~ Les Brown
  #31  
Old 01-17-2004, 04:37 PM
norwegianne's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rogaland, Norway
Posts: 5,993
One thing is this thing (Burrell, as I can't quite bring myself to call him a person) who is offering a dead woman's secrets.

Another is those people who're willing to pay for the dead woman's secrets. I find those just as distasteful.
__________________
  #32  
Old 01-19-2004, 01:15 PM
royal_sophietje's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , Belgium
Posts: 531
Quote:
Originally posted by Dennism@Jan 15th, 2004 - 8:27 pm
Odd.

"An account by a witness to the Paris car crash which killed Diana,
Princess of Wales, has added weight to the theory that it was a
tragic accident.

The testimony, published for the first time, reportedly comes from
the driver of a grey Citroen BX which was in front of the Mercedes
when it crashed in the Pont D'Alma tunnel on August 31 1997.

Mohamed Medjahdi's account would be handed over by French police to
British investigators looking again at the events which led to the
deaths of the Princess, her boyfriend Dodi Fayed and driver Henri
Paul, the Daily Mail said.

The Algerian-born 29-year-old, whose girlfriend was also in the
car,told the newspaper the car had been "slewing out of control",
hurtling towards him.

He accelerated away just before there was an explosion and the
limousine crashed into a concrete pillar and the tunnel wall, he
said.

He told the Mail: "It was a dreadful sound, like a bomb exploding,
magnified and echoing around the underpass. Even today, six years
later, I can't get the sight and sound out of my head. I can still
hear the screeching of those brakes."

He insisted there were no other vehicles or photographers in sight
when the crash happened.

He added: "I am absolutely convinced, clear and certain, that this
was a tragedy - but it was an accident."

The French inquiry concluded that Mr Paul, high on a cocktail of
drink and drugs, lost control of the Mercedes car while speeding in
the Pont D'Alma tunnel.

Inquests into the deaths of Diana and Dodi were opened and
adjourned earlier this month by royal coroner Michael Burgess. He has asked
Metropolitan Police to investigate speculation that the deaths were
not the result of a "straightforward, road traffic accident"
The Diana circle-US has evidence that this guy is lying.

Fortunately his ex-wife (they divorced three years ago) told yesterday that her former husband is lying, as she had seen a white Fiat with strange behaviour.

She was afraid to tell her story because she thought to be killed then.

It's real an assasination. I've watched a documentary fom Discovery Channel. The reporters got acces to the police files from the accident, and they had concluded many things. Eric Petel, first witness of the accident and the guy who called the ambulance and the first oen who reported the accident to the police. They ignored them completly there and even a important, well known, French official came to Petel to tell him that 'he had to forget what he saw, and that he haven't saw anything'.

And a lot of more strange things they discovered....
__________________
  #33  
Old 01-19-2004, 02:41 PM
Britters's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DC, United States
Posts: 878
Paul Burrell is an absolute pig. As I have said before, accident's happen. It's sad that those who truly loved Diana have to continue being put through all this crud. I'm so happy to hear that Paul Burrells book wasn't selling all that well in many stores. Rght after the book came out Sharon Osbourne went on the air (on her US talk show) and scolded him. Saying it was absolute rubbish, and she would never ever entertain even the thought of his book and no one else should either. She's quite the supporter of the Royal family as well.
It disgusts me to think that people think that because the person passes on it gives them the right to breach a signed contract and spill their guts about those who gelt they could trust them.

IN comment to someone elses post (I don't remember who's I'm sorry), I think it's unfair for William and Harry to have to feel as though every moment of their life is one day going to be public, but you are absolutely correct. William and HArry are going to have to be extremely careful about what they say and do towards others in the upcoming years, as people are proving more and more that they can not be trusted if a large sum of money is being offered.

Greed is truly the world evil. Money is not everything. It can not buy happiness, and it will certainly never buy love and admiration. Everything Burrell is doing is for money and for celebrity. The sad thing is, he was one of the few Royal staff members the public liked for his choice to not share informatio, now he has gone and ruined that for a little money.
__________________
Have you ever wished on a star? It's a magic everyone needs to experience!
  #34  
Old 01-29-2004, 11:07 PM
Gabriella's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,746
Didn't really know where else to post this, but....

For any of you with access, tonight on PrimeTime Live on the American news channel ABC, they are doing a story on the last night of Princess Diana's life. They had a correspondant who did some research as to the events leading up to the crash. Sounds interesting. PrimeTime is on now, 10 pm EST.
__________________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars. ~ Les Brown
  #35  
Old 01-29-2004, 11:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 3,220
Thanks for the heads up on this, Gabriella. I'm watching it right now ...

It is a joint investigation with journalist Elizabeth Vargas and crime writer Patricia Corwall, who has been granted access to the morgue and the woman who investigated the case, including the process she went about to conclude that driver Henri Paul was drunk at the time, thereby partially causing the accident.
__________________
  #36  
Old 01-30-2004, 12:01 AM
Gabriella's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,746
I thought that it was very interesting. Patricia Cornwall really seems to know her stuff. Once thing that my mind had never made the correlation between was that the name of Diana's bodyguard is Trevor Rhys-Jones. He shares the same last name as The Countess of Wessex. What a weird coincedence.
__________________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars. ~ Les Brown
  #37  
Old 01-30-2004, 12:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,045
Is it such a coincidence or is it just a really common name, like "Smith" here in the US?
__________________
  #38  
Old 01-30-2004, 12:43 PM
Gabriella's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,746
If it was just Jones, sure, but I thought is sure was strange considering that it is a hyphenated name. I just thought it was a wierd coincidence, not saying there is anything to it.
__________________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars. ~ Les Brown
  #39  
Old 01-30-2004, 01:37 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East of the sun and west of the moon, United States
Posts: 6,422
Rhys-Jones. Rhys is relatively popular Welsh name too. That is ironic as well.
__________________
WYAO
  #40  
Old 01-31-2004, 04:51 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
I think his name's spelled Rees-Jones. This sort of hyphenating of last names isn't that uncommon in Wales because there are a few names that crop up over and over so it's one way of distinguishing which branch of a family is which. I think I read in his book that the family name had been Jones and the Rees- was added later. I vaguely remember reading an interview with the Countess's father where it said that her parents were originally Rhys Jones and her father added the hyphen because it looked more upper class.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
diana princess of wales, diana's death and funeral, inquest, princess diana


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did the Queen act appropriately in the days following Diana's death? Duchess Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 528 09-09-2011 10:49 AM
The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008 sirhon11234 Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1611 04-08-2008 01:35 PM
New books marking the tenth anniversary of Diana's death Hendrik-Jan77 Royal Library 82 10-03-2007 11:12 AM
Well-run Royal Family Freedom Royal Life and Lifestyle 61 10-24-2006 05:38 AM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:40 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]