Was someone feeding Diana false information?

[ysbel]

In an earlier thread member skydragon posted a link to an article by Richard Kay in the Daily Mail that alleged that someone was purposely feeding Diana false information during her divorce proceedings.

Charles, Tiggy and the rumour about their affair that won't go away | the Daily Mail=

Members zhontella and georgiea wanted to explore the possibility that Diana was being fed false information. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the likelihood that the Royal Family or someone else would have fed Diana false information for any purpose at all.

As member georgiea described it:

The false information was given to Diana during the 1992-1995(6?) time and I think this information was from her psychics. You know psychics are about 50% correct in what they tell you.

If I had a topic for a new thread I would ask the question:

Do you believe Mr Kaye's article explaining Lord Michon's (sp) letter, that was read at the inquest, that a close friend to Princess Diana was giving her false information to make her mentally sick?

In hearing the discussion about the possibility that Diana was being fed false information I thought a likelier time period for the Royal Family to feed Diana false information would have been the time after the Morton book was published during a time when the Royal Family would have wanted to have firm knowledge whether Diana was collaborating with the press without their knowledge or not.

As with all other discussions at the Royal Forums there are some rules:

1. For the benefit of newcomers, leave references to the previous discussion out of this thread. A lot of the previous discussion is deleted and not available for newcomers anyway. If you want to restate a particular point you made in the previous discussion then I'm afraid you'll have to re-state the opinion here. In that case, we don't need to know that you already posted it in the previous discussion. We'll just assume that people who have been following this discussion are re-phrasing and re-purposing the best of their arguments from the previous discussion to this one. Just make sure that your post here stands alone and is understandable for those who may have never seen the previous discussion.
2. State your opinions simply and forthrightly - don't hint around and try to be cute and sarcastic. If you mean Camilla, state Camilla, if you mean Charles state Charles if you mean Diana, state Diana - don't make the rest of us guess as to what you mean. If I have to ask you what your post means, its going in the trash.
3. For that matter, try not to ridicule the opinions of others but disagree sensibly and with respect.
4. Try to put forth evidence or in the lack of hard evidence at least put forth well thought out reasons for your opinions.
5. For the purposes of this debate, avoid using pejorative terms for the evidence that other members use to support their arguments. If another member cites a source then refrain from dismissing that source as a 'hired hatchet' or the 'Daily Rail' Feel free though to question the credibility of other's sources; just refrain from namecalling (that goes for other members and for royals too).
6. Treat your fellow members and others with respect. No name calling, no divining ill intention or motives in any of our fellow members.
7. Try not to take things so seriously. These people are far removed from most of us and they probably don't even care what we think of them. We all share a bond in being interested in royalty so let's have fun with a healthy debate rather than create bad blood between us.

That's it. Have fun with the discussion.

[Roslyn]

I voted "Other". I think it's quite possible that, especially after the Morton book, she was fed inaccurate information by the RF to test her and just to see what she'd do with it. I think it would have been very tempting to do so, but I'm not sure one way or the other.

I doubt it would have been done with the intention of making her look unstable. Firstly, because I don't think the RF would stoop that low, and, secondly, because it wouldn't really be good for the image of the monarchy to have insanity in the blood so I think they'd want to downplay that aspect.

It's possible someone else might have done it at any time, of course, for a wide range of reasons and purposes. I just don't know.

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

It's possible someone else might have done it at any time, of course, for a wide range of reasons and purposes. I just don't know.

I voted other, because Princess Diana's claims really did not come true except her claim of her death by a car accident. I believe she was getting her information from her psyhic. We all have tried them and usually if we are lucky their claims are 50% accurate. In the Kay article Diana would not give her sources and that is why I believe it was her psyhic. Before one of her trips with Dodi, they visited her psyhic and the psyhic warned Dodi to be careful, but did not warned Diana. Also a psyhic once told Diana that Prince Charles was going to die in a car crash, that never happen.

[tinkerbell1948]

I originally voted "No" thinking of the RF but then afterwards thought of her psychic. I'm not sure whether this would be classed as deliberate "false information" rather than Diana depending on the wrong sources for guidance just my personal opinion )

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by georgiea

I voted other, because Princess Diana's claims really did not come true except her claim of her death by a car accident. I believe she was getting her information from her psyhic. We all have tried them...

Erm, no we haven't...

[tinkerbell1948]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Erm, no we haven't...

Me neither

[jcbcode99]

Sorry Georgia, I've not tried a psychic. I'm more of a cold, hard logic kind of person. 50% accuracy is not good enough odds for me to plunk down $$.

[Roslyn]

I haven't ever tried one either. Though I easily could if I wanted to, since my niece is now a psychic. Yes, she really is. She's done a course! She was originally trained as a counsellor, but changed direction!

[love_cc]

I chose others. Diana seemed to have a character to make own asserted judegments without thinking carefully about the facts and evaluated the reliablity of the information. I think her biggest problem was that she would never really listen to others: she always used her own ways to make things done which were wrong sometimes unfortunately.

I have to say this was the flaw in her character and she did not have much capacity to re-think about her own past mistakes or learnt to analyze things with depth.

[Jo of Palatine]

That's waht Lord Mishcon wrote down after he talked to Diana in 1995:

"HRH said that she had been informed by reliable
14 sources whom she did not wish to reveal (they would
15 speedily dry up if she broke her promise of
16 confidentiality) that (a) The Queen would be abdicating
17 in April and the Prince of Wales would then assume the
18 throne and (b) efforts would be made if not to get rid
19 of her (be it by some accident in her car such as
20 pre-prepared brake failure or whatever) between now and
21 then, then at least to see that she was so injured or
22 damaged as to be declared 'unbalanced'. She was
23 convinced that there was a conspiracy and that she and
24 Camilla were to be 'put aside'. She had also been told
25 that Miss Legge-Bourke had been operated on for

4

1 an abortion and that she (HRH) would shortly be in
2 receipt of a 'certificate'.

From the Inquest at: Hearing transcripts: 15 January 2008 Morning session


I'm not sure about that talk of a "certificate" when it comes to the Legge-Bourke-claim. In december, Diana still had none, otherwise she would have seen to it that the media got it. Still she had enough trust in her sources to make a go at "Tiggy" at the christmas party. So I wonder
if she didn't make the certificate up (or the whole thing) in order to make sure that Lord Mishcon believed in her and her quest.

Just remember: she was already planning the Panorama-interview. IMHO she did that partly to force a decision about her marriage because things had pretty much stagnated during the last 3 years from the announcement of the separation till the Panorama-interview and they couldn't go on that way for Diana, because she obviously suffered from her isolation and strange limbo-existence (as described by her two lawyers, then assistents of Lord Mishcon, at the inquest).

What Diana needed in her divorce-proceedings was a lawyer who, while being firmly established in society, well-known and simply "good", would side with her no matter what. She had already learned that her family would not side with her, lost contact to her sister Jane Fellowes, because she sided with her husband and the RF, her brother let her down...

So presenting this lawyer with such a story could well lead to sympathy and help from Lord Mishcon. At least he would not let her down. But for a lawyer she needed quite strong arguments, wouldn't she?

While the Burrell-note, which was written at the same time, might have just been a kind of rehearsal of the story she was about to make up for Lord Mishcon. Like: let's see how Paul reacts to it.

[Skydragon]

I'm with jcbcode99 on the psychic, although I did have the Tarot done!

As Roslyn has pointed out, the last thing the Royal Family or their advisors would want, is a question mark over the sanity of a future king. Diana's claims were all proven to be false and it is, to me, far fetched to believe that they wouldn't be disproved.

HM didn't abdicate and most people would agree that to HM abdication is a dirty word.

Her allegations against 'Tiggy' were impossible for her to prove and easily provable as false by 'Tiggy', if it had gone to court.

Any accident involving Diana would be fully investigated and had the brakes been tampered with, easily picked up. Even the Paris accident was not due to brake failure or whatever, which covers a multitude of possibilities. If she was truly convinced that someone was out to incapacitate or kill her, surely she would have put a seatbelt on every time she got into a car.

I really think these allegations of a 'source' were designed to encourage Mishcon (an elderly 'gentleman') to come to the aid of a damsel in distress.

[ellenw]

I don't know enough about the situation to give a learned response, but I don't think it impossible, under the circumstances, that she might have been deliberately misled. If so, I would think it was in order to confirm whether she was leaking damaging info to the press. (That would certainly be a way of fingerprinting who was/were responsible for the dissemination of private information.) I do think, though, that it's important to keep in mind that the protection of the RF in this manner could have been undertaken by courtiers (not necessarily the royals themselves).

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by ellenw

I don't know enough about the situation to give a learned response, but I don't think it impossible, under the circumstances, that she might have been deliberately misled. If so, I would think it was in order to confirm whether she was leaking damaging info to the press. (That would certainly be a way of fingerprinting who was/were responsible for the dissemination of private information.) I do think, though, that it's important to keep in mind that the protection of the RF in this manner could have been undertaken by courtiers (not necessarily the royals themselves).

Would Diana, Princess of Wales take information from courtiers? I don't think she trusted the BFR or their courtiers. I still think she went to psychics. The information she was given was so false. Didn't Fergie introduce her to some psychics?

[karla64]

I vote ' other' I have no proof...

[anbrida]

I chose "other", because I don't have enough information to make me support any particular theroy. So I consider this as an open topic.

[crisscross1]

Originally Posted by tinkerbell1948

Me neither

Wouldn't go near one, I believe that what will be will be.

Anyway, I voted other because I believe the little voices in Diana's head may have been feeding her false information.

[georgiea]

I just went over Raine, Countess Spencer's testamony from the inquest. Here is a section from the inquest transcripts. Raine's answers I bolded.
I believe her answers back up my claim that the false information being given to Diana, Princess of Wales was probably by her psychics.

Q. But it is the obsession with accidents. By talking of
4 an obsession with accidents, I have assumed that you are
5 suggesting that she was saying to you that someone was
6 going to contrive an accident, rather than it being
7 a real accident, or is that not what you are meaning?
8 A. Your Lordship, it is a difficult thing to put this into
9 words but, you see, Diana was very interested
10 horoscopes -- I am too, I love reading my horoscope.
11 We all want the dark handsome gentleman to walk through
12 the door -- but there comes a time when, beyond fun, it
13 becomes too believable. Can I elaborate on this --
14 Q. Please do, yes.
15 A. -- to try and answer your question properly.
16 Now, to this end, I know -- and I think it is public
17 knowledge -- that she did go endlessly to these
18 different soothsayers, fortune-tellers -- and there was
19 one in particular -- to such an extent that she really
20 forced me to do it because she so believed in what was
21 being told her, which I did, to please her, you see.
22 But, you know, there comes a moment when you have to
23 make your own decisions and ignore what the soothsayers
24 say.
25 Also, your Lordship, it always makes me a bit

27

1 surprised that if they were so good, why did not one of
2 them say "Beware the ides of March", as in Shakespeare?
3 Why did not one of them actually foretell the horror of
4 the accident?
5 So she was taken up with listening to what these
6 people said, and it is my feeling that one of them could
7 have enlarged -- I