The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[georgiea]

Your post really hits the nail on the head. Charles always came across as tongue tied and so aware of not saying the wrong thing. I have always believed that Diana fell in love with The Prince of Wales and was shocked to find that along with the title, came the man who owned it.

Skydragon and Ysbel. She might had fall in love with the Prince of Wales and not the MAN. But when a mental sickness takes over - a person reacts to things in a way that is not their true personality. And whatever the reason for her bulemia(sp?) after that sickness came about she was not the jolly, young girl that Prince Charles was just starting to fall in love with. And on her part how could she (trust) love someone who says to a reporter "whatever loves means". It must have been hard for both of them.

What I think us Diana fans are saying is the relationship between them was never given a chance in my opinion mainly because of press intrusion and just plainly of all the tragic circumstances all coming together. It had a lot of problems on both sides from the beginning. And I think they both wanted it to work. Prince Charles said that his bride needed to be the right person for the job and Diana's own childhood nanny said that when she met Diana for the first time Diana told her outright that she would only married for love and not divorce. But to me, Diana could not deal with the pressure-bulemia started-and the fights began. It takes a very special man to deal with a wife with mental illness (unfortunely Charles didn't know what to do) and Diana not taking medicine and listening to shrinks until ten years in to the marriage was not soon enough. I think the letter that she gave Burrell about Tiggy shows to me that when Diana was under a lot of pressure, she saw things through mental illness and focus on Prince Charles personal woman relationships. But, to me it wasn't the intellect that help break down the relationship, because people can really marry opposites and still grown to love one another. My 26 year marriage is proof to me!!!

What going on with the inquest today?

 

[Picmajik]

all this fuss over cufflinks?

They probably were a pair of her fathers cufflinks, probably just one set of the many pairs he discarded over the years that Diana had kept. I think it was just something she wrote to make the gift sound significant to the recipient.

She has not suggested they were important to her and that is why I believe they were just a thank you gift, to someone she had enjoyed a fling with.

I agree--I think she just exaggerated their importance to make the recipient feel good about them. I wouldn't have that much attachment to a pair of cuff links unless they were a gift directly to me and engraved with my initials or something. If they had belonged to my daddy and I had fond memories of him wearing them on a regular basis that might be different but that doesn't strike me as being that kind of situation here. Most over the counter shirts aren't French-cuff style any longer anyway so cuff links wouldn't be in demand all that much anyway.

 

[selrahc4]

But she did love Charles, I think.... or at least she thought she loved him, or loved him in her own unhealthy way.

You've said what I've thought all along. I also believe she thought she loved him, at least at the beginning. I'm not privy to her thoughts or feelings, but I know that what one thinks is love at 19 isn't always what love turns out to be. I thought I was "in love" twice before I met and married my husband, and the relationship I had with him was far far different from what I had thought before. I'm sure Diana was not being dishonest about her feelings when she married, but I also suspect that years later when she met and loved other men with whom she had more in common and who were more compatible for her that she must have realised that what she imagined was love for Charles wasn't the kind to support a lifetime together.

 

[Skydragon]

Quote shortened....

What going on with the inquest today?

We will have to agree to disagree on why she married Charles, but she was known to have pictures of him above her bed at school. Perhaps it is similar to falling 'in love' with a character in a film and then when you meet the actor/actress, you realise they are loud mouthed, ignorant twits!

The inquest is now adjorned until after the christmas and new year holidays.

 

[ysbel]

But, to me it wasn't the intellect that help break down the relationship, because people can really marry opposites and still grown to love one another. My 26 year marriage is proof to me!!!

I'm glad you've found such a rewarding and lasting relationship, georgiea I didn't mean that the differences in intelligence caused the problem between Charles and Diana but more the differences in interests and the lack of motivation of trying to make things work by finding common areas of interest, values, and feelings which I am sure you and your husband did.

If Diana didn't want to try to find that common ground for whatever reason, then it does make it puzzling why she took the failure of the relationship so hard. I would think that if she had tried to find a sense of commonality with Charles and then if he had gone off with Camilla she would be more hurt for having tried and failed.

If she hadn't tried to form that type of relationship then it does seem her hurt was born of a possessiveness which is not the same as love and it is possible that this possessiveness drove her in the arms of Dodi and ultimately to her death. As Polly says, Diana lived a short and tragic life.

BTW, you are quite right about Hasnat Khan. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Skydragon]

There is a little more on her possessive nature in this article regarding Hasnat - A very tragic affair: The true story of Princess Diana and her heart surgeon lover | the Daily Mail -
However, by this stage, Diana's love was turning into obsession and he found himself almost never free of her attention.
When he increasingly refused to take her calls at the hospital, or didn't respond to those she made to his flat, she would despatch Paul Burrell at night to find him, carrying her letters.
As with Charles and then Hasnat, she probably never realised that neither man would be in a position (as with Charles) or willing (Hasnat) to 'devote' all their time and life to her.

 

[georgiea]

As with Charles and then Hasnat, she probably never realised that neither man would be in a position (as with Charles) or willing (Hasnat) to 'devote' all their time and life to her.

That is probably why the relationship with Dodi would have worked. He could "devote" all of his time and life to her. She did said in her telephone calls to friends that she ever before felt so taken care.

I do enjoy on this forum that we can have different opionions and get alone. Everyone have a Happy Holiday!!

 

[ysbel]

As for Diana's belief that her husband wanted to marry Tiggy, I can only think that there was so much ill-will between the two that Diana became a touch paranoid. I remember, very clearly, reading that the difficulty was that Tiggy, quite inappropriately, constantly alluded to the young princes as 'my boys'. Indeed, so I believe, she was eventually asked to desist and to refer to them only as 'the princes' or 'their royal highnesses'. In this, I must say, I'm completely in sympathy with Diana. As I mother, I would be exceptionally peeved if anyone claimed proprietorship over my children. I wondered, too, at the time, why Tiggy felt so comfortable in being able to insinuate such familiarity.

I think its strange too but I have heard of caretakers in British society refer to the children they take care of as 'my children'. Winston Churchill's nanny was known to have done this after he was grown and you read in all the Agatha Christie novels where the governess is referring to her charges as 'my children' . I guess its considered a good thing if the nanny thinks so much of her charges to consider them her own.

However I think Diana's jealousy was more piqued by William's request that his parents let Tiggy to go to his graduation rather than themselves. That had to have hurt. Imagine putting so much time and effort into a loving relationship with your child only to hear that at an important event in his life, he wants his nanny. I can understand William's point of view too. It was not that he didnt' love his parents, but he was getting to the teenage years where he was easily embarassed and didn't want to stick out too much from the rest of the boys. Having both Charles and Diana there would have meant a press extravaganza of reporters snapping pictures and speculating about the state of Charles' and Diana's marriage which would have been uncomfortable for most of the boys in the school and especially William.

However, I can imagine how hurt his parents were when he told them he didn't want them to go. I read that even Charles thought that was a slap in the face.

 

[Skydragon]

I think its strange too but I have heard of caretakers in British society refer to the children they take care of as 'my children'.

It really is not that unusual, the nannies that take care of my grandchildren often refer to them as 'my little soldiers', or 'my wonderful little girl'. They immediately become the parents property when they are naughty of course, as in 'ma'am, your son did this'! Children and those around them know who mummy and daddy are.

 

[TheTruth]

Sunday Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper :: Diana Inquest :: Medic insists Diana was not pregnant

 

[zhontella]

HRH = Royal Protection?

I'm hoping the inquest addresses the exact reason why Diana, Princess of Wales, mother of the future king, had no royal protection. It's been said that it was Diana's idea to dispense with it -- she wanted her privacy and didn't trust them -- but I don't believe it can be that simple.

Much has been made of Diana losing her HRH, and I could never see what the big deal was about unless it has to do with automatic royal protection. I know that the HRH was a negotiable item in her divorce settlement. Should it have been? What was the deal there? More money or more time with her sons in exchange for losing the HRH?

Thinking back to the time of Diana's funeral, the queen assumed Diana would have a private family funeral since she was no longer a member of the royal family. It might seem strange now, but it was a reasonable assumption. Similarly, since Diana was no longer a member of the royal family, who can assume as a private citizen, she would have been entitled to royal protection free of charge? Can anyone make that assumption? Diana was encouraged to retain her royal protection, but at what price -- and I mean $ or #, not privacy concerns.

Here's a general estimate at what that protection might have cost Diana:

Royal family protection costs police 18,000 hours - Press and Journal, The Aberdeen (UK) - HighBeam Research

I would estimate that 18,000 police officer hours worth of protection for trips to the Balmoral Estate between July and September for the royal family might translate to between a million or two pounds for Diana alone per year.

Since Diana was somewhat of a spendthrift, who could guess she might willingly pick up this huge tab? Even if she was willing, this would chew up her divorce settlement down to nothing within ~10 years. She might try and save face by saying she didn’t want the royal protection anyway. After the divorce, the paparazzi got up close and personal -- who can forget Diana being driven to tears and hiding from them with her purse covering her head?

Although Diana may not have trusted the establishment’s security services, she was just as concerned about some crackpot wanting to make a name for himself by killing the Princess of Wales.

Without royal protection, Diana was a sitting duck just waiting for a tragic accident to happen and it was only a matter of time. Every member of the royal family had to know the danger Diana was in. The queen had to know this without question. Ken Wharfe said only the queen could have insisted Diana retain her royal protection, but she did not. Why not?

 

[zhontella]

Section 84: 12-12-07 Afternoon

Defense minister, Alan Clark, predicted Diana's death three weeks
before it happened in the following quote:

21 "... and still elusive, though occasionally one must
22 assume in the telescopic sight, is the ultimate trophy,
23 the most brightly plumaged of all, to accelerate and
24 then to be the first to capture the sudden death of
25 Diana, Princess of Wales in unexplained circumstances."


This quote was in The Spectator, Edited by Dominic Lawson, husband of Rosa Monckton (Diana's good "friend").

It seems that a tragic accident just waiting to happen wasn't that hard to envisage.

 

[Incas]

Every member of the royal family had to know the danger Diana was in. The queen had to know this without question. Ken Wharfe said only the queen could have insisted Diana retain her royal protection, but she did not. Why not?

It's easier to see the flaw of Diana's decision to dispense with royal protection in hindsight. However, as with any divorces woman, the chance of Diana listening to any of her former in-laws was never going to be far from zero. Many reports have discribed Diana as wealthy in her own right, from family bequeath or inheritance from her father's estate. Even if she only had the multimillion pound divorce settlement, she could have easily afford a minimum security team if she had really felt the need. At some point, every person must start assuming responsibility for his/her own wellbeing. At 35 when the divorce took place, it was pass shelf-date to put that responsibility onto others.

 

[ysbel]

I'm hoping the inquest addresses the exact reason why Diana, Princess of Wales, mother of the future king, had no royal protection. It's been said that it was Diana's idea to dispense with it -- she wanted her privacy and didn't trust them -- but I don't believe it can be that simple.

Much has been made of Diana losing her HRH, and I could never see what the big deal was about unless it has to do with automatic royal protection. I know that the HRH was a negotiable item in her divorce settlement. Should it have been? What was the deal there? More money or more time with her sons in exchange for losing the HRH?

Thinking back to the time of Diana's funeral, the queen assumed Diana would have a private family funeral since she was no longer a member of the royal family. It might seem strange now, but it was a reasonable assumption. Similarly, since Diana was no longer a member of the royal family, who can assume as a private citizen, she would have been entitled to royal protection free of charge? Can anyone make that assumption? Diana was encouraged to retain her royal protection, but at what price -- and I mean $ or #, not privacy concerns.

Here's a general estimate at what that protection might have cost Diana:

Royal family protection costs police 18,000 hours - Press and Journal, The Aberdeen (UK) - HighBeam Research

I would estimate that 18,000 police officer hours worth of protection for trips to the Balmoral Estate between July and September for the royal family might translate to between a million or two pounds for Diana alone per year.

Since Diana was somewhat of a spendthrift, who could guess she might willingly pick up this huge tab? Even if she was willing, this would chew up her divorce settlement down to nothing within ~10 years. She might try and save face by saying she didn’t want the royal protection anyway. After the divorce, the paparazzi got up close and personal -- who can forget Diana being driven to tears and hiding from them with her purse covering her head?

Although Diana may not have trusted the establishment’s security services, she was just as concerned about some crackpot wanting to make a name for himself by killing the Princess of Wales.

Without royal protection, Diana was a sitting duck just waiting for a tragic accident to happen and it was only a matter of time. Every member of the royal family had to know the danger Diana was in. The queen had to know this without question. Ken Wharfe said only the queen could have insisted Diana retain her royal protection, but she did not. Why not?

The article you reference doesn't contain a cost figure so its hard to figure out what the costs would have been.

Even if Diana didn't want to pay for royal security, that wouldn't have stopped her from getting her own private security if she had so desired which could be just as good or even better. But she went for two years after the divorce without any security whatsoever except for the Royal Security when William and Harry were with her and Dodi's security when she was with him.

A week or so before Diana's death, I read an article in the Evening Standard that Diana had not wanted Royal Security for her sons when they vacationed with her and Dodi however the Queen had stood firm and Diana allowed the security.

 

[Elspeth]

I'm hoping the inquest addresses the exact reason why Diana, Princess of Wales, mother of the future king, had no royal protection. It's been said that it was Diana's idea to dispense with it -- she wanted her privacy and didn't trust them -- but I don't believe it can be that simple.

It may well have been. We don't know her thought processes, except that a lot of people have reported that she thought she was being spied on by the Establishment, and she might have been concerned that royal protection officers might have been gathering information which would be used after the divorce to try and withdraw her custody of her sons or something. It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility.

Much has been made of Diana losing her HRH, and I could never see what the big deal was about unless it has to do with automatic royal protection. I know that the HRH was a negotiable item in her divorce settlement. Should it have been? What was the deal there? More money or more time with her sons in exchange for losing the HRH?

It may have been the precedent of the way Sarah lost her HRH on divorce.

Thinking back to the time of Diana's funeral, the queen assumed Diana would have a private family funeral since she was no longer a member of the royal family. It might seem strange now, but it was a reasonable assumption. Similarly, since Diana was no longer a member of the royal family, who can assume as a private citizen, she would have been entitled to royal protection free of charge? Can anyone make that assumption? Diana was encouraged to retain her royal protection, but at what price -- and I mean $ or #, not privacy concerns.

We don't know what the terms of continuing royal protection would have been; it's something that might emerge during the course of the inquest. However, I think the royal family would have been shooting itself in the foot in a big way if the terms of her divorce settlement had included some sort of prohibitive cost for continuing royal protection. That would almost certainly have leaked, and it would have made the royal family look very bad. If Diana was going to arrange for private protection officers, that would have cost money anyway.

I get the impression that the loss of the HRH was at least in part to do with the fact that the Queen didn't seem to want Diana to be in a position to represent her formally during foreign trips, since that seemed to be one of the conditions of the divorce. If Diana retained her HRH it would have made it harder for the Queen to insist on that.

Without royal protection, Diana was a sitting duck just waiting for a tragic accident to happen and it was only a matter of time. Every member of the royal family had to know the danger Diana was in. The queen had to know this without question. Ken Wharfe said only the queen could have insisted Diana retain her royal protection, but she did not. Why not?

I don't remember people saying at the time that this was a potentially fatal error, just that they could understand why she might not want to be surrounded by protection officers in the pay of the royals but wondering what she was going to do in order to keep the paparazzi at bay without them.

The Queen didn't seem to be one to insist on things where her family was concerned unless she was really pushed to the limit about it. She might not have wanted yet another battle with Diana and just thought that after a short time without royal protection officers, Diana might have decided that it wasn't all that good an idea to be on her own and would have changed her mind, which would have sorted the problem out without any confrontation. We just don't know.

 

[zhontella]

We don't know what the terms of continuing royal protection would have been; it's something that might emerge during the course of the inquest. However, I think the royal family would have been shooting itself in the foot in a big way if the terms of her divorce settlement had included some sort of prohibitive cost for continuing royal protection. That would almost certainly have leaked, and it would have made the royal family look very bad.

Sorry, it's taken me awhile to try and figure out what you meant. So you're saying that if it had cost too much money to protect Diana, the public would have resented it?

Does the public resent the cost to protect the current royal family?

Diana needed protection because she was the Princess of Wales -- that is a responsibility the palace shirked. I think anyone can see by the excessive media interest in Kate that it comes with the territory, and thus cannot be passed off as Diana's problem.

Another way to look at this, why do you think the US President and his wife need Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives, long after they have left the White House? It's common sense, eh?

I still have a sick feeling this was...............I guess I better stop there.

I'll bet you this kind of information will never come out in the inquest. Diana herself was probably too mortified to even think about it -- she just had this vague premonition she'd not live long.

 

[pinkie40]

I often thought the service people (hair, make-up, fashion, shopkeepers, restauranteurs, etc) surrounding Diana were capable of getting very private info regarding the Royal Family out of her and so I would just assume she would be under survelliance by government entities.

It deeply saddened me when she accepted Mr. Al-Fayed' invitation for a vacation simply because they shared the same enemies and it put her in an extremely vulnerable situation....in terms of personal safety. Not so much harm from the hands of the Royal Family but from very sinister forces who would/could cause damage so that both Al-Fayed and the Royal Family would be cast into a very dark place...

 

[Elspeth]

Sorry, it's taken me awhile to try and figure out what you meant. So you're saying that if it had cost too much money to protect Diana, the public would have resented it?

No. I'm saying that I don't think your scenario is likely to be true because it would have backfired on the royal family.

Diana needed protection because she was the Princess of Wales -- that is a responsibility the palace shirked. I think anyone can see by the excessive media interest in Kate that it comes with the territory, and thus cannot be passed off as Diana's problem.

Diana refused royal protection. It was offered to her. We don't know why she refused except that people close to her have said she didn't want to be spied on by police officers in the pay of the royal family. Nobody close to her said that the royal family required her to pay an impossible amount of money for royal protection in the hope that she'd have to refuse (and would then be vulnerable to an assassination attempt). Nobody close to her said that the royal family required her to pay an impossible amount of money for royal protection for whatever motive.

The point I was trying to make is that if the Queen wanted to appear to offer royal protection to Diana while actually making the terms of the offer so financially onerous that Diana had no real choice but to decline, that would have found its way into the press (and rightly so), and this "offer" would have backfired very badly on the royal family.

I'll bet you this kind of information will never come out in the inquest. Diana herself was probably too mortified to even think about it -- she just had this vague premonition she'd not live long.

If it doesn't come out, then we won't know. However, since friends of Diana's have said she didn't want the royal protection officers, not that she was put in an impossible position as regards paying for them, I don't see why you'd be so sure they weren't telling the truth.

 

[ghost_night554]

Oddly enough I couldn't fall back to sleep yesterday morning and I started questioning stuff I had been hearing from the inquest and I questtioned if any of the witnesses had been payed to make up a false story, very unlikely but I can see if this doesn't go Mr. Al-Fayed's way he could start coming out and saying that the Establishment payed the witnesses etc but surely they couldn't have found every single witness and payed them to change their story, unless they changed it after they originally went to the police..again very unlikely especially since 2 witnesses have come forward and said and even identified the driver. The other things I question is what if the fax (with the items Dodi wished to be purchased) and the receipt we're all made up now, I mean is there any proof that the dates on there were written back then and not now just so Mr. Al- Fayed can make sure the story goes his way for what reasons I don't kno, I mean it's VERY likely he's not lying about those 2 things we clearly have video of Dodi purchasing the ring but still..something I had been thinking about. And in answer to anyone's question no I'm not a conspracy theorists I just over analyze everything.

 

[zhontella]

However, since friends of Diana's have said she didn't want the royal protection officers, not that she was put in an impossible position as regards paying for them, I don't see why you'd be so sure they weren't telling the truth.

Ok, I understand you now. I suspect Diana's friends weren't telling the truth because they didn't know the truth and Diana didn't tell them. Diana was no spendthrift. She took the financial settlement she got from Charles and doubled in the year or two between her divorce and death. Diana could spend a lot of money if it was someone else's, but not if it was her own. Somebody in the another thread remarked on how puzzled they were that Diana never bought or rented her own place -- probably because she was too cheap.

I suspect the queen offered Diana royal protection at a reasonable, not onerous cost, and Diana was too cheap to go for it. Naturally, Diana would not have told her friends the truth of this situation. Additionally it might have played into Diana's self-destructive drive.

What chills me about this is that the queen or her advisors would have with no question known about both her unwillingness to spend any of her own money on her protection and also about her self-destructive tendencies. Thus without the HRH giving her automatic Royal Protection, Diana became a sitting duck -- through her own pathological psychology which the Palace was more than willing to exploit.

Finally, if there is any doubt about what Diana really thought about the loss of the Royal Protection, take a look at these pictures, also click prev and next -- they tell the truth.

In Tears pictures from friends & fun photos on webshots

 

[zhontella]

Does busy Bea really need a £250,000-a-year bodyguard? | the Daily Mail

Here's another take on the importance of Royal Security. Princess Beatrice gets $500K per year protection, which many think is unnecessary but Prince Andrew insists on this level of protection. This is for low-level, low risk protection. Diana would have been high risk at often high level activity -- maybe expected to be at least $2 to 3 million / year.

Does busy Bea really need a £250,000-a-year bodyguard? | the Daily Mail

But I can understand there may not have been a lot of money left in the royal coffers with the Queen Mother doing as much as an $8million/yr overdraft.

The Empress of Extravagance: How the Queen Mother left behind more than £7m in debts | the Daily Mail

 

[Skydragon]

Much has been made of Diana losing her HRH, and I could never see what the big deal was about unless it has to do with automatic royal protection. I know that the HRH was a negotiable item in her divorce settlement.

The HRH was not an option after her divorce, a fact I'm sure Diana was aware of. The thing she fought for, as well as the money was to continue to be called 'princess'. access to her sons would not have been in dispute.
--------------------------
Royal protection costs are paid for by taxpayers and would not have been stopped on the say so of the royal family. It is not the rpyal family calling into question the cost of providing officers for Andrews two minor royals, but the police themselves.

With Diana, the government could have said she is no longer part of the royal family and she will have to pay for her own protection, but I would doubt it. To try to blame the royal family via the back door, is another 'below the belt' attack!

 

[zhontella]

The HRH was not an option after her divorce, a fact I'm sure Diana was aware of.

That's not the way I heard it.

Royal protection costs are paid for by taxpayers and would not have been stopped on the say so of the royal family. It is not the rpyal family calling into question the cost of providing officers for Andrews two minor royals, but the police themselves.

And yet the queen could insist that her grandsons William and Harry had royal protection when they were with Diana, and still you claim she had no control over royal protection? Furthermore, Prince Andrew wants royal protection for his daughters and it is done. Are you claiming he has no influence over providing royal protection for his daughters?

With Diana, the government could have said she is no longer part of the royal family and she will have to pay for her own protection, but I would doubt it. To try to blame the royal family via the back door, is another 'below the belt' attack!

Pot, Kettle, Black, speak for yourself. I have no motive for a 'below the belt' attack. I'd merely like the truth.

 

[Skydragon]

That's not the way I heard it.

May one ask for a link to where you heard it?

And yet the queen could insist that her grandsons William and Harry had royal protection when they were with Diana, and still you claim she had no control over royal protection? Furthermore, Prince Andrew wants royal protection for his daughters and it is done. Are you claiming he has no influence over providing royal protection for his daughters?

The Queen rightly asked for protection, if Diana had dug her heels in, then she could have swanned off without any protection for the heir to the heir. Contrary to the belief of some (generic), neither HM, the government or the police could force Diana to take highly trained protection officers with her. The police would have approached Andrew to pick up the tab himself, their next step will be the government who will approach HM's offices. HM as you will know, has no say in what the government says or does.

Pot, Kettle, Black, speak for yourself. I have no motive for a 'below the belt' attack. I'd merely like the truth.

I'm sorry if you saw my comments as personal, the reason I drew a line was to disassociate my comments from anything you had written. I have no idea what your pot, kettle, black have to do with anything, I have never attacked the royal family on anything other than absolute provable evidence, personal knowledge or at least articles available for corroboration.

 

[Elspeth]

And yet the queen could insist that her grandsons William and Harry had royal protection when they were with Diana, and still you claim she had no control over royal protection? Furthermore, Prince Andrew wants royal protection for his daughters and it is done. Are you claiming he has no influence over providing royal protection for his daughters?

I don't think anyone's saying that the Queen doesn't have control over royal protection. The princes are ultimately her responsibility, and they were minors at the time; it was entirely appropriate that she step in and insist on protection for them. However, Diana was a grown woman and a divorcee and hence a semi-detached member of the family. According to her friends she refused royal protection because she didn't want to be surrounded by people she thought were spying on her. If the Queen had insisted, it would have reinforced that feeling, and Diana had already proved to be fairly good at evading her protection officers anyway while she was still married. The Queen apparently isn't one to throw her weight around in her family, so it's not surprising that she wasn't keen on yet another battle.

Pot, Kettle, Black, speak for yourself. I have no motive for a 'below the belt' attack. I'd merely like the truth.

But if you hear things you don't agree with, you're dismissing them as untrue. Even the case where Diana's friends reported her motive for dispensing with royal protection, you've said you don't believe them. Are you sure you want the truth, or just validation of your opinions?

 

[zhontella]

Diana had already proved to be fairly good at evading her protection officers anyway while she was still married.

Ken Wharfe said Diana was very cooperative and open about her protection, so she was easy to protect (he was with her from '87 to '93). A few weeks after they parted ways, Diana decided to quit public life and let go of her Scotland Yard protection. It must have been a scary time for her.

The Queen apparently isn't one to throw her weight around in her family, so it's not surprising that she wasn't keen on yet another battle.

It seems the queen knows how to get her way when she wants it.

But if you hear things you don't agree with, you're dismissing them as untrue. Even the case where Diana's friends reported her motive for dispensing with royal protection, you've said you don't believe them.

If you've been paying attention to the inquest, you would know that Diana told different "truths" to different friends.

Are you sure you want the truth, or just validation of your opinions?

Is that truly a question?

 

[Warren]

If you've been paying attention to the inquest, you would know that Diana told different "truths" to different friends. Is that truly a question?

Zhontella, rather than rabbiting on about this security isssue, can you provide any evidence that Diana told her friends that she requested royal protection and was refused? If not, you have no other option but to accept the fact that Diana's friends state that Diana refused royal protection by her own free will.

There is no conspiracy, no penny-pinching by the Queen, no dark forces manoeuvring Diana into placing herself in mortal danger. Everything that has been presented on this subject shows that Diana refused royal protection. Full stop.

 

[Charlotte1]

Ken Wharfe said Diana was very cooperative and open about her protection, so she was easy to protect (he was with her from '87 to '93).

Ken Wharfe did not state that Diana was cooperative and open about her protection. Have you actually read his book? She was difficult and that's why he eventually asked to be removed as her protection offficer. Diana didn't like the 24 hours being followed by a protection officer and made it quite clear that she didn't. She gave up her protection officer before her divorce came through, that was her choice it wasn't something that was forced upon her.

Ken Wharfe then, as he stated was given the far easier task of being the Duke of Kent's protection officer. The Duke was far easier to work for.

 

[TheTruth]

Ken Wharfe did not state that Diana was cooperative and open about her protection. Have you actually read his book? She was difficult and that's why he eventually asked to be removed as her protection offficer. Diana didn't like the 24 hours being followed by a protection officer and made it quite clear that she didn't. She gave up her protection officer before her divorce came through, that was her choice it wasn't something that was forced upon her.

Ken Wharfe then, as he stated was given the far easier task of being the Duke of Kent's protection officer. The Duke was far easier to work for.

Yeah, well protecting someone is very difficult because you are responsible of his safety but the privacy of the person is very important as well. Ken Wharfe was close to the princess and I respect him because he never made big revelations about her even if he wrote a book. I understand that he eventually quit the job. I wouldn't want to have her death or her injuries on my mind. We'll never know if a protection officer would have saved her. Trevor Rees-Jones, bodyguard of Dodi, was there and he didn't save her or Al-Fayed's son.

 

[Elspeth]

Ken Wharfe said Diana was very cooperative and open about her protection, so she was easy to protect (he was with her from '87 to '93).

Many biographies of her have referred to the way she slipped away from her security people to go off on her own. That would have been the case even more if she felt that her security people weren't trustworthy.

A few weeks after they parted ways, Diana decided to quit public life and let go of her Scotland Yard protection. It must have been a scary time for her.

Indeed it must, but it hasn't been established that she had to let go her Scotland Yard protection.

It seems the queen knows how to get her way when she wants it.

The Queen apparently knows which battles are worth fighting - it seems that she had some experience of thinking she'd agreed something in private with Diana only to have things, sometimes contradicting the agreement, splashed all over the headlines the next day. Diana was complaining about being spied on by the Establishment, and having the Queen insist on her keeping the royal protection officers would have reinforced that. The Queen was responsible for William and Harry; she wasn't responsible for Diana. If Diana was determined to get rid of her royal protection officers after her divorce, why should the Queen try to overrule her?

If you've been paying attention to the inquest, you would know that Diana told different "truths" to different friends.

That's been known for a long time. However, which friend did she tell the "truth" to about how she couldn't (or didn't want to) afford to pay for royal protection much as she wanted to have it?

Is that truly a question?

Yes, it is.