The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[zhontella]

Based on some of the other rubbish Diana appears to have said, why has anyone taken any of her 'allegations' seriously.

in October 1995, Princess Diana said she had sources who had told her the Queen was going to abdicate the following April.

she believed the crown should skip a generation and pass on to her son Prince William - She told another lawyer the Duke of York should act as regent until Prince William was old enough to be crowned.

Oh, so was that her 'source' then?

I saw another source for that information somewhere -- I'll try to remember where and provide the link. Anyway, the queen had to change her mind when Charles refused to give up Camilla.

Even though Diana said the crown should skip a generation, and that is preposterous, one has to consider the sources of influence that suggested to her this was possible. Furthermore, it does not necessarily negate all of her other worries and concerns.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

in October 1995, Princess Diana said she had sources who had told her the Queen was going to abdicate the following April.

she believed the crown should skip a generation and pass on to her son Prince William - She told another lawyer the Duke of York should act as regent until Prince William was old enough to be crowned.

Oh, so was that her 'source' then?

Interesting idea -makes one really wonder... especially as Burrell submitted the name of a Royal and it wasn't HM, DoE or Sarah...

 

[zhontella]

Inquest transcript, 15th January, afternoon excerpt

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burrell, ........................
5 Now, together with the documents, you wrote me
6 a letter which is headed "Private and confidential".
7 Now, I don't think it's appropriate for there to be
8 private correspondence between a witness and the
9 Coroner. I have looked very carefully at the letter and
10 I don't think that there is anything in it which, in the
11 event, will cause any embarrassment for me to disclose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if Burrell ever considered what was personal, confidential
and private when he wrote about some of Diana's more private moments which should have remained private? Dang, what a whiny weasel he is.

 

[zhontella]

Interesting idea -makes one really wonder... especially as Burrell submitted the name of a Royal and it wasn't HM, DoE or Sarah...

If it wasn't HM, DoE or Sarah, then by process of elimination it would have to be POW. Big deal -- they were bugging him too.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I saw another source for that information somewhere -- I'll try to remember where and provide the link. Anyway, the queen had to change her mind when Charles refused to give up Camilla.

Wasn't Diana still married in April of 1996? There is no chance IMHO that HM would have thought that she could abdicate with Charles still married to Diana. Why should she have done so? There is no reason why she should have done so. But the thought crossed my mind that someone in Charles' circle or the RF set Diana up in order to see what would happen.

Andrew comes to mind. Maybe he didn't want to divorce Sarah but was forced somehow to do it (to test the waters for Charles?) - other than Charles he was a puppet on his mother's strings financially and Sarah had those debts. Why not stir up trouble a bit back then? And if Burrell knew about that and maybe even has proof, then that would be an incentive for the RF to protect him from the Spencers.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

If it wasn't HM, DoE or Sarah, then by process of elimination it would have to be POW. Big deal -- they were bugging him too.

Why for heaven's sake should Charles tell Diana that
a) he wanted to bump off herself and Camilla
b) that he had impregnated Tiggy and that she then had an abortion.
c) that his mother wanted to abdicate and he would be king then?
d) that he would marry Tiggy after all that?

And all that while he was in the process of divorcing Diana?

Come on!

 

[Skydragon]

I saw another source for that information somewhere -- I'll try to remember where and provide the link. Anyway, the queen had to change her mind when Charles refused to give up Camilla.
.

Charles was still legally married to Diana at the time and it is unlikely HM would have discussed abdicating at all. She has always said she will serve her people untill she dies!

If it wasn't HM, DoE or Sarah, then by process of elimination it would have to be POW.

How? We also have Edward, Andrew, QM, Margaret, Sophie, the Kents, the Gloucesters, Prince and Princess Michael, etc, etc. to name a few!

 

[pinkie40]

Will Burrell be back tomorrow?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Will Burrell be back tomorrow?

Yes, they asked him to change his flights so he will be available for questioning tomorrow. And boy, is he hating it.

 

[zhontella]

Why for heaven's sake should Charles tell Diana that
a) he wanted to bump off herself and Camilla
b) that he had impregnated Tiggy and that she then had an abortion.
c) that his mother wanted to abdicate and he would be king then?
d) that he would marry Tiggy after all that?

And all that while he was in the process of divorcing Diana?

Come on!

Ok, I'm lost. I assumed this only applied to who was bugging Diana's phone and car. Not all the rest of the stuff you mentioned.

 

[zhontella]

Wasn't Diana still married in April of 1996? There is no chance IMHO that HM would have thought that she could abdicate with Charles still married to Diana. Why should she have done so? There is no reason why she should have done so. But the thought crossed my mind that someone in Charles' circle or the RF set Diana up in order to see what would happen.

Andrew comes to mind. Maybe he didn't want to divorce Sarah but was forced somehow to do it (to test the waters for Charles?) - other than Charles he was a puppet on his mother's strings financially and Sarah had those debts. Why not stir up trouble a bit back then? And if Burrell knew about that and maybe even has proof, then that would be an incentive for the RF to protect him from the Spencers.

Hmm, yes very astute observations -- something I had not thought about.

Another possibility is that The Queen was horrified at the possibility of a divorced Prince and Princess of Wales, and maybe the thought crossed her mind that if she abdicated, Charles and Diana could not divorce as King and Queen.

 

[Polly]

So the present royals who live at KP the Kents and Gloucesters do not own their aparments?

It is rather tacky that she would bring a man into her rent free apartments. She could have bought a condominium in London. Doesen't London have condos?

Diana's Kensington apartment was part and parcel of her divorce settlement.

As for 'tackiness', I couldn't agree more. However, newspaper reports here and in London claimed that Camilla lived with Charles before their marriage; that the expensive renovations of Clarence House included specific accommodation for Camilla and at a time when an eventual marriage wasn't so certain; and that currently, Kate Middleton is living there.

Perhaps a case of 'what's good enough for the goose...'?

 

[georgiea]

Diana's Kensington apartment was part and parcel of her divorce settlement.

As for 'tackiness', I couldn't agree more. However, newspaper reports here and in London claimed that Camilla lived with Charles before their marriage; that the expensive renovations of Clarence House included specific accommodation for Camilla and at a time when an eventual marriage wasn't so certain; and that currently, Kate Middleton is living there.

Perhaps a case of 'what's good enough for the goose...'?

That is what I have been trying to say. Princess Diana could of had Dr. Kahn move in if he wanted to. All other royals do it, so why not Diana? Her boys where gone most of the time and from what I read they both like Dr. Kahn.

 

[TheTruth]

Based on some of the other rubbish Diana appears to have said, why has anyone taken any of her 'allegations' seriously.

Princess Diana told Blair: 'Make William king - not Charles', inquest hears | the Daily Mail

Diana wanted William to follow the Queen - Telegraph

in October 1995, Princess Diana said she had sources who had told her the Queen was going to abdicate the following April.

she believed the crown should skip a generation and pass on to her son Prince William - She told another lawyer the Duke of York should act as regent until Prince William was old enough to be crowned.

Oh, so was that her 'source' then?

Actually, the news is not a surprise. It was obvious that Diana really didn't want to see Charles as King. I can understand if you consider what Charles and Diana must have been through during their divorce. There was too much hatred and revenge spirit that could create a peaceful relationship and be ready to accept that your ex husband will be King one day. The fear of being "replaced" by Camilla or another woman was unbearable for Diana so if that should happen, at least she would have banned him of his throne.

 

[Skydragon]

That is what I have been trying to say. Princess Diana could of had Dr. Kahn move in if he wanted to. All other royals do it, so why not Diana? Her boys where gone most of the time and from what I read they both like Dr. Kahn.

Because the apartment was not a gift, as part of the divorce, HM allowed her to stay there.


Diana will also be allowed to keep her apartment at Kensington Palace "with the Queen's agreement," will be given access to the jets used by the royal family, and will, Buckingham Palace said, be able "to use the state apartments at St. James's Palace for entertaining," as long as she asks permission first.

Charles and Diana Agree on Divorce Terms
Although I have to point out that this article is only repeating what was reported by a British Tabloid. It stands to reason that good manners and courtesy dictate that she would have to ask HM before moving a man in.

 

[sirhon11234]

So, the Queen was willing to let Diana retain her HRH but Charles was adamant that she give it up.....

 

[zhontella]

So, the Queen was willing to let Diana retain her HRH but Charles was adamant that she give it up.....

"She is to give up her right to be Queen of England and to be called "Her Royal Highness." Queen Elizabeth II was reported to have been ready to allow Diana to retain the honorific, but XXXXXX was said to be adamant that she give it up."

Why would Prince Charles want to do that to the mother of his sons? Poor Prince Charles does what he is told -- until..........when? I don't think he does anymore from what I can tell.

 

[prince nathan]

I first thought that this inquiry would be a waste of time and money - but I have to say that i believe some good will come of it. If it discredits those around Diana, Princess of Wales who have used her since her death to profiteer for their own sake it will have achieved something.

The inquiry has already shown Simone Simmons to be a charlatan. If anyone now would trust her reliability or claimed closeness to the Princess I would be very surprised.

Paul Burrell, The Princess' 'rock' was now also, according to him, 'the hub' of her life. He has backtracked, under questioning, on many of the serious claims he made in his books. He doesn't sound nearly as important as he obviously believes he is. And, if the big secret that he was to 'take to his grave', was that the Princess might move to the United States or South Africa, it shows how he has led people on to remain newsworthy and hence make money out of the Princess

Both of these people have been made fools of by this inquiry, thus destroying their marketability.

I hope that Mohamed Fayed is also discredited by this inquiry. For too long he has been allowed to slander the Duke of Edinburgh. It is Mr Fayed who has demanded this inquiry. What I can never begin to understand is why he, an Egyptian national, has been allowed demand an inquiry into the death of his son, also an Egyptian national, in the French capital; in a British court. And also remember he has used the Princess' death to profiteer by having two memorials to her placed in position - in his shop.

 

[anbrida]

So, the Queen was willing to let Diana retain hher HRH but Charles was adamant that she give it up.....

I can see why Diana didn't want him to be the King now.

 

[Polly]

"She is to give up her right to be Queen of England and to be called "Her Royal Highness." Queen Elizabeth II was reported to have been ready to allow Diana to retain the honorific, but XXXXXX was said to be adamant that she give it up."

Why would Prince Charles want to do that to the mother of his sons? Poor Prince Charles does what he is told -- until..........when? I don't think he does anymore from what I can tell.

I can't believe that either would have necessarily wanted to diminish Diana's standing in such a mean-spirited way. It's always seemed reasonable to me that she lost her HRH for purely pragmatic reasons, i.e. her royal status was conferred on her by her marriage, not because she was a future king's mother. I see nothing remarkable about it.

Even if it were a negotiated condition of the divorce settlement, I've always believed that it was probably imposed by hide-bound courtiers and advisers. Diana asked her sons, we were led to believe, if they minded, and William rejoined that one day, he'd return her HRH. In any event, I think that Diana did very well indeed (and quite rightly) from the settlement and that losing HRH was a small price to pay. It was also precedent-setting, and I'm sure that a great many implications and possible ramifications also received a lot of consideration.

I prefer to reflect on Charles' behaviour on his last contact with and duty for his late wife - his impeccable conduct upon her death and his insistence on her being paid all due respect, both as a princess of the realm and the mother of his children. Critics may well say that it was purely to curry favourable public opinion but I believe it was entirely due to his concern for the emotional and psychological well-being of their sons. His were not the actions of a petty man, which 'demanding' that Diana lose her honorific, purely out of pique, would have been.

 

[anbrida]

I prefer to reflect on Charles' behaviour on his last contact with and duty for his late wife - his impeccable conduct upon her death and his insistence on her being paid all due respect, both as a princess of the realm and the mother of his children. Critics may well say that it was purely to curry favourable public opinion but I believe it was entirely due to his concern for the emotional and psychological well-being of their sons. His were not the actions of a petty man, which 'demanding' that Diana lose her honorific, purely out of pique, would have been.

That was definitely not his last contact. His admirer wrote several books about her after that. And he previewed one of them.

 

[Skydragon]

So, the Queen was willing to let Diana retain her HRH but Charles was adamant that she give it up.....

I don't know sirhon11234, that is why I felt I had to point out that this was a reprint from a British Tabloid. I will keep looking if I get the chance, but so far, I have not been able to find an official source, just tabloid news.
---------------
'Charles will abdicate in favour of William' inquest hears| News | This is London

Despite insistences by her former butler, Paul Burrell, that Diana enjoyed a cordial relationship with Charles, the court heard that the princess often briefed against him. .

 

[Duchess]

I can't believe that either would have necessarily wanted to diminish Diana's standing in such a mean-spirited way. It's always seemed reasonable to me that she lost her HRH for purely pragmatic reasons, i.e. her royal status was conferred on her by her marriage, not because she was a future king's mother. I see nothing remarkable about it.

Even if it were a negotiated condition of the divorce settlement, I've always believed that it was probably imposed by hide-bound courtiers and advisers. Diana asked her sons, we were led to believe, if they minded, and William rejoined that one day, he'd return her HRH. In any event, I think that Diana did very well indeed (and quite rightly) from the settlement and that losing HRH was a small price to pay. It was also precedent-setting, and I'm sure that a great many implications and possible ramifications also received a lot of consideration.

I prefer to reflect on Charles' behaviour on his last contact with and duty for his late wife - his impeccable conduct upon her death and his insistence on her being paid all due respect, both as a princess of the realm and the mother of his children. Critics may well say that it was purely to curry favourable public opinion but I believe it was entirely due to his concern for the emotional and psychological well-being of their sons. His were not the actions of a petty man, which 'demanding' that Diana lose her honorific, purely out of pique, would have been.

i think this is a great post. i couldn't agree more. the loss of her title was a small sacrifice, especially if she knew that william would one day return it. i have always thought that charles' actions were incredible following her death. he cuold very easily have taken the position that since he was no longer married to her he should remain at arm's length and only with his sons but he chose to go to france and he did all he could to ensure that she was given the public funeral that HE knew was the right thing to do.

 

[TheTruth]

I will never agree to say that Charles would have liked to ruin Diana's life after the divorce nor the contrary. The problem of allowing a man from the "outside" into Diana's apartment is rather difficult to solve. IMO, Diana wouldn't have done it without asking the Queen. She may have said really awful things on the RF but I think she still had an immense respect toward HM. Moreover, the Queen didn't agree to leave her the "Princess of Wales" title because of the pressure of the press or the public opinion. If she hated her as much as people seem to believe, she could have taken her title back just by moving a finger and would have found a way to reduce the amount of money Diana got from the divorce. Diana kept that anger for the RF but it was more like a mask she used to create some scandals or a possible way to blame them for her problems. Although, I don't believe she had that hatred inside.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

It gets interesting. Hm... is it the Al-Fayed fraction starting to play dirty or are there "dark forces" at work? I wonder when and where these papers will reemerge and who will publish them:

From: ITN - Burrell 'lied' about Dodi ring

"The judge has also been forced to issue a warning after confidential court papers belonging to one of the lawyers in the case disappeared.
The documents included a witness statement, a confidential letter Paul Burrell had written to the coroner and other papers.
They were found on a first-floor landing at the Royal Courts of Justice, an area which the lawyer, who is representing the president of the Ritz in Paris, claims not to have visited."

 

[zhontella]

I have always thought that Charles' actions were incredible following her death. He could very easily have taken the position that since he was no longer married to her he should remain at arm's length and only with his sons but he chose to go to france and he did all he could to ensure that she was given the public funeral that HE knew was the right thing to do.

I do agree with you that Charles looked genuinely grief stricken at Diana's death -- and I believe it was genuine -- which I find strange in light of everything else we've read and heard.

Now this is what I read in Andersen's book, "After Diana" -- it was Camilla and Bolland who orchestrated all of Charles's moves -- from going to Paris through to the funeral since they saw it as politically expedient. It was also Camilla (through Charles) plus Tony Blair who finally persuaded the queen to return to London and make her speech.

I found it surprising that Charles was the one to collect Diana's body from Paris since he wasn't the next of kin anymore. It was also St. James's Palace that approved the early partial embalming of Diana's body since "Charles was so concerned that her appearance be maintained".

 

[Skydragon]

INow this is what I read in Andersen's book, "After Diana" -- it was Camilla and Bolland who orchestrated all of Charles's moves -- from going to Paris through to the funeral since they saw it as politically expedient. It was also Camilla (through Charles) plus Tony Blair who finally persuaded the queen to return to London and make her speech.

I found it surprising that Charles was the one to collect Diana's body from Paris since he wasn't the next of kin anymore. It was also St. James's Palace that approved the early partial embalming of Diana's body since "Charles was so concerned that her appearance be maintained".

I'm afraid if you are relying on Andersens book, you are being misinformed. Where does he say that he got the snippet that Camilla and Bolland 'orchestrated' anything? Neither were at Balmoral. Again does he give a 'source' for the allegation that anyone other than Charles or HM arranged for Charles to use the Royal Jet? If you read Campbells diary, it was Blair alone that persuaded HM to come back to London. Then again Andersen does not seem to have a good reputation as a writer of 'fact'.

If you read the early testimony regarding the embalming, you will find the decision was nothing to do with Charles or St. James's.
Hearing transcripts: 20 November - Afternoon session
Why was Princess Diana embalmed? | NEWS.com.au

 

[TheTruth]

Latest News of the Diana Inquest :
Burrell: 'Dodi relationship had peaked' - Yahoo! News UK
Queen 'concerned' about Diana's dates with Dodi: ex-butler - Yahoo! News UK
Queen worried about Dodi-Diana union - Yahoo! News UK
Butler: I kept quiet over Dodi ring - Yahoo! News UK

 

[zhontella]

Where does he say that he got the snippet that Camilla and Bolland 'orchestrated' anything? Neither were at Balmoral.

There is such a thing as telephones. Additionally, Bolland went with Charles to Paris.

Again does he give a 'source' for the allegation that anyone other than Charles or HM arranged for Charles to use the Royal Jet?

Getting the queen to do anything in the days immediately after Diana's death took some persuasion by one or more others.

If you read Campbells diary, it was Blair alone that persuaded HM to come back to London. Then again Andersen does not seem to have a good reputation as a writer of 'fact'.

And what makes you think Campbell has all the 'facts' on his side?

If you read the early testimony regarding the embalming, you will find the decision was nothing to do with Charles or St. James's.
Hearing transcripts: 20 November - Afternoon session
Why was Princess Diana embalmed? | NEWS.com.au

I'll reread the transcripts on the embalming but I was under the impression the first time I read them that it was all done by the 'keystone embalmer helpers' without authority from anyone, or so they claimed.

 

[Skydragon]

There is such a thing as telephones. Additionally, Bolland went with Charles to Paris. Getting the queen to do anything in the days immediately after Diana's death took some persuasion by one or more others. And what makes you think Campbell has all the 'facts' on his side?

As neither Charles or HM has ever made a statement about it, any story cannot be based on anything other than imagination. Do you know with 100% or even 35% certainty, that HM and Charles didn't immediately and without preamble arrange his flight to Paris? What significance does who went with Charles to Paris have to the accusation that Camilla and Bolland orchestrated all of Charles' moves, at that time? The funeral was worked out with the Spencer Clan, who actually wanted a private affair, nothing from anything I have seen or heard, to do with Camilla at all. Bolland, if you recall was merely an employee.

Campbell certainly has more facts than any of us regarding Blairs actions at that time and would certainly have mentioned any input from Camilla or Charles regarding the return from Scotland. I would imagine Charles would have wished to give his son's space to grieve, with their family, away from the screaming masses in London, for as long as possible.

I'll reread the transcripts on the embalming but I was under the impression the first time I read them that it was all done by the 'keystone embalmer helpers' without authority from anyone, or so they claimed.

]"It was also St. James's Palace that approved the early partial embalming of Diana's body since "Charles was so concerned that her appearance be maintained

That was your earlier post, nowhere in the transcripts does the embalmer mention Charles was concerned about maintaining her appearance or any instruction from anyone from or connected to the UK to embalm the body, from what I read.