Yennie
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2003
- Messages
- 2,578
- City
- Skåne
- Country
- Sweden
The Late Diana, Princess of Wales News Thread 1: December 2002-February 2005
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Alexandria
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,207
- Country
- Canada
Great mood to be in Yennie! 
And aren't the rest of us lucky to be the benefactors of your great mood! Cheers to you for such great pictures. :flower: 
Picture #7 is my fave from this collection. The family is obviously happier times. For all the unhappiness and misery towards the end of their marriage, I would like to believe that Charles and Diana loved each other at one point in their time together.
And aren't the rest of us lucky to be the benefactors of your great mood! Cheers to you for such great pictures. :flower: Picture #7 is my fave from this collection. The family is obviously happier times. For all the unhappiness and misery towards the end of their marriage, I would like to believe that Charles and Diana loved each other at one point in their time together.
DIANA IN 'SICK' COMIC ( VERY TASTELESS INDEED)
Diana in 'sick' comic
By Laura Benjamin, Daily Mail
24 June 2003
An American comic book cartoon of Princess Diana has been attacked as
tasteless and sick.
In it, she is revived from the dead and has to embark on a 'comeback
tour'.
The image of the late princess has been created for the X-Statix comic,
a spin-off of the popular X-Men series.
According to a detailed synopsis the hero characters of X-Statix have
to rescue her from a 'nasty crew of mutant Euro-trash dead set on
sending her back where she came from'.
X-Statix is produced by New York-based Marvel Comics, the company
behind such creations as Spiderman - one of the characters who helps rescue
Diana.
Marvel editor- in- chief Joe Quesada said: 'Princess Diana is a mutant.
Like every good superhero, she's coming back from the dead. She's going
to join one of the X-Men teams.
'If comics are anything, we're subversive. This is really a wonderful
story.'
The monthly comic is already on sale in America and Britain and is
expected to sell around 150,000 copies worldwide.
Richard Johnson, the editor of a comic industry website, described the
stunt as 'tasteless and sick'. He said: 'Princess Diana is the first
time a specific celebrity has appeared in the book and I think there is a
reason for that - to attract more attention.'
He added: 'There are many internet sites dedicated to comic books and
they have been buzzing with discussions about this cartoon. Most people
think it's in incredibly bad taste.'
A Buckingham Palace source said: 'This is utterly appalling. It appears
to be just a cheap attempt to cash in on Diana's fame and the tragic
circumst
From Royal_Fanatsy@yahoogroups.com
Diana in 'sick' comic
By Laura Benjamin, Daily Mail
24 June 2003
An American comic book cartoon of Princess Diana has been attacked as
tasteless and sick.
In it, she is revived from the dead and has to embark on a 'comeback
tour'.
The image of the late princess has been created for the X-Statix comic,
a spin-off of the popular X-Men series.
According to a detailed synopsis the hero characters of X-Statix have
to rescue her from a 'nasty crew of mutant Euro-trash dead set on
sending her back where she came from'.
X-Statix is produced by New York-based Marvel Comics, the company
behind such creations as Spiderman - one of the characters who helps rescue
Diana.
Marvel editor- in- chief Joe Quesada said: 'Princess Diana is a mutant.
Like every good superhero, she's coming back from the dead. She's going
to join one of the X-Men teams.
'If comics are anything, we're subversive. This is really a wonderful
story.'
The monthly comic is already on sale in America and Britain and is
expected to sell around 150,000 copies worldwide.
Richard Johnson, the editor of a comic industry website, described the
stunt as 'tasteless and sick'. He said: 'Princess Diana is the first
time a specific celebrity has appeared in the book and I think there is a
reason for that - to attract more attention.'
He added: 'There are many internet sites dedicated to comic books and
they have been buzzing with discussions about this cartoon. Most people
think it's in incredibly bad taste.'
A Buckingham Palace source said: 'This is utterly appalling. It appears
to be just a cheap attempt to cash in on Diana's fame and the tragic
circumst
From Royal_Fanatsy@yahoogroups.com
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO PRINCESS DIANA !!!! SHE BECOME 42 YEAR OLD ! SHE LET REST IN PEACE !
Sara Boyce
Sara Boyce
Alexandra
Nobility
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 356
- City
- x
- Country
- Finland
Once again the beautiful song made for Diana
The Candle in he Wind
Goodbye England's rose,
may you ever grow in our hearts.
You were the grace that placed itself
where lives were torn apart.
You called out to our country,
and you whispered to those in pain.
Now you belong to heaven,
and the stars spell out your name.
And it seems to me, you lived your life
like a candle in the wind:
never fading with the sunset
when the rain set in.
And your footsteps will always fall here,
along England's greenest hills;
your candle's burned out long before
your legend ever will.
Loveliness we've lost;
these empty days without your smile.
This torch we'll always carry
for our nation's golden child.
And even though we try,
the truth brings us to tears;
all our words cannot express
the joy you brought us through the years.
Goodbye England's rose,
from a country lost without your soul,
who'll miss the wings of your compassion
more than you'll ever know.
Diana in sick new comic
By TRACEY KANDOHLA
THIS is the sick comic book cartoon of Princess Diana that has sparked outrage.
She appears in a story called Di Another Day in the comic X-Statix, a spin-off from the popular X-Men series.
In one scene she leapfrogs a weird bulging-eyed monster flashing her stocking tops and cleavage.
In the story Diana is brought back to life as a mutant superhero who battles evil.
The cartoon — published by New York-based Marvel Comics — has been branded “sick” and “tasteless”. Richard Johnson, editor of a comic industry website, said: “Most people think this is in incredibly bad taste.
“This is the first time a specific celebrity has appeared in the book.
“I think the only reason for that is to attract more attention.”
Another comic fan said: “I can’t believe they are treating Diana’s memory in this way. It’s just sick.” But X-Statix writer Peter Milligan laughed off the controversy.
He said: “Diana looks great in spandex!
“She may not be like the flying, lethally- oscillating characters that populate my comic.
“But the strange power she exerts from beyond the grave certainly makes her a valid subject for us.”
Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada added: “Princess Diana is a mutant. Like every good superhero, she’s coming back from the dead.
“She’s going to join one of the X-Men teams. If comics are anything, we’re subversive. This is really a wonderful story.”
X-Statix is already on sale in America and Britain and is expected to sell around 150,000 copies worldwide.
From The Sun.
By TRACEY KANDOHLA
THIS is the sick comic book cartoon of Princess Diana that has sparked outrage.
She appears in a story called Di Another Day in the comic X-Statix, a spin-off from the popular X-Men series.
In one scene she leapfrogs a weird bulging-eyed monster flashing her stocking tops and cleavage.
In the story Diana is brought back to life as a mutant superhero who battles evil.
The cartoon — published by New York-based Marvel Comics — has been branded “sick” and “tasteless”. Richard Johnson, editor of a comic industry website, said: “Most people think this is in incredibly bad taste.
“This is the first time a specific celebrity has appeared in the book.
“I think the only reason for that is to attract more attention.”
Another comic fan said: “I can’t believe they are treating Diana’s memory in this way. It’s just sick.” But X-Statix writer Peter Milligan laughed off the controversy.
He said: “Diana looks great in spandex!
“She may not be like the flying, lethally- oscillating characters that populate my comic.
“But the strange power she exerts from beyond the grave certainly makes her a valid subject for us.”
Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada added: “Princess Diana is a mutant. Like every good superhero, she’s coming back from the dead.
“She’s going to join one of the X-Men teams. If comics are anything, we’re subversive. This is really a wonderful story.”
X-Statix is already on sale in America and Britain and is expected to sell around 150,000 copies worldwide.
From The Sun.
Attachments
Yennie
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2003
- Messages
- 2,578
- City
- Skåne
- Country
- Sweden
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
i read over the news about her charity!
its real makes me freak! Princess Diana's sister who is president its would maybe sued about her sister's charity or someone will sued her !
Prince William and Harry got upset about his mom's charity both wanted to kept his mom's charity after his mom's death both wanted paid respected to his mom's worked William will work for homeless like his mom and Harry will visit kids and people who cancer both wanted to kept it ! that not fair !
if you wanted to add news !
Sara Boyce
its real makes me freak! Princess Diana's sister who is president its would maybe sued about her sister's charity or someone will sued her !
Prince William and Harry got upset about his mom's charity both wanted to kept his mom's charity after his mom's death both wanted paid respected to his mom's worked William will work for homeless like his mom and Harry will visit kids and people who cancer both wanted to kept it ! that not fair !
if you wanted to add news !
Sara Boyce
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
Hey everybody,
If you wanted to add the pictures of Late Princess Diana's belong dresses in 1997 where she bid her dresses in London, England and New York, NY USA
She wore dresses in marriage 1981 to 1996 with Prince Charles she attended Theatres, Ballet, movie premiere, banquet with King and Queen, Prime minister, President, etc. she earning 79 dresses. And also she funds for kids cancer/ people cancer too, breast cancer, hiv and aids too.
But you know my favorites dress is ? she wore at Washington DC she dances with Actor John Travolta more money near 300,000 and she dances with President Reagon too and i think she dances with Diamond too but its hard choose Travolta Dress !
before/after her divorces with Prince Charles she taken pictures her belong dress for Auction many people look her dress at Christies.
I look her belong dress in England i like travolta Dress she wore it my favorites !
she earned 3.5 million at auction she become richer woman in the world ! she famous woman !
please make add picture of her !
Sara Boyce
If you wanted to add the pictures of Late Princess Diana's belong dresses in 1997 where she bid her dresses in London, England and New York, NY USA
She wore dresses in marriage 1981 to 1996 with Prince Charles she attended Theatres, Ballet, movie premiere, banquet with King and Queen, Prime minister, President, etc. she earning 79 dresses. And also she funds for kids cancer/ people cancer too, breast cancer, hiv and aids too.
But you know my favorites dress is ? she wore at Washington DC she dances with Actor John Travolta more money near 300,000 and she dances with President Reagon too and i think she dances with Diamond too but its hard choose Travolta Dress !
before/after her divorces with Prince Charles she taken pictures her belong dress for Auction many people look her dress at Christies.
I look her belong dress in England i like travolta Dress she wore it my favorites !
she earned 3.5 million at auction she become richer woman in the world ! she famous woman !
please make add picture of her !
Sara Boyce
Josefine
Majesty
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,520
- Country
- Sweden
http://news.bbc.co.uk
25 July 1989: Royal approval for Aids sufferers
The Princess of Wales has opened a new Aids centre in south-east London.
She gave director Jonathan Grimshaw - diagnosed HIV positive five years ago - a firm handshake before going inside the Landmark Centre in Tulse Hill for a private tour.
This was the first attempt to de-stigmatise the condition by a high profile member of the Royal Family
Mr Grimshaw said: "The princess was genuinely moved by the difficulties facing patients."
The Landmark aims to be more than just a refuge and will offer advice and support on issues from housing to dietary needs.
Princess Diana spent an hour in the community-based centre and joined in a discussion group with some of the first clients to use the facility, including women.
She was surprised to learn about the additional prejudices women with Aids and HIV have to deal with.
"I think it's terrible what they have to go through", she exclaimed.
Afterwards the Princess of Wales staged an impromptu walkabout, in spite of the heat.
About Aids
Aids - Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome - was first recognised as a medical condition in the US in 1981.
Later that year Dr Tony Pinching diagnosed the first case in the UK, in a heterosexual woman, at St Mary's Praed Street Clinic in London.
By the end of 1984, 108 people were known to be suffering from the disease in the UK and there had been 46 deaths.
In 1985 the UK Department of Health published its first advice on Aids and it was reported in 51 countries.
Within two years the UK Government launched the 'Don't Die of Ignorance' public awareness campaign and Princess Diana opened the country's first Aids ward at Middlesex Hospital.
The symptoms of Aids include chronic fatigue, diarrhoea and severe skin rashes.
It is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and there is no known cure.
In Context
Early in 2001 the services provided by Landmark were integrated with Lighthouse, part of the Terrence Higgins Trust, and became known as Lighthouse South London.
Richard Hill became director of the centre, but Jonathan Grimshaw - now living and working in Brighton - still chairs various groups and works as a consultant.
The Landmark Centre at Tulse Hill provided a drop-in service for Aids and HIV positive sufferers until the facility moved to Waterloo in summer 2002.
The World Health report listed Aids as one of the fourth biggest global killers in 1999.
Princess Diana's work in de-stigmatising the illness has been recognised with the Diana, Princess of Wales, Lectures on Aids, beginning in 1999.
Video
The BBC's Jennie Bond reports: "there was a firm handshake for the project's director."
25 July 1989: Royal approval for Aids sufferers
The Princess of Wales has opened a new Aids centre in south-east London.
She gave director Jonathan Grimshaw - diagnosed HIV positive five years ago - a firm handshake before going inside the Landmark Centre in Tulse Hill for a private tour.
This was the first attempt to de-stigmatise the condition by a high profile member of the Royal Family
Mr Grimshaw said: "The princess was genuinely moved by the difficulties facing patients."
The Landmark aims to be more than just a refuge and will offer advice and support on issues from housing to dietary needs.
Princess Diana spent an hour in the community-based centre and joined in a discussion group with some of the first clients to use the facility, including women.
She was surprised to learn about the additional prejudices women with Aids and HIV have to deal with.
"I think it's terrible what they have to go through", she exclaimed.
Afterwards the Princess of Wales staged an impromptu walkabout, in spite of the heat.
About Aids
Aids - Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome - was first recognised as a medical condition in the US in 1981.
Later that year Dr Tony Pinching diagnosed the first case in the UK, in a heterosexual woman, at St Mary's Praed Street Clinic in London.
By the end of 1984, 108 people were known to be suffering from the disease in the UK and there had been 46 deaths.
In 1985 the UK Department of Health published its first advice on Aids and it was reported in 51 countries.
Within two years the UK Government launched the 'Don't Die of Ignorance' public awareness campaign and Princess Diana opened the country's first Aids ward at Middlesex Hospital.
The symptoms of Aids include chronic fatigue, diarrhoea and severe skin rashes.
It is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and there is no known cure.
In Context
Early in 2001 the services provided by Landmark were integrated with Lighthouse, part of the Terrence Higgins Trust, and became known as Lighthouse South London.
Richard Hill became director of the centre, but Jonathan Grimshaw - now living and working in Brighton - still chairs various groups and works as a consultant.
The Landmark Centre at Tulse Hill provided a drop-in service for Aids and HIV positive sufferers until the facility moved to Waterloo in summer 2002.
The World Health report listed Aids as one of the fourth biggest global killers in 1999.
Princess Diana's work in de-stigmatising the illness has been recognised with the Diana, Princess of Wales, Lectures on Aids, beginning in 1999.
Video
The BBC's Jennie Bond reports: "there was a firm handshake for the project's director."
Yennie
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2003
- Messages
- 2,578
- City
- Skåne
- Country
- Sweden
I just read about Dianas niece Emily beeing illl.. does anyone know how she´s doing?
poor girl... I hope she gets better!
poor girl... I hope she gets better!
Last edited by a moderator:
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
i thinking Diana's niece still chemo for Cancer makes more fighting or till she died in months i hope so wait find out!
Sara Boyce
Sara Boyce
Yennie
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2003
- Messages
- 2,578
- City
- Skåne
- Country
- Sweden
Sara, I dont understand what you meen? Is she still in chemo, or did she die?!
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
i mean chemo like as test
Sara Boyce
The recent Discovery Channel program called Unsolved History claimed to do a forensic analysis of the crash in Paris which killed Diana and Dodi Fayed but it was quite disappointing. Other than repeatedly saying it was an "accident", they offered little of substance -- other than to effectively point out that the driver Henri Paul was probably not drunk as claimed in official reports.
http://www.geocities.com/murderinparis/ritz.html
During the evening of 29 January 1999, five hundred and sixteen days after the death of Princess Diana, various assorted camera crews stood assembled outside the Ritz Hotel in London. Prince Charles was finally “coming out” with his mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm, and the London media had been primed in advance about the photo opportunity.
As the smiling pair happily descended the steps of the Ritz, flash bulbs predictably started popping all over the place. But then the unthinkable happened. From a location above and behind the media pack, someone fired a powerful Pulsed-Strobe “Less Than Lethal” optical weapon directly at the Prince and Camilla. Though slightly diffused by the flash bulbs below, the intense distinctive blue-white pulses were still powerful enough to make Camilla Parker-Bowles stumble slightly, and then turn pale.
...............................................................................
Adding to the mystery is the fact that the weapon used, was almost identical to one assumed to be used in the Pont de l' Alma tunnel against Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed on 31 August 1997, just after they left the Paris Ritz hotel on their last journey. .............. “When this LTL weapon fires, it pulses high-intensity brilliant white light at brain frequencies, inducing complete neural confusion for between two and five seconds. Line-of-sight exposure is overwhelming and renders the target completely incapable of meaningful brain function. Exposure at oblique angles causes moderate to severe mental confusion.
http://www.geocities.com/murderinparis/ritz.html
During the evening of 29 January 1999, five hundred and sixteen days after the death of Princess Diana, various assorted camera crews stood assembled outside the Ritz Hotel in London. Prince Charles was finally “coming out” with his mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm, and the London media had been primed in advance about the photo opportunity.
As the smiling pair happily descended the steps of the Ritz, flash bulbs predictably started popping all over the place. But then the unthinkable happened. From a location above and behind the media pack, someone fired a powerful Pulsed-Strobe “Less Than Lethal” optical weapon directly at the Prince and Camilla. Though slightly diffused by the flash bulbs below, the intense distinctive blue-white pulses were still powerful enough to make Camilla Parker-Bowles stumble slightly, and then turn pale.
...............................................................................
Adding to the mystery is the fact that the weapon used, was almost identical to one assumed to be used in the Pont de l' Alma tunnel against Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed on 31 August 1997, just after they left the Paris Ritz hotel on their last journey. .............. “When this LTL weapon fires, it pulses high-intensity brilliant white light at brain frequencies, inducing complete neural confusion for between two and five seconds. Line-of-sight exposure is overwhelming and renders the target completely incapable of meaningful brain function. Exposure at oblique angles causes moderate to severe mental confusion.
What if, just what if the whole story is different than that fed the media -- being the conspiracy nut that I am -- what if Charles wasn't the one that rejected Diana initially, but the other way around?
I remember thinking when they got married that Diana had far to much style, grace, charm and beauty to be paired with Prince Charles who never did seem exactly like 'Prince Charming', and that she just married him to be the HRH, Diana Princess of Wales and she would soon tire of him.
What if she did quickly tire of him and start having affairs, and to save face for each of them, they both agreed to switch the real roles each played, because after all, who has ever rejected the Prince of Wales in history? It's always about the Prince of Wales and his other women instead. That is the way the story is suppose to be. With the current scenario, Diana could then become the beloved queen of hearts, and Charles could be the preferred Macho Lover Man.
It always seemed if the story given the media was true, that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip would have had more sympathy for Diana -- after all, she just loved their son, and he just had cheating on his mind. The level of hostility displayed by Prince Charles's parents towards Diana suggests that this is not the real story.
Of course, I merely have anecdotal experience to suggest this, but I remember my parent's response to my brother's wife who cheated on him. If she had an HRH before her name, they would certainly have stripped it from her.
More anecdotal evidence is that in most divorces caused by the obvious adultery of just one of the parents, the children affected by that divorce will usually show quite a bit of hostility towards the cheating parent -- assuming they know about it, which obviously William and Harry did, and yet, these boys seem to have a lot of affection for their dad, Prince Charles. Things don't quite add up, and 2 + 2 /= 5 no matter what the media claim???
I remember thinking when they got married that Diana had far to much style, grace, charm and beauty to be paired with Prince Charles who never did seem exactly like 'Prince Charming', and that she just married him to be the HRH, Diana Princess of Wales and she would soon tire of him.
What if she did quickly tire of him and start having affairs, and to save face for each of them, they both agreed to switch the real roles each played, because after all, who has ever rejected the Prince of Wales in history? It's always about the Prince of Wales and his other women instead. That is the way the story is suppose to be. With the current scenario, Diana could then become the beloved queen of hearts, and Charles could be the preferred Macho Lover Man.
It always seemed if the story given the media was true, that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip would have had more sympathy for Diana -- after all, she just loved their son, and he just had cheating on his mind. The level of hostility displayed by Prince Charles's parents towards Diana suggests that this is not the real story.
Of course, I merely have anecdotal experience to suggest this, but I remember my parent's response to my brother's wife who cheated on him. If she had an HRH before her name, they would certainly have stripped it from her.
More anecdotal evidence is that in most divorces caused by the obvious adultery of just one of the parents, the children affected by that divorce will usually show quite a bit of hostility towards the cheating parent -- assuming they know about it, which obviously William and Harry did, and yet, these boys seem to have a lot of affection for their dad, Prince Charles. Things don't quite add up, and 2 + 2 /= 5 no matter what the media claim???
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Thissal!!
Interesting theory, and I think you could have a point. But, I thought I would just add this, apparently, for a period, the boys did resent Charles, at the beginning of the seperation. I think they got over it because, apparently, the one thing Charles and Diana never argued over was their boys. Moreover, I'm sure they know about Hewitt and Camilla because they were so publicized, but do you think they know about all of Diana's lovers? Well, I guess there is no real way of knowing, but basically I'm saying, if Diana was the one to reject Charles, do you think they would be aware of the situation?
Also, when Diana and Charles divorced, there wasn't really a royal protocol on how to handle these situations. So, perhaps the Queen thought she was doing the proper thing by removing her HRH because, after all, here is a women that married into royalty, and now she is unmarring into the family, therefore she shouldn't be considered royal. And, when the years went on and Diana became increasingly public about the royal family (The interview with Martin Bashier comes to mind), perhaps the Queen and Prince Philip became more and more hostile because of the revelations.
I guess this just goes to show that there are two sides of every issue!!
Interesting theory, and I think you could have a point. But, I thought I would just add this, apparently, for a period, the boys did resent Charles, at the beginning of the seperation. I think they got over it because, apparently, the one thing Charles and Diana never argued over was their boys. Moreover, I'm sure they know about Hewitt and Camilla because they were so publicized, but do you think they know about all of Diana's lovers? Well, I guess there is no real way of knowing, but basically I'm saying, if Diana was the one to reject Charles, do you think they would be aware of the situation?
Also, when Diana and Charles divorced, there wasn't really a royal protocol on how to handle these situations. So, perhaps the Queen thought she was doing the proper thing by removing her HRH because, after all, here is a women that married into royalty, and now she is unmarring into the family, therefore she shouldn't be considered royal. And, when the years went on and Diana became increasingly public about the royal family (The interview with Martin Bashier comes to mind), perhaps the Queen and Prince Philip became more and more hostile because of the revelations.
I guess this just goes to show that there are two sides of every issue!!
Last edited by a moderator:
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
when she divorces from Prince Charles in 1996 because she hate him lots she knew because Charles had affair with Camilla since 1972 before Diana married to Charles in 1981.
I think Diana and Charles need good married and trust love not ingore but both got affair with other people but Her Majesty didnt know that Diana and Charles got affiar since Harry's birth. Diana got affair with James Hewitt after Harry's birth till 1990 then she had more lovers like Rugby, Olive Horace but i read about Diana and James got kissed but photographer caught both it! but Her Majesty didnt know that!
Sara Boyce
I think Diana and Charles need good married and trust love not ingore but both got affair with other people but Her Majesty didnt know that Diana and Charles got affiar since Harry's birth. Diana got affair with James Hewitt after Harry's birth till 1990 then she had more lovers like Rugby, Olive Horace but i read about Diana and James got kissed but photographer caught both it! but Her Majesty didnt know that!
Sara Boyce
sara1981
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Messages
- 3,426
- City
- North Little Rock
- Country
- United States
here Diana's websites is
http://www.angelfire.com/in/thewindsors/diana.html
I look Diana's image its cool with water when she dies i like it!
Sara Boyce
http://www.angelfire.com/in/thewindsors/diana.html
I look Diana's image its cool with water when she dies i like it!
Sara Boyce
Hi Jalmey,
You could have a point too in that the only ones who really know what happened between Charles and Diana is either one/or both of them. However, there isn't always 2 sides to every issue, at least not 2 "good" sides because there are many sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists and criminal minds in the world making up one side of the story. I'm sure Ivan the Terrible, Hitler, Jeffrey Dalmer etc., would like to claim they had some justification on their side, but you might understand why I'm doubtful. :flower:
You could have a point too in that the only ones who really know what happened between Charles and Diana is either one/or both of them. However, there isn't always 2 sides to every issue, at least not 2 "good" sides because there are many sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists and criminal minds in the world making up one side of the story. I'm sure Ivan the Terrible, Hitler, Jeffrey Dalmer etc., would like to claim they had some justification on their side, but you might understand why I'm doubtful. :flower:
Was it really necessary to roll back the shutters on a distant and rigid monarchy? Some personal matters regarding disfunction within families is better left in private -- if there's no good reason to know, which would be the case with the British monarchy, except for one thing.
I do suspect that "the firm" was trying to brand Diana as mentally unstable and thus unfit to be mother and their intention was to keep her children away from her and to leave her without any significant financial resources. Under those circumstances, I don't blame Diana for making everything as public as she could. It probably was needed for her to maintain contact with her children.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yennie
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2003
- Messages
- 2,578
- City
- Skåne
- Country
- Sweden
The Late Princess Diana
Le Monde - August 27, 1997
Interview by Annick Cojean
London - This time Princess Diana was the hostess. That role fitted her well. It gave her gestures an extra grace and placed flashes of joy and a bust of boldness in her royal-blue-eyed gaze.
Yes, the princess would see me - at 11 a.m. sharp, the fax specified. And if not for that cab driver who drove me straight to a hotel with the same name as Kensington Palace - the princess's residence - I would have been on time.
But the princess didn't impose the punctuality of a queen who counted her seconds and withdrew her smile as if she were taking off a hat. The princess was at home, relaxed, independent. It was probably the only place where she didn't risk being targeted by camera zooms.
She was wearing a short, sleeveless dress, matching her eyes, unless they were reflecting its color. She wore a necklace of large pearls, high heels and a quite assurance demonstrated by her smile and her friendly way of proffering her hand.
Above all, she seemed free, and her simplicity was a nice surprise coming from someone whom protocol dictates should be addressed as "Ma'am."
But, afterall, she had accepted the idea of an interview focused on a photograph of her. The idea entranced her, she replied upon receipt of the letter of request. She was ready to play the game.
As for the choice of photos, there was an embarrassment of riches. She was certainly the world's most photographed person. Since each shot of her was reprinted a thousand times, we decided to make an exception to the rule and to let her pick from a selection we offered her.
Diana led us to a private reception room on the second floor, a warm, feminine room decorated in pastels and beiges, with a few pieces of antique furniture and comfortable armchairs and, everywhere possible, wood- and silver-framed photos. They were mostly of her two sons, William and Harry; and also of her two sisters and brother, and her late father, Earl Spencer. It seemed that the princess had drawers full of pictures. But it was our selection that interested her immediately - no stolen, private or intimate shots, but known pictures of the public personality that reinforced the legend of the warmhearted princess focusing on a social problem or a humanitarian cause.
Diana looked at them one at a time, giving a spirited account of each: where, when, with whom.
"I pay a great deal of attention to people, and I remember them," she said. "Every meeting, every visit is special."
She passed in review a children's hospital, a shelter for the homeless, a jobless centre, an AIDS research lab, a battered women's hospice, a leprosarium tent in Zimbabwe, a nutrition camp in Nepal.
Then Diana stopped at a photocopy of the picture shown on this page that was taken in 1996 in Pakistan.
"That little boy died," she said, staring fixedly at the image. "I had a foreboding before taking him in my arms. I remember his face, his pain, his voice... This photo is very special to me."
She put it aside on the sofa and continued to look somewhat distractedly through the other pictures. She laughed out loud occasionally over some that caught her being too formal. But she returned to the picture of the child.
"If I have to pick one out, without any hesitation, it's this one," she said.
What was there to explain? It was neither self-flattery nor calculation. The photograph moved her "because it's genuine." That was all.
Surrounded by the relatives of other little patients, the princess felt she was playing her proper role, in harmony, in sympathy, in communion with the group that day of February 1996. Her feelings were not posed. Her contemplativeness was deep. The heartbeats of the little boy were, she said, at that moment, the most important thing.
She would have liked to communicate to him her strength, her good health, her love. How do you depict a princess at work?
The photo showed a human experience, not an official duty.
"It's really a private moment in a public event - a private emotion that a photo turns into public behavior. It's a curious coming together of things. Still, if I had the choice, it's in that kind of surrounding, where I feel perfectly in harmony, that I prefer to be photographed."
Private, public, where's the distinction?
The princess created confusion by shattering the borderline between the two spheres, by introducing privacy into the public space. She put feeling and emotion into her official duties and obligations. There was no defensive outer armor. The commitment was sincere and she put her best into it.
It was also risky. The public had felt it from the start, under the spell of her compassion and her identification with common people. The Establishment, the politicians and princes of appearance were far less appreciative. In a flash, the princess revealed their coldness, their distance, their cynicism.
Look at her gestures with the Bosnian grandmother she took to her bosom, with a young man afflicted with AIDS whose hand she held between hers so long, with the little one-legged Angolan child that sat on her lap. She kissed, caressed, embraced.
"Yes, I do touch. I believe that everyone needs that, whatever their age. when you put your hand on a friendly face, you make contact right away; you communicate warmth, show that you're close by. It's a gesture that comes to me naturally from the heart. It's not premeditated."
She didn't play Lady Bountiful, didn't care about protocol, ignored the officials, rejected anything that might have been humiliating for the people she visited.
Her enthusiasm had raised many a Royal Family eyebrow. The Lady-Di style was laid back - especially when it became clear that beyond projecting a more modern image, it reflected a new relationship with people. The young woman had to hold herself back, and she sometimes had doubts about her role.
"From the first day I joined that family, nothing could be done naturally any more."
The public gradually gave her self-confidence. It was the ill, the children, the excluded whom she visited with unprecedented diligence who persuaded her that she had the right approach and a gift for human contact.
And it was from the public that she drew a force and almost a raison d'etre in the difficult moments.
"I feel close to people, whoever they are. We're immediately at the same level on the same wavelength. That's why I upset certain circles. It's because I'm much closer to the people at the bottom than the people at the top, and the latter won't forgive me for it. I have a real feeling of closeness with the most humble people. My father always taught me to treat everyone as an equal. I've always done so, and I'm sure that Harry and William will follow in my footsteps."
There were values over which the mother of the next king would not compromise. She was a determined young woman, a 36-year-old princess who didn't yet know what course her personal life would take but who wanted to maintain her commitment, no matter what.
"Being constantly in the public eye gives me a special responsibility, particularly that of using the impact of photographs to transmit a message, to sensitize the world to an important cause, to defend certain values."
As an ambassador? As a prestigious representative?
"If I must define my role, I'd rather use the word 'messenger.'"
Her official obligations ended with her divorce and her initiatives became the ones she chose herself. There, again, she showed her independence.
"Nobody can dictate my conduct. I work on instinct. It's my best adviser."
Her campaigns against landmines, against AIDS, for cancer research, for lepers were her priorities. The photo showing her holding the hands of lepers did more to demystify the illness than all the press campaigns of the past 20 years.
But at the cost of so much controversy, humiliation and talk!
"Every single time," she sighed.
When she visited a shelter for the homeless, she was accused of endorsing the Tory government. When, in the early '80s, she made a tender gesture to an AIDS patient, certain Conservatives saw it as a culpable indulgence for immorality.
Her spontaneous contacts with Untouchables in India made the Old Empire Loyalists choke with rage. When she visited a hospital founded by Imran Khan, the husband of her friend Jemima, the press took up the scandalized accusations of Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto that Diana was helping a political opponent.
When she attended a heart transplant in an African hospital, she was accused of indecent coquettery. The papers homed in on a closeup of her wearing a surgical mask and - horrors - makeup on her eyes.
"The press is ferocious," she said. "It pardons nothing. It looks only for mistakes. Every intention is twisted, every gesture criticized. I think things are different abroad. I'm greeted with kindness. I'm accepted as I am, without prejudices, without watching for every faux pas. In Britain, it's the other way round. And I think that in my place, any sane person would have left long ago. But I can't. I have my sons to think about."
The most striking incident was probably her trip to Angola earlier this year. The princess had planned for a long time the visit organized by the Red Cross to call attention to the tragedy of the 70,000 landmine victims in the country and support the world campaign to ban them.
She was seen spending hours listening to young people mutilated by mines, to doctors, to mine clearers. She was photographed wearing protective gear to cross mine fields and watch defusing operations.
But it was London that set off the headlines, and the polemics got the spotlight once again. Tory circles went wild, the British Foreign Office lurked in the shadows.
"A loose cannon," shot an aristocratic member of Parliament.
"A totally ill-advised and unrealistic utopian," said another parliamentarian.
"Misinformed," said a news announcer, making a dubious comparison to Brigitte Bardot. The subject is much too complicated for her little bird's brain."
Rarely had the criticisms reached such a pitch. Misogyny had never been expressed with such force.
The government maintained official silence, but its anxiety was clear, given its insistence that certain types of mines are "effective and necessary for our armed services."
Diana was deeply hurt. But the Tory campaign forced the press to focus on Angola.
"The polemics ruined a day's work, but it multiplied the press coverage," she said. So she did not hide her joy over the immediate decision of the new Labor government to join the countries favoring a ban on landmines.
"Its position on the subject was always clear. It's going to do tremendous work. Its predecessor was so hopeless. I hope we manage to persuade the United States to sign the treaty ban in Ottawa this December."
For her, it was a long-range commitment. She didn't play politics but "humanitarianism." She intended to follow up, regardless of the nettles she might have encountered.
"Over the years, I had to learn to ignore criticism. But the irony is that it gave me strength that I was far from thinking I had. That doesn't mean it didn't hurt me. To the contrary. But that gave me the strength I needed to continue along the path I had chosen."
The coverage of the kiss on a yacht did not make her give up her mid-August trip to Bosnia. Diana proved that she would no longer be intimidated, that the paparazzi didn't govern her life, and that she was staying on course.
It all comes down to sincerity, she said - as in the photo in Lahore. You can't do anything good that you don't feel in your heart, she said.
"Nothing gives me greater happiness than trying to help the weakest in this society. It's a goal and, from now on, an essential part of my life. It's a sort of destiny. I will run to anyone who calls to me in distress, wherever it is."
Le Monde - August 27, 1997
Interview by Annick Cojean
London - This time Princess Diana was the hostess. That role fitted her well. It gave her gestures an extra grace and placed flashes of joy and a bust of boldness in her royal-blue-eyed gaze.
Yes, the princess would see me - at 11 a.m. sharp, the fax specified. And if not for that cab driver who drove me straight to a hotel with the same name as Kensington Palace - the princess's residence - I would have been on time.
But the princess didn't impose the punctuality of a queen who counted her seconds and withdrew her smile as if she were taking off a hat. The princess was at home, relaxed, independent. It was probably the only place where she didn't risk being targeted by camera zooms.
She was wearing a short, sleeveless dress, matching her eyes, unless they were reflecting its color. She wore a necklace of large pearls, high heels and a quite assurance demonstrated by her smile and her friendly way of proffering her hand.
Above all, she seemed free, and her simplicity was a nice surprise coming from someone whom protocol dictates should be addressed as "Ma'am."
But, afterall, she had accepted the idea of an interview focused on a photograph of her. The idea entranced her, she replied upon receipt of the letter of request. She was ready to play the game.
As for the choice of photos, there was an embarrassment of riches. She was certainly the world's most photographed person. Since each shot of her was reprinted a thousand times, we decided to make an exception to the rule and to let her pick from a selection we offered her.
Diana led us to a private reception room on the second floor, a warm, feminine room decorated in pastels and beiges, with a few pieces of antique furniture and comfortable armchairs and, everywhere possible, wood- and silver-framed photos. They were mostly of her two sons, William and Harry; and also of her two sisters and brother, and her late father, Earl Spencer. It seemed that the princess had drawers full of pictures. But it was our selection that interested her immediately - no stolen, private or intimate shots, but known pictures of the public personality that reinforced the legend of the warmhearted princess focusing on a social problem or a humanitarian cause.
Diana looked at them one at a time, giving a spirited account of each: where, when, with whom.
"I pay a great deal of attention to people, and I remember them," she said. "Every meeting, every visit is special."
She passed in review a children's hospital, a shelter for the homeless, a jobless centre, an AIDS research lab, a battered women's hospice, a leprosarium tent in Zimbabwe, a nutrition camp in Nepal.
Then Diana stopped at a photocopy of the picture shown on this page that was taken in 1996 in Pakistan.
"That little boy died," she said, staring fixedly at the image. "I had a foreboding before taking him in my arms. I remember his face, his pain, his voice... This photo is very special to me."
She put it aside on the sofa and continued to look somewhat distractedly through the other pictures. She laughed out loud occasionally over some that caught her being too formal. But she returned to the picture of the child.
"If I have to pick one out, without any hesitation, it's this one," she said.
What was there to explain? It was neither self-flattery nor calculation. The photograph moved her "because it's genuine." That was all.
Surrounded by the relatives of other little patients, the princess felt she was playing her proper role, in harmony, in sympathy, in communion with the group that day of February 1996. Her feelings were not posed. Her contemplativeness was deep. The heartbeats of the little boy were, she said, at that moment, the most important thing.
She would have liked to communicate to him her strength, her good health, her love. How do you depict a princess at work?
The photo showed a human experience, not an official duty.
"It's really a private moment in a public event - a private emotion that a photo turns into public behavior. It's a curious coming together of things. Still, if I had the choice, it's in that kind of surrounding, where I feel perfectly in harmony, that I prefer to be photographed."
Private, public, where's the distinction?
The princess created confusion by shattering the borderline between the two spheres, by introducing privacy into the public space. She put feeling and emotion into her official duties and obligations. There was no defensive outer armor. The commitment was sincere and she put her best into it.
It was also risky. The public had felt it from the start, under the spell of her compassion and her identification with common people. The Establishment, the politicians and princes of appearance were far less appreciative. In a flash, the princess revealed their coldness, their distance, their cynicism.
Look at her gestures with the Bosnian grandmother she took to her bosom, with a young man afflicted with AIDS whose hand she held between hers so long, with the little one-legged Angolan child that sat on her lap. She kissed, caressed, embraced.
"Yes, I do touch. I believe that everyone needs that, whatever their age. when you put your hand on a friendly face, you make contact right away; you communicate warmth, show that you're close by. It's a gesture that comes to me naturally from the heart. It's not premeditated."
She didn't play Lady Bountiful, didn't care about protocol, ignored the officials, rejected anything that might have been humiliating for the people she visited.
Her enthusiasm had raised many a Royal Family eyebrow. The Lady-Di style was laid back - especially when it became clear that beyond projecting a more modern image, it reflected a new relationship with people. The young woman had to hold herself back, and she sometimes had doubts about her role.
"From the first day I joined that family, nothing could be done naturally any more."
The public gradually gave her self-confidence. It was the ill, the children, the excluded whom she visited with unprecedented diligence who persuaded her that she had the right approach and a gift for human contact.
And it was from the public that she drew a force and almost a raison d'etre in the difficult moments.
"I feel close to people, whoever they are. We're immediately at the same level on the same wavelength. That's why I upset certain circles. It's because I'm much closer to the people at the bottom than the people at the top, and the latter won't forgive me for it. I have a real feeling of closeness with the most humble people. My father always taught me to treat everyone as an equal. I've always done so, and I'm sure that Harry and William will follow in my footsteps."
There were values over which the mother of the next king would not compromise. She was a determined young woman, a 36-year-old princess who didn't yet know what course her personal life would take but who wanted to maintain her commitment, no matter what.
"Being constantly in the public eye gives me a special responsibility, particularly that of using the impact of photographs to transmit a message, to sensitize the world to an important cause, to defend certain values."
As an ambassador? As a prestigious representative?
"If I must define my role, I'd rather use the word 'messenger.'"
Her official obligations ended with her divorce and her initiatives became the ones she chose herself. There, again, she showed her independence.
"Nobody can dictate my conduct. I work on instinct. It's my best adviser."
Her campaigns against landmines, against AIDS, for cancer research, for lepers were her priorities. The photo showing her holding the hands of lepers did more to demystify the illness than all the press campaigns of the past 20 years.
But at the cost of so much controversy, humiliation and talk!
"Every single time," she sighed.
When she visited a shelter for the homeless, she was accused of endorsing the Tory government. When, in the early '80s, she made a tender gesture to an AIDS patient, certain Conservatives saw it as a culpable indulgence for immorality.
Her spontaneous contacts with Untouchables in India made the Old Empire Loyalists choke with rage. When she visited a hospital founded by Imran Khan, the husband of her friend Jemima, the press took up the scandalized accusations of Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto that Diana was helping a political opponent.
When she attended a heart transplant in an African hospital, she was accused of indecent coquettery. The papers homed in on a closeup of her wearing a surgical mask and - horrors - makeup on her eyes.
"The press is ferocious," she said. "It pardons nothing. It looks only for mistakes. Every intention is twisted, every gesture criticized. I think things are different abroad. I'm greeted with kindness. I'm accepted as I am, without prejudices, without watching for every faux pas. In Britain, it's the other way round. And I think that in my place, any sane person would have left long ago. But I can't. I have my sons to think about."
The most striking incident was probably her trip to Angola earlier this year. The princess had planned for a long time the visit organized by the Red Cross to call attention to the tragedy of the 70,000 landmine victims in the country and support the world campaign to ban them.
She was seen spending hours listening to young people mutilated by mines, to doctors, to mine clearers. She was photographed wearing protective gear to cross mine fields and watch defusing operations.
But it was London that set off the headlines, and the polemics got the spotlight once again. Tory circles went wild, the British Foreign Office lurked in the shadows.
"A loose cannon," shot an aristocratic member of Parliament.
"A totally ill-advised and unrealistic utopian," said another parliamentarian.
"Misinformed," said a news announcer, making a dubious comparison to Brigitte Bardot. The subject is much too complicated for her little bird's brain."
Rarely had the criticisms reached such a pitch. Misogyny had never been expressed with such force.
The government maintained official silence, but its anxiety was clear, given its insistence that certain types of mines are "effective and necessary for our armed services."
Diana was deeply hurt. But the Tory campaign forced the press to focus on Angola.
"The polemics ruined a day's work, but it multiplied the press coverage," she said. So she did not hide her joy over the immediate decision of the new Labor government to join the countries favoring a ban on landmines.
"Its position on the subject was always clear. It's going to do tremendous work. Its predecessor was so hopeless. I hope we manage to persuade the United States to sign the treaty ban in Ottawa this December."
For her, it was a long-range commitment. She didn't play politics but "humanitarianism." She intended to follow up, regardless of the nettles she might have encountered.
"Over the years, I had to learn to ignore criticism. But the irony is that it gave me strength that I was far from thinking I had. That doesn't mean it didn't hurt me. To the contrary. But that gave me the strength I needed to continue along the path I had chosen."
The coverage of the kiss on a yacht did not make her give up her mid-August trip to Bosnia. Diana proved that she would no longer be intimidated, that the paparazzi didn't govern her life, and that she was staying on course.
It all comes down to sincerity, she said - as in the photo in Lahore. You can't do anything good that you don't feel in your heart, she said.
"Nothing gives me greater happiness than trying to help the weakest in this society. It's a goal and, from now on, an essential part of my life. It's a sort of destiny. I will run to anyone who calls to me in distress, wherever it is."
Attachments
Josefine
Majesty
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,520
- Country
- Sweden
Yennie
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2003
- Messages
- 2,578
- City
- Skåne
- Country
- Sweden
You´re welcome =) hope you dont mind I created a new thread
lasu
Aristocracy
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2003
- Messages
- 131
From bbc.com:
Diana and Dodi inquests announced
Inquests are to be held into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and her lover Dodi Al Fayed in Paris six years ago, it has been announced.
Surrey Coroner Michael Burgess will conduct both inquests, it was confirmed on Friday.
But a Surrey County Council spokesman said it was "premature" to say when the inquests would take place.
Princess Diana, 36, and Mr Al Fayed, 42, were killed in a car crash in Paris in 1997.
The inquests will be the first official public hearings in Britain to examine the circumstances surrounding the Princess's death.
They have been delayed by a lengthy police investigation and other factors.
According to British law, an inquest must happen when a body is returned to Britain following a death abroad.
The inquests will try to establish the facts of their deaths, but will not apportion blame.
A council spokesman said Mr Burgess was conducting the inquest because Mr Fayed was a Surrey resident, not because he is responsible for inquests for the Royal Household.
Conspiracy theory
On the prospect of a date for Diana's inquest, the Mirror newspaper had quoted a Surrey County Council spokesman as saying: "By early next week we should have a date. It is likely to start sooner rather than later.
But on Friday afternoon a council spokesman said: "In time, as the law requires, there will be inquests into the deaths of both the late Dodi Fayed and Diana, Princess of Wales but it is premature to outline any arrangements or suggest any dates or timescale."
A joint inquest is thought to be highly unlikely.
A council spokesman said: "Mr Burgess is responsible for inquests for the Royal Household but there has been no mention of the two being combined at this stage."
A spokesman for Dodi's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, welcomed to the news which they said Mr Al Fayed had been pressing for six years.
The Harrods owner has argued Diana's death was a conspiracy.
The Prince of Wales's office said it would be cooperating fully with the inquest into Dodi's death
Mr Al Fayed's spokesman said: "If it is the coroner's intention to hold a joint inquest with a jury then Mr Al Fayed would welcome that."
It would be the first inquest into a fatal accident involving a member of the Royal Family to be held since 1972, when Prince William of Gloucester was killed in an air crash.
A lengthy investigation into the accident was carried out by a French judge, but the 6,000-page report was never published.
Diana and Dodi inquests announced
Inquests are to be held into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and her lover Dodi Al Fayed in Paris six years ago, it has been announced.
Surrey Coroner Michael Burgess will conduct both inquests, it was confirmed on Friday.
But a Surrey County Council spokesman said it was "premature" to say when the inquests would take place.
Princess Diana, 36, and Mr Al Fayed, 42, were killed in a car crash in Paris in 1997.
The inquests will be the first official public hearings in Britain to examine the circumstances surrounding the Princess's death.
They have been delayed by a lengthy police investigation and other factors.
According to British law, an inquest must happen when a body is returned to Britain following a death abroad.
The inquests will try to establish the facts of their deaths, but will not apportion blame.
A council spokesman said Mr Burgess was conducting the inquest because Mr Fayed was a Surrey resident, not because he is responsible for inquests for the Royal Household.
Conspiracy theory
On the prospect of a date for Diana's inquest, the Mirror newspaper had quoted a Surrey County Council spokesman as saying: "By early next week we should have a date. It is likely to start sooner rather than later.
But on Friday afternoon a council spokesman said: "In time, as the law requires, there will be inquests into the deaths of both the late Dodi Fayed and Diana, Princess of Wales but it is premature to outline any arrangements or suggest any dates or timescale."
A joint inquest is thought to be highly unlikely.
A council spokesman said: "Mr Burgess is responsible for inquests for the Royal Household but there has been no mention of the two being combined at this stage."
A spokesman for Dodi's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, welcomed to the news which they said Mr Al Fayed had been pressing for six years.
The Harrods owner has argued Diana's death was a conspiracy.
The Prince of Wales's office said it would be cooperating fully with the inquest into Dodi's death
Mr Al Fayed's spokesman said: "If it is the coroner's intention to hold a joint inquest with a jury then Mr Al Fayed would welcome that."
It would be the first inquest into a fatal accident involving a member of the Royal Family to be held since 1972, when Prince William of Gloucester was killed in an air crash.
A lengthy investigation into the accident was carried out by a French judge, but the 6,000-page report was never published.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder if this "inquest" will be another formality like the French investigation which concluded Henri Paul's blood alcohol level was responsible. Funny how the coroner specifically noted NO odor of alcohol which is always noted in the body cavities of someone with a blood alcohol level of 0.17 as measured in Henri Paul's blood samples.
Also the morphology of Henri Paul's liver showed no evidence of a history of heavy drinking.
Also the morphology of Henri Paul's liver showed no evidence of a history of heavy drinking.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id...7892003&tid=642
The Diana memorial fountain finally breaks ground. The foundation stone was a 1.5 ton piece of granite! and there was a ceremony, but not a single royal attended even though they think laying foundation stones for public places is an important duty. Just watch, to drive the point home all the royals will attend the laying of foundation stones and ribbon cutting ceremony for every new brewery or factory opened in the near future.
The Diana memorial fountain finally breaks ground. The foundation stone was a 1.5 ton piece of granite! and there was a ceremony, but not a single royal attended even though they think laying foundation stones for public places is an important duty. Just watch, to drive the point home all the royals will attend the laying of foundation stones and ribbon cutting ceremony for every new brewery or factory opened in the near future.
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Bianca
Guest
The truth at last? Aug 29 2003
INQUEST ON DIANA CAR DEATH
Exclusive By Justine Smith
THE date for an inquest in Britain which could finally solve the mystery of the car crash that killed Princess Diana six years ago will be revealed next week.
Diana, Dodi Fayed and chauffeur Henri Paul died when their Mercedes crashed in Paris on August 31, 1997.
Diana's bodyguard, Trevor Rees Jones, survived but can remember nothing of the tragic accident.
Now, Prince William, 21, and brother Harry may finally find out how, and why, their mother died at the age of 36.
Surrey coroner Michael Burgess, who is also responsible for investigating suspicious royal deaths, will oversee the £1million inquiry.
He is waiting to see if he can conduct a joint inquest on Diana and Dodi, who is buried in Surrey. Either way, he will lead the first official inquiry on British soil into the crash.
Surrey County Council said: "By next week we should have a date. It is likely to start sooner rather than later."
It is not yet known whether Buckingham Palace or the Government will appeal for a secret hearing.
William and Harry are known to be eager for an inquest and Dodi's father, Harrods boss Mohamed al Fayed, has campaigned for a public inquiry, claiming it was no accident. Despite huge interest, the only probe so far has been by a French judge. His report was never published. But he concluded Paul, on a cocktail of drink and prescription drugs, lost control as he speeded.
But the report left dozens of crucial questions unanswered. Paul, said to have been an informer for MI6, reached almost 100 mph in an unlit tunnel beneath the Point D'Alma, pursued by photographers on motorbikes.
The Mercedes swerved, possibly after hitting a white Fiat Uno, and hit a pillar. The Uno was never found.
Key witnesses who will be re-interviewed include those who claimed to have seen a blinding light flashed at Henri Paul by the driver of a powerful motorbike, who was never traced.
THE QUESTIONS
WHY did French police fail to protect evidence at the scene? They cleared the road and opened the tunnel hours after the accident.
WHAT caused abnormally high levels of carbon monoxide - 20 per cent - in Henri Paul''s blood even though he died instantaneously?
WHY was Diana allowed to get in the car if Paul really was as drunk as his blood readings showed?
WERE Paul and one unnamed member of the chasing paparazzi employed by MI6, as alleged by ex-spy Richard Tomlinson?
WERE two senior MI6 officers in the British Embassy in Paris at the time?
WHY were the 17 government radar cameras situated between the Ritz and the tunnel switched off and out of film?
WHY were lights turned out in the tunnel minutes before, disabling the cameras?
IF Henri Paul was driving at 80-100mph, why was there no speed camera photo, even though other drivers were fined for speeding with camera technology on the road?
WHERE are the paparazzi photos seized by police at the scene showing a bright dazzling light, according to claims from Mohamed al Fayed?
INQUEST ON DIANA CAR DEATH
Exclusive By Justine Smith
THE date for an inquest in Britain which could finally solve the mystery of the car crash that killed Princess Diana six years ago will be revealed next week.
Diana, Dodi Fayed and chauffeur Henri Paul died when their Mercedes crashed in Paris on August 31, 1997.
Diana's bodyguard, Trevor Rees Jones, survived but can remember nothing of the tragic accident.
Now, Prince William, 21, and brother Harry may finally find out how, and why, their mother died at the age of 36.
Surrey coroner Michael Burgess, who is also responsible for investigating suspicious royal deaths, will oversee the £1million inquiry.
He is waiting to see if he can conduct a joint inquest on Diana and Dodi, who is buried in Surrey. Either way, he will lead the first official inquiry on British soil into the crash.
Surrey County Council said: "By next week we should have a date. It is likely to start sooner rather than later."
It is not yet known whether Buckingham Palace or the Government will appeal for a secret hearing.
William and Harry are known to be eager for an inquest and Dodi's father, Harrods boss Mohamed al Fayed, has campaigned for a public inquiry, claiming it was no accident. Despite huge interest, the only probe so far has been by a French judge. His report was never published. But he concluded Paul, on a cocktail of drink and prescription drugs, lost control as he speeded.
But the report left dozens of crucial questions unanswered. Paul, said to have been an informer for MI6, reached almost 100 mph in an unlit tunnel beneath the Point D'Alma, pursued by photographers on motorbikes.
The Mercedes swerved, possibly after hitting a white Fiat Uno, and hit a pillar. The Uno was never found.
Key witnesses who will be re-interviewed include those who claimed to have seen a blinding light flashed at Henri Paul by the driver of a powerful motorbike, who was never traced.
THE QUESTIONS
WHY did French police fail to protect evidence at the scene? They cleared the road and opened the tunnel hours after the accident.
WHAT caused abnormally high levels of carbon monoxide - 20 per cent - in Henri Paul''s blood even though he died instantaneously?
WHY was Diana allowed to get in the car if Paul really was as drunk as his blood readings showed?
WERE Paul and one unnamed member of the chasing paparazzi employed by MI6, as alleged by ex-spy Richard Tomlinson?
WERE two senior MI6 officers in the British Embassy in Paris at the time?
WHY were the 17 government radar cameras situated between the Ritz and the tunnel switched off and out of film?
WHY were lights turned out in the tunnel minutes before, disabling the cameras?
IF Henri Paul was driving at 80-100mph, why was there no speed camera photo, even though other drivers were fined for speeding with camera technology on the road?
WHERE are the paparazzi photos seized by police at the scene showing a bright dazzling light, according to claims from Mohamed al Fayed?
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
The Royal Family Order (RFO) and other Royal Orders and Decorations 2: Sep 2022-- Latest: prince.of.preslav
-
