Run-up to the inquest into Diana's death

[sassie]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Look, the fact is that this inquest was demanded by those obssessed with conspiracy theories and to shut them up, the British Government gave the go ahead.

I don't understand why you keep saying that. By law, the death of a British citizen on foreign soil requires an inquest, doesn't it? It wasn't a matter of giving into the demands of conspiracy theorists, but of following the same law that would apply to any British citizen in the same situation. Should the laws requiring such an inquest have been disregarded because it was Diana?

Granted, the investigation was extensive, but Al Fayed levied some serious accusations against a lot of people, including Prince Philip. Is it not better than the investigators examined every one of his claims and disproved them in the process? Isn't Prince Philip entitled to having his name officially cleared?

[sassie]

Originally Posted by sara1981

No Jury for Diana Inquest
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...247461,00.html

this story makes me so MAD!

I don't know why you are mad...it is a lot easier, and fairer, for one woman to suspend personal bias and make an informed decision based on the evidence presented than for 12 people to do so.

[BeatrixFan]

I keep saying that because it's true. Yes, an inquest was needed but it's turned into a 10 year saga and it's costing too much money. Prince Phillip doesn't need his name officially cleared, his name was never officially accused. He was accused by a publicity seeking moron who will say anything to get under the skin of the establishment which refuses him a British passport. Anyone with half a head knows Prince Philip is innocent and it's ridiculous to even entertain claims to the contrary.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I keep saying that because it's true. Yes, an inquest was needed but it's turned into a 10 year saga and it's costing too much money. Prince Phillip doesn't need his name officially cleared, his name was never officially accused. He was accused by a publicity seeking moron who will say anything to get under the skin of the establishment which refuses him a British passport. Anyone with half a head knows Prince Philip is innocent and it's ridiculous to even entertain claims to the contrary.

I thought an inquest was required, not just needed? Isn't that the law in Britain?

So, and I'm not arguing here, I'm simply curious-you think it would have been better to just follow the letter of the law and hold an inquest to establish Diana's cause of death and not investigate all the other factors?

I thought the British inquest took so long to happen because of Al Fayed's civil suits in France?

Of course, Prince Philip is innocent-I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But, officially accused or not, the British still have the right to stand up for him and disprove the accusation, don't they?

[BeatrixFan]

Needed, required - what's the difference? It has to happen and thats that. I think it would have been best to do all they're doing now in 1997/98 and end it then instead of dragging it on and on for 10 years which is painful for the Royal Family and costly to the British people.

[corazon]

Originally Posted by Avalon

Besides, since Princess Diana was still considered a member of the Royal Family, the jury should have consisted of the members of the Royal Household and that would not be a very good idea, imo.

why? thw members of the royal family are people like al the others in the UK, diana die in paris, and the briritsh justice investigated her death, but I think is a obligation of the british justice do a investigation until the end

[BeatrixFan]

No, members of the Royal Family are not people like all the others in the UK. They are the Royal Family. If they were like all the rest, they'd be plain members of the public and the situation would be totally different. You can't drop the fact that the Royal Family are the Royal Family because it suits your argument. Nobody objects to justice, nobody objects to inquests - but they do object to the endless courtroom saga that is costing the British people millions when most British people really don't see a need for investigation after investigation. And the British Judiciary is not obliged to do anything. It does what it considers it has to do but there has to come a point when we say, "We have enough to say what happened" and end it.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Needed, required - what's the difference? It has to happen and thats that. I think it would have been best to do all they're doing now in 1997/98 and end it then instead of dragging it on and on for 10 years which is painful for the Royal Family and costly to the British people.

Well, 'needed' implies there was some mystery surrounding the accident-which there really wasn't, except in the minds of conspiracy theorists. 'Required' means the British government was restricted, by law, to go forward with the inquest, needed or not.

I was under the impression that the British inquest was held by Al Fayed's civil suits, not to mention the French investigation, which demanded the evidence remain in France. Hard to investigate a case if the evidence is in another country.

[BeatrixFan]

An inquest is required by law. Therefore it needs to be done. Anyway, that's semantics. The fact remains that investigations cost money and Britain can't afford a couple of million each year on something that's really to silence the fanatics.

[Avalon]

Originally Posted by corazon

why? thw members of the royal family are people like al the others in the UK, diana die in paris, and the briritsh justice investigated her death, but I think is a obligation of the british justice do a investigation until the end

I did not voice my desire/opinion that the jury should have consisted of the members of the Royal Household, I just stated a fact.
19th century law states that a jury, hearing an inquest into the death of a member of the Royal Family, must be chosen only from members of the Royal Household.
At the time of her death Diana was still considered member of the Royal Family and was mother of British Princes.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Avalon

I did not voice my desire/opinion that the jury should have consisted of the members of the Royal Household, I just stated a fact.
19th century law states that a jury, hearing an inquest into the death of a member of the Royal Family, must be chosen only from members of the Royal Household.
At the time of her death Diana was still considered member of the Royal Family and was mother of British Princes.

It absolutely made sense back then to keep things under the carpet, so to speak. But nowadays, especially as the whole inquest is going public anyway, there is no real sense in that anymore.

[BeatrixFan]

Well what was to be kept under the carpet?

[Avalon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

It absolutely made sense back then to keep things under the carpet, so to speak. But nowadays, especially as the whole inquest is going public anyway, there is no real sense in that anymore.

I completely agree Jo.
Anyway, we now know for certain there will be jury at all.
And personally I welcome that decision: any jury, especially 'people's' jury, would be prejudiced, imo.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well what was to be kept under the carpet?

Whatever could have happened to a Royal who died so an inquest was necessary. I recall the story of a Danish king who died on his way home to Denmark in a Hamburg brothel... (not sure if it is truth or myth). Now, if I had to do an inquest into this death, I would wish only members of the Royal household to know about the details...

[corazon]

Originally Posted by Avalon

At the time of her death Diana was still considered member of the Royal Family and was mother of British Princes.

that is a very controvertial point, she was member of the royal family because she was the mother of the future king but in the facts she was alone when she die.
again, is a very controvertial point

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by Avalon

19th century law states that a jury, hearing an inquest into the death of a member of the Royal Family, must be chosen only from members of the Royal Household.
At the time of her death Diana was still considered member of the Royal Family and was mother of British Princes.

Avalon, could you provide the actual wording (or a link) to the pertinent part of that law? I've also heard about it and that it was the reason. However, I was under the impression that the law applied in this case, not necessarily because she was a member of the Royal Family, but because her body had been brought to a royal location. In that interpretation, anyone in the same situation, royal or not, would require a jury of Royal Household members.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Avalon

I see no reason to be mad. This was a perfectly wise decision to make: the jury must consist of people, who do not have prejudiced idea of the case and where would you find 12 people, who don't have a strong opinion about that tragic accident?

I agree, they would have been hard put to find anyone without a strong opinion.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

Avalon, could you provide the actual wording (or a link) to the pertinent part of that law? I've also heard about it and that it was the reason. However, I was under the impression that the law applied in this case, not necessarily because she was a member of the Royal Family, but because her body had been brought to a royal location. In that interpretation, anyone in the same situation, royal or not, would require a jury of Royal Household members.

"The royal coroner - a position which has existed since the 12th century - is responsible for inquests on people whose bodies are lying within the limits of the monarch's palaces.
There were only eight such inquests in the 20th century....
On the question of a jury at a royal inquest, the law is clear. There is no "wiggle" room.


It states: "The jurors on an inquest held by the coroner of the Queen's household shall consist of officers of that household".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6176613.stm

Perhaps it was felt that as they were not going to abide by the law and appoint officers of the Queens household, that they would not use a jury at all, thus removing one of al Fayeds chances to ask for a judicial review.

[selrahc4]

Thank you, Skydragon.
So membership in the Royal Family was not a guiding factor at all.

[Avalon]

Thank you for providing the information, Skydragon!
I was struggling to find the law, however it appears that selrahc4 was right and it was the case of how and where was Diana buried, not who she was (member of the Royal Family).