Skip to comments.Princess Diana 'was killed after plan to frighten her went wrong'
Posted on 03/11/2010 1:10:12 PM PST by Niuhuru
Princess Diana died after attempts to frighten her into dumping Dodi al Fayed and ending her anti-establishment activities went horribly wrong, a leading lawyer has claimed.
Michael Mansfield claimed he was sure Diana's 'killers' had no intention of ending her life in a Paris tunnel in August 1997 and simply wanted to scare her. But he claimed the operation to torpedo her relationship with Dodi, and silence her planned criticism of the British government over foreign arms sales, backfired spectacularly.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Oooo A “Leading Lawyer” , I just love these “journalist” junk terms
Where are these rankings and what criteria is used to compile these standings?
Who is the Lawyer in second place and what are his/hre odds of taking the lead?
Didn't we fight a war to rid ourselves of those people?
Why did she get involved with a Muslim in the first place?
Big red flag for me too. Another is when a TV newsreader prefaces a dig into a guest with, “Some say that....”. It’s a cowardly way to interject one’s own opinion into the discussion while pretending to remain impartial.
Historically, things rarely turn out well for members of royal families that dabble in “anti-establishment activity”.
I have always thought the royals were sort of interesting. I actually like the Queen’s Husband, but Diana was even worse than Charles and that is pretty bad.
It nauseates me to think so many here in America bought into all that Royalty crap. BooHoo, the Princess is dead.
Didn’t we fight a war to rid ourselves of those people?
How can you say such a thing - Elton John sang a song about it!!! Fart in the Wind or Wind in my fart, or something like that. It was a real touching moment.
Follow the money! Her Muslim lover sure wasn’t attractive.
Yeah. ...And it looks like we're about to have to fight another one to rid ourselves of those who believe they are "American Royalty".
Historically, things rarely turn out well for members of royal families that dabble in anti-establishment activity.
Then how do you explain Prince Charles? Surely his “dabbling” with Camilla before, after, and during his marriage to Diana is “Anti-establishment” to say nothing of his enviro-wacko pontifications,
Maybe she checked his package.
This lawyer jumped out to an early lead after the rest got stuck behind an ambulance.
“Wind in my farting tramp” (if IIRC)
>It nauseates me to think so many here in America bought into all that Royalty crap. BooHoo, the Princess is dead.
>Didn’t we fight a war to rid ourselves of those people?
Ah, don’t go there. Royalty is not, in itself, a bad thing; remember that Hitler’s power sprang up from a free election [at first] while Wenceslaus WAS a royal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenceslaus_I,_Duke_of_Bohemia
Granted, I would rather people be famous for their “good deeds” like Mother Theressa was... so popular that she stopped a battle [or, rather God used her to] with her mere presence when the attacker was not willing to assault the city because they did not want her to be collateral damage.
The Royal Family, Queen Betty, her brain-dead Prince and their mentally challenged son, as well as most of thier cousins and kin are really a bunch of low-lives themselves.
Dysfunctional Human Beings.
Now that most Christians in Britain are Catholic, maybe they can bring back the Stuarts and kick the Hanoverians out of office.
They could hardly be worse, and might be actually an improvement.
It's 2010. Sexual license and greenism are the establishment.
I think Diana was dedicated to a fantasy that would never exist. I don’t think people understood what Charles went through when he lived with Diana. Knowing what I know now about her, I think she was a lot like Marilyn in the sense that Marilyn seemed content to be a victim than someone who took control and made the best of any situation she found herself in.
I don’t think the RF wanted Diana out, but to settle in and live up to her responsibilities.
I think she did it to thumb her nose at the RF and also live a luxe life. Two birds with one stone.
If a lefty Islamist lawyer claims it, it must be true!
Always some charlatan trying to scam a buck.
Let the poor woman RIP.
Ill go there. Because royalty is despotic by it’s very essence. And after Thomas Paine wrote “common sense”, and utterly filleted the concept of royaly about 6 ways, it’s inexcusable to defend it. You really need to read it,, it’s a tour de force on the topic of royalty.
It’s a red herring to say hitler was elected.
Maybe he was, but so what? The mere fact that an evil man was elected, in no way can logically give support to royalty as a concept, hereditery positions, and devine right. It does not logically follow that if a bad man can be sometimes get elected, that royalty is good. It’s a non sequitur.
Most of the Brits I know think Charles is looney. but they love the Queen and detest Prince Philip.
“She was a beautiful woman and her motives were right, but her dalliance with that damn Muslim was unforgivable.”
She wasn’t that attractive. Only the title made her appear that way. She was rather crane like and dorky with a slighly oversized breathing apperatus.
Plus I’m sure her bulimia didn’t make lovemaking any more pleasant. Everyone keeps forgetting that people who barf their meals might not smell good.
I have a great deal of admiration and respect for Queen Elizabeth, who has dedicated her life to working for her country.
I can’t say the same about Charles, who is a clueless idiot. Or Diana, who was made to be a cover girl, not a princess. Theirs was a marriage made in hell, and for that they shared the responsibility.
I always thought the Royals were nothing more than parasites on true taxpaying citizens.
According to the law, the royals own everything and allow commoners the right to work the fields for 10% of the yield. This was serfdom. Now we have freedom and pay in excess of 50% of the yield. Things are better now.
I liked her breathing apparatus and the rest of her wasn’t bad either.
Guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
He get a “pass” because of his obvious inbreeding breeding.
If Diana was home with her kids she would be still alive
Charles didn’t go on Panorama and suggest that the entire succession be centered on her son because Charles didn’t make her happy or fulfilled. And Charles didn’t call into question the lineal legitimacy of her second son in front of the entire world. All because Diana, despite her NUMEROUS blessings, didn’t feel fulfilled.
If I had a daughter-in-law that did that, I’d be beyond ticked. Charles didn’t pick that fight, everything he did was in response to what Diana did. Charles is an eccentric, not a bulimic drama addicted nutjob who made it her personal mission to destroy the life of her husband, his family, and her second son. How many numerous articles are there that Harry looks just like Hewitt?
She brought a lot of her misery onto herself. She marketed herself as a sexpot and then proceeded to wonder why men might not want to commit after bonking her. Stalking a married man and tormenting his wife with threats and screaming and making it so bad that the husband had to call Scotland Yard because he thought it might be terrorism.
Then cavorting with Dodi on his yacht and not caring about what her sons might see and read about. Not caring about her reputation to make their lives a little bit easier. I can’t imagine how William must have felt, seeing his mother on television going on a paranoid psychotic rampage against his own family that loved him, no matter the problems of his mother. Telling him about Camilla, but omitting her own adultery.
It’s a known fact that she discussed her relationships with her barely adolescent son who likely couldn’t understand half of the stuff she shoved on his shoulders and into his mind. She went over the divorce terms with him. I find it completely unforgivable. No mother who loves her children does that sort of thing.
Yes she would have. I can’t understand how someone with all her blessings could allow herself to be so unhappy. Jackie O. had her husband’s brains blown out in front of her, but didn’t write a big book about it and use it as an excuse to live a self destructive life.
That's incorrect. The Royal Family subsists on its own income. Even when it got the civil list monies, that money was in lieu of income from the Crown Lands.
Unlike the Kennedies and other American royalty, the Royal Family pay their own way. Also they very rarely suffocate people in lakes!
Diana died because her driver was blind drink and because she wasn’t wearing a seat-belt.
There is no mystery here.
The *princess* was a tramp. A muzzie loving tramp at that.
The only sane answer is that the entire sickness is based upon the royal system. Charles was as crazy as she was,,, and both were as crazy as his mom. Elitist spoiled child, raised to think she is somehow superior. She really thinks that,,, doesn’t that amaze you?
Where does this idea that royals must be deferred to come from? Im sickened everytime an America leader curtsies, bows, etc etc to royalty,,,but especially British royalty. They should be the ones showing deferrence to an American president. The french had the right idea about royalty,, and have been the better for it as a society.
I never cared for her looks, either. I guess being "royal" gives one some bonus points in the looks department.
LOL.....I hate those terms....Esp. when the “journalist” is interviewing someone
All the hoopla over Diana’s death would fill a soap bubble the size of our galaxy. And once popped, nothing... Enough all(fricken)ready!
Come up with solid proof, or shut your pie hole. (not you WC)
That being said, I don’t have a problem with rational sorrow over Diana’s death. I was sorry to hear of it. The boys lost their mother and I don’t like to see that sort of thing.
I don’t use the term ‘rid ourselves’ in conjunction with England. Although we did fight for our independence and take it by force, we do have a special relationship with Great Britain. When push comes to shove, I’ll take Great Britain’s support up against just about anyone’s support globally. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and even Tony Blare stood by the U.S. when we needed them, and I’d like to think we would stand by them as well.
With what is taking place in the world today, I’m not sure Great Britain will always be there. If it weren’t, it would be a sad day for me and our nation.
Despite our differences, we have a lot of heritage mixed up with Great Britain and other nations surrounding it on the islands. I’d hate to see that heritage lost to swarms of third worlders who don’t have a clue when it comes to the 21st Century.
Hmmmm... I would of hit it!
LOL... A poignant observation, that.
And where did their income initally come from? Hereditary privilege and position, and lands owned by the crown. It was stolen 150 years ago and more,,, and now they are insisting they live on “their” income.
This would be like NAZIS melting the gold teeth, investing the gold,, collecting the profits,, and then claiming they “subsist on their own income”.
Indeed. It looks as if we may soon be fighting another one if our electoral process does not have the desired effect.
Royal wealth,, sounds like great work,,(if you can get it)
“Ms. Windsor is given the income from the 33,000 acre Duchy of Lancaster, £11.9m in 2007. She also has free run of three palaces, a castle and two racehorse studs.
Her son Charles is allowed to take the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. In the 2007 - 2008 year that gave him £16m before tax, of which some went on “official duties” and the rest of which was his to spend as he pleased. According to figures published by the Financial Times in 2008 a “head of a clan” in the Italian Mafia can expect to make only £408,000 a year.
The Duchy’s land holdings include the 70,000 acres of Dartmoor. Charlie does not own the Duchy’s property and cannot take any of its capital.
The Duchy of Cornwall, from which Mr. Windsor draws most of his income, and the Duchy of Lancaster that funds his mother, are both exempt from corporation and capital gains tax.
This has been questioned by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, which has been particularly concerned that this gives the Duchies an unfair advantage in the property market that provides much of their profits.
The Accounts Committee inspects the accounts of the Duchies but the Auditor-General is not allowed to examine their financial records.
Mr. Windsor is taxed on only 30 per cent of his income.”
Michael Mansfield QC IS a leading Barrister in Britain and has been at the forefront of many high-profile cases since the 1960s. He is working for Mohammad Al Fayed, and is no doubt being paid handsomely to use the legal system to promote his client’s bonkers conspiracy theorist agenda.
The fact that Michael Mansfield is a left-wing radical republican no doubt allows him to relish this opportunity to be paid potray the Royals as homicidal maniacs who killed off the mother of Princes William and Harry...
I never thought she was a beautiful as she was made out to be, but in terms of looks, she was way out of his league. Course, having six castles and being heir to the throne of England probably made him a little more desirable.
Was she just supposed to twiddle her thumbs when Charles had the kids?
Only a jackass would think that!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.