Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Princess Diana 'was killed after plan to frighten her went wrong'
Daily Mail ^ | 8:40 PM on 11th March 2010 | Mail Foreign Service

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britishroyalfamily; diana; napl; princess; princessdiana; royals; royalty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last
I remember reading that Diana idolized Marilyn Monroe and it's quite conincidental that her (Diana's) death, however straightforward, has so many conspiracy theories behind it.
1 posted on 03/11/2010 1:10:13 PM PST by Niuhuru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

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?

sarc/


2 posted on 03/11/2010 1:16:07 PM PST by DanielRedfoot (What a fool believes, No wise man has the power to reason away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru
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?

3 posted on 03/11/2010 1:16:12 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Why did she get involved with a Muslim in the first place?

Money??


4 posted on 03/11/2010 1:21:54 PM PST by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, Guts and Guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DanielRedfoot

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.


5 posted on 03/11/2010 1:22:38 PM PST by Textide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Historically, things rarely turn out well for members of royal families that dabble in “anti-establishment activity”.


6 posted on 03/11/2010 1:24:48 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

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.


7 posted on 03/11/2010 1:28:58 PM PST by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

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.


8 posted on 03/11/2010 1:32:05 PM PST by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Follow the money! Her Muslim lover sure wasn’t attractive.


9 posted on 03/11/2010 1:33:24 PM PST by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
Didn't we fight a war to rid ourselves of those people?

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".

10 posted on 03/11/2010 1:33:58 PM PST by Ranger Drew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

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,


11 posted on 03/11/2010 1:35:30 PM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw
I always thought the Royals were nothing more than parasites on true taxpaying citizens. Worse, many of the Royals were arrogant and condescending to their subjects and indulged in degenerate behavior.
12 posted on 03/11/2010 1:37:35 PM PST by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Maybe she checked his package.


13 posted on 03/11/2010 1:39:28 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DanielRedfoot

This lawyer jumped out to an early lead after the rest got stuck behind an ambulance.


14 posted on 03/11/2010 1:39:44 PM PST by WinOne4TheGipper (Truthers to the Left of me, Birthers (pretending to be) to the Right of me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw

“Wind in my farting tramp” (if IIRC)


15 posted on 03/11/2010 1:40:49 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

>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.


16 posted on 03/11/2010 1:41:22 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
She was a beautiful woman and her motives were right, but her dalliance with that damn Muslim was unforgivable.

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.

17 posted on 03/11/2010 1:45:43 PM PST by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, Guts and Guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
"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..."

It's 2010. Sexual license and greenism are the establishment.

18 posted on 03/11/2010 1:47:09 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

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.


19 posted on 03/11/2010 1:47:46 PM PST by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

I think she did it to thumb her nose at the RF and also live a luxe life. Two birds with one stone.


20 posted on 03/11/2010 1:48:27 PM PST by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

If a lefty Islamist lawyer claims it, it must be true!


21 posted on 03/11/2010 1:49:38 PM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Always some charlatan trying to scam a buck.

Let the poor woman RIP.


22 posted on 03/11/2010 1:49:52 PM PST by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

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.


23 posted on 03/11/2010 1:50:54 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Most of the Brits I know think Charles is looney. but they love the Queen and detest Prince Philip.


24 posted on 03/11/2010 1:51:33 PM PST by kalee (The offences we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we engrave in marble. J Huett 1658)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

“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.


25 posted on 03/11/2010 1:52:04 PM PST by Bruinator (God is Great.... Beer is good.... people are?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bruinator

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.


26 posted on 03/11/2010 1:53:24 PM PST by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

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.


27 posted on 03/11/2010 1:54:18 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984

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.


28 posted on 03/11/2010 1:54:21 PM PST by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bruinator

I liked her breathing apparatus and the rest of her wasn’t bad either.

Guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


29 posted on 03/11/2010 1:55:46 PM PST by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, Guts and Guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

He get a “pass” because of his obvious inbreeding breeding.


30 posted on 03/11/2010 1:56:22 PM PST by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

touche’


31 posted on 03/11/2010 1:57:02 PM PST by Bruinator (God is Great.... Beer is good.... people are?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

If Diana was home with her kids she would be still alive


32 posted on 03/11/2010 2:00:18 PM PST by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

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.


33 posted on 03/11/2010 2:00:26 PM PST by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat

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.


34 posted on 03/11/2010 2:01:39 PM PST by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
I always thought the Royals were nothing more than parasites on true taxpaying citizens.

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!

35 posted on 03/11/2010 2:05:38 PM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Diana died because her driver was blind drink and because she wasn’t wearing a seat-belt.

There is no mystery here.


36 posted on 03/11/2010 2:06:23 PM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The *princess* was a tramp. A muzzie loving tramp at that.


37 posted on 03/11/2010 2:07:13 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

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.


38 posted on 03/11/2010 2:07:21 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bruinator
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.

I never cared for her looks, either. I guess being "royal" gives one some bonus points in the looks department.

39 posted on 03/11/2010 2:08:17 PM PST by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DanielRedfoot

LOL.....I hate those terms....Esp. when the “journalist” is interviewing someone


40 posted on 03/11/2010 2:09:16 PM PST by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

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.


41 posted on 03/11/2010 2:11:46 PM PST by DoughtyOne (If we as Republicans can't clean up our house, who can or will? Just say no to MeCain(D).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru; a fool in paradise; Slings and Arrows

Hmmmm... I would of hit it!


42 posted on 03/11/2010 2:12:39 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw
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.

LOL... A poignant observation, that.

43 posted on 03/11/2010 2:13:18 PM PST by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

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”.


44 posted on 03/11/2010 2:14:18 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
My family prospered on Crown Lands in the West of England, the rent was cheap and until Chuckey I the politics were minable.
45 posted on 03/11/2010 2:14:49 PM PST by Little Bill (Carol Che-Porter is a MOONBAT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
Didn't we fight a war to rid ourselves of those people?

Indeed. It looks as if we may soon be fighting another one if our electoral process does not have the desired effect.

46 posted on 03/11/2010 2:15:31 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

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.”


47 posted on 03/11/2010 2:15:52 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DanielRedfoot

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...


48 posted on 03/11/2010 2:16:36 PM PST by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte
What, you saying Charles ain't a hunk?

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.

49 posted on 03/11/2010 2:18:45 PM PST by Richard Kimball (We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat

Was she just supposed to twiddle her thumbs when Charles had the kids?

Only a jackass would think that!


50 posted on 03/11/2010 2:20:23 PM PST by Drea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson