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 ...
>The *princess* was a tramp. A muzzie loving tramp at that.
Good, attack on the basis of Character (or rather, the lack thereof) rather than on birth-status.
People refuse to accept it I guess because she’s stll seen as a victim and therefore not responsible for what happens to her. The simplest explanations are often the hardest to accept.
What’s to detest about Prince Phillip? He served Britain in front line naval service during WWII and is deliciously politically incorrect. He even called out the idiots who (unfortunately successfully) banned handguns in the wake of Dunblane by basically saying ‘Why not ban cricket bats if someone went beserk with one?’ A comment which caused a lot of butthurt amongst many people, in common with a lot of the things he often says....
I agree with *the boys lost their mother* sadness, *it’s never a good thing*, blah blah but, the women who cried for a week or more.... come on! You didn’t even know the women.
My ancestry comes mainly from Ireland, Scotland and Wales. That England is screwing it up for the rest of Great Britain.
>I’ll go there. Because royalty is despotic by its very essence.
Then please explain why Jesus in not only a king, but the King of Kings, and not merely “Despotism Made Flesh”.
>And after Thomas Paine wrote common sense, and utterly filleted the concept of royaly about 6 ways, its inexcusable to defend it.
Ah, well here I am Defending it. Royalty is not, by nature, inherently evil.
>You really need to read it,, its a tour de force on the topic of royalty.
And here I thought it was “a tour de force on the topic of royalty AS IMPLEMENTED BY CORRUPT MAN.”
>Its a red herring to say hitler was elected.
Not really. A -> B is NOT the same as ~A -> ~B. IOW we have to define our playing-field for the debate; by stating that diplomatic processes can give rise to evil rulers, and non-diplomatic ones can give rise to good rulers I am steering the debate towards Character and human-nature.
>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.
“Hereditary-Position -> Evil-Person” is not the same as “Not-Evil-Person -> Not-Hereditary-Position”.
>It does not logically follow that if a bad man can be sometimes get elected, that royalty is good.
True, but the other-way works too: if bad men are sometimes born to power it does not mean that elections are good.
“we do have a special relationship with Great Britain.”
‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.’
You might do well to remember the horrific damage England inflicted upon is. The “special relationship” is designed to do nothing more than give England access to America’s power, to fulfill *their* foreign policy. It’s hard to think of a nation which, as a government, has dealt with the USA in a more cynical manner. They attacked us in 1812. They tried to split us again in the civil war, they conspired to bring us into WWI, literally demanding that we feed Americans into the British Army. They were bitter that we founght as Americans.
They fully threatened to sink our merchantmen while we were neutral, while criticizing Germany for doing it if the ship was headed to England.
After the war they wanted us to forgive all their war debts as “America’s rightful contribution”.
They demanded a fleet double the size of ours in the Naval Treaty of 1921.
England is the absolute root of the entire middle east conflict, and the India/Pak conflict, and now,,as we clean up their mess, they contribute a token force, and have the audacity to say *they* are helping US? Utterly Amazing!
England SOLD the Russians the jet engine for the MiG-15!
And now, Much of the international banking crisis leads straight to London.
England has been one of the greatest menaces to moral government, American freedom, and individual liberty on earth. It’s just disguised in a teacup. The only decent thing they have contributed is a series of explorers. And most of them were treated badly at home later.
As a final how do you do,,misery in Manchester, in the era of Oliver Twist and Ebeneezer Scrooge inspired 2 nice men. Marx and Engals.
With special freinds like england,, who needs enemies?
Of course, this is just my opinion.
I too remember when Prince Phillip spoke out against the gun control laws. He was savagely attacked for it but did not back down.
However, post-separation/divorce, Diana became more and more visibly promiscuous and her battles with the Royal Family were tedious and nothing anyone I knew could care about. Diana had a very comfortable lifestyle, two lovely children and a title, which is a big deal in the U.K. Her well-publicized complaints about her famous in-laws and the paparazzi fell on deaf ears in my house. She was passably attractive but nothing that would snap a man's around to stare at her had she not been famous.
This lawyers assertion that Diana's untimely, rather gruesome death was an "unexpected consequence" of some murky establishment plot to frighten her away from the millionaire Muslim playboy, 'Dodi' Al-Fayed, may or may not be true. After more than a dozen years, who really cares anymore?
While I have no use for the 'Royal Family' and never was enchanted by Princess Diana, I do respect our national and ethnic ties to Great Britain and of course, back in '97, I was sorry to learn of Diana's death at age 36 in a stupid and unnecessary car accident, plot or no plot. However, I thought the U.S. TV coverage was excessive and I slightly resented this near-worship of what seemed like a pampered, vapid and somewhat promiscuous young mother...but that's me.
“Then please explain why Jesus in not only a king”
Uhmmmm,,, because he wasn’t a king? There was no “king jesus”. Even he never claimed to be an earthly king.
“And here I thought it was a tour de force on the topic of royalty AS IMPLEMENTED BY CORRUPT MAN.”
Proving you didnt read it ever,, because it specifically and masterfully proves that monarchies cannot possibly be divinely ordained. That the argument that they are ordained of god is silly. It further examines the complete history of monarchies and shows the absence of morality in them as a concept. Again,, read the book.
And you tried to use this “good king”, as an example of the good of monarchies,, but you neglect to tell us how he dies, and of the next several generations. You also forgot to tell us how his dynasty began.
And if you believe God ordained some monarchs back then,, what happened now? He just change his mind about government of earth, and not want us to have earthly kings now? LOL
“if bad men are sometimes born to power it does not mean that elections are good.”
And as long as elections are the expectation is that the bum can be thrown out. If he turns into a Hitler, violence is proper. But how exactly do you get rid of a monarchy? How do you get rid of the windsors?
You can’t, you just have to hope the next seed is better??
For extra credit, explain why if the royals are there by divine right,,,appointed by God, that the Magna Carta was needed? It would seem tacky to try to limit the rights of God’s chosen ruler,,wouldn’t it?
You can’t have it both ways,,If God appointed his temporal leaders, they should clearly be unchecked by anyone but God himself. On the other hand, if they arent appointed by God, they are nothing but despots who have siezed power without the consent of the governed.
Face it,, tourism is the only reason for the British Royals to exist.
Believe me, without mentioning names, I do know women who went bonkers over Diana. To me it’s somewhat of a mental illness thing. They gobbled up every bit of gossip and media hype about her, and just jumped off the deep end. They don’t know didley squat about her that isn’t media hype, but they think they knew her. Yikes...
Look, I miss Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher very much. They actually helped change the entire world.
I know where you’re coming from. And my ancestral homelands are similar to yours.
A coke-headed Muslim , no less.
Perhaps when you are slating Britain and England for being all that is evil and despicable, you should remember the origins of your American concepts of freedom and liberty.
They come from England and the English traditions of Magna Carta, the Peasant’s Revolt, the English Civil War, the Levellers, the ‘Glorious Revolution’ and the 1689 Bill of Rights, John Lock, ‘Freeborn’ John Lilburne, Thomas Paine etc etc etc.
Its also worth remembering that after we successfully deposed our wannabe ‘diving right of kings’ absolute monarch Charles I, England was turned into a military dictatorship by Oliver Cromwell, who also smashed the Levellers, who were the forerunners and ideological ancestors of the American founding fathers (who immediately prior to 1776, saw themselves as Englishmen and considered their struggle part of fighting for their natural rights as Englishmen).
This republican military dictatorship was in many ways as bad as, and sometimes even worse than the tyranny that Charles I tried to impose, made worse by the fact that Oliver’s position was stronger than that of King Charles, because after he destroyed the levellers, he had the full backing of the only substantial, trained, and experienced army in the land, the New Model Army, which he himself had created.
The monarchy was brought back and eventually made subject to Parliament, since 1689. BTW, did you know that George III basically surrendered the last realistic vestige of his independence from Parliament in 1760 by handing over the revenue of the Crown Estates in return for a Parliamentary stipend approved by Parliament? With this he lost whatever financial independence he had left, and he, as with every monarch since, has been completely beholden to the elected Parliament, and it was this Parliament, not George III, which was responsible for provoking the American War of Independence...
His father owns HARROD’S!! The BEST place to shop in London! It’s unbelievable!
“Only a jackass would think that!”
Really a princess acting like a cheap Slut?
the “people’s princess” was a tramp because the PEOPLE ARE TRAMPS!
>>Then please explain why Jesus in not only a king
>Uhmmmm,,, because he wasnt a king? There was no king jesus. Even he never claimed to be an earthly king.
You didn’t say “earthly king.” Just because His kingdom is non-earthly does not invalidate that he was/is royalty. He showed, by example, the perfect picture of a ‘servent-leader.’
>>And here I thought it was a tour de force on the topic of royalty AS IMPLEMENTED BY CORRUPT MAN.
>Proving you didnt read it ever,, because it specifically and masterfully proves that monarchies cannot possibly be divinely ordained.
*sigh* that’s an argument against the “Divine-Right of kings”... not against the Right of Divine-Kings.
>That the argument that they are ordained of god is silly.
Not really. God chose both David & Saul through the Samuel; because Samuel was the last of the Judges AND the first of the Prophets you could say that David and Saul were both divinely ordained in two ways (through the Prophet-position, and through the Judge=position, which Samuel occupied). So they, at the least, WERE divinely ordained.
The ‘Right of Kings’ came about when Kings took that idea and superimposed it on themselves... probably much like some Christians superimpose the Abrahamic Covenant onto America because it “was founded on Christian Principles.”
So to say that the “divine right of kings” doesn’t exist, then as-such it is true; but if you were to say that the divine ordination of kings does not exist then that is not true.
>It further examines the complete history of monarchies and shows the absence of morality in them as a concept.
That is irrelevant, as an examination of the human race’s complete history would show that same absence of morality and corruption.
>Again,, read the book.
>And you tried to use this good king, as an example of the good of monarchies,, but you neglect to tell us how he dies, and of the next several generations.
And Jesus, the “goodest” King, died an even more horrible and unjust death.
The problem is that you are arguing first from the point of some system, and then on the point of human failings; you MUST start with the human failings first. This is what the Declaration of Independence did: it stated that man has natural rights, but that men were disposed “to suffer evils while evils were sufferable” rather than make a stand for righteousness. The [framers of the] Constitution did the same, by providing in itself a method for alteration they were implementationally-acknowledging that they were flawed/limited and [as a result] the document was not perfect.
>You also forgot to tell us how his dynasty began.
>And if you believe God ordained some monarchs back then,, what happened now?
I didn’t say that God ordained ALL monarch; just that some of them certainly could have been.
>He just change his mind about government of earth, and not want us to have earthly kings now? LOL
Actually the reason He gave Israel a king was... because “the people” wanted it. He warned them that things wouldn’t “be magically better” and a king would compel works and wars and taxes that [otherwise] wouldn’t happen.
I guess you could liken it to a parent whose child says: “I want to be a surgeon!” replies: “Are you sure? ...you’ll see a lot of blood [, and you’re kinda squeamish about blood].” and yet when the child persists/insists allows it to be so. Yet, despite the child going off into what may not be the BEST field for them, still hopes them to have a fulfilling/rewarding job.
>>if bad men are sometimes born to power it does not mean that elections are good.
>And as long as elections are the expectation is that the bum can be thrown out. If he turns into a Hitler, violence is proper. But how exactly do you get rid of a monarchy? How do you get rid of the windsors?
>You cant, you just have to hope the next seed is better??
LOL - Isn’t that what you’re doing with an election, in some sense? “Hoping the next seed is better.” That every four years the president gets put up for reelection is a great way to cut back on the corruption... if people cared about corruption; if only we did that with Congressmen and “State Employees” perhaps our system wouldn’t be so corrupt... then again, it could be worse.
>For extra credit, explain why if the royals are there by divine right,,,appointed by God, that the Magna Carta was needed?
For the same reason that God gave capital punishment in the Mosaic law, even though the Noah-covenant included commands to humankind to shed the blood of those who shed blood (God is serious about man being made in His image); there are evils that societies must not allow, lest they be destroyed.
>It would seem tacky to try to limit the rights of Gods chosen ruler,,wouldnt it?
Nope. Just because a ruler is appointed by God does not mean that the ruler’s Area-of-Operations is unlimited. As an example, Saul’s royal-line/claim/appointment was terminated due to his acting outside his appointed Authority. (The incident where Saul acted in the place of Samuel, the priest.)
Yeah, but it adds a touch of class. Something emerging nations try to fake by slapping a shiny picture of the Leader de jour on a dilapidated streetscape.
I think her motto was “Don’t complain, don’t explain.” I don’t remember her ever doing a story about her life and how she felt about things.
Diana was all about how she “felt” about things. That’s what drove the Royals crazy. I don’t think they put much value on feelings or whether they’re happy or not.
That’s what makes me wonder. Diana didn’t drink alcohol and she didn’t like being around people who had too much to drink. You would have thought she could smell the alcohol on her driver a mile away.
That was an evil reply, cool though, I don’t figure that you are a Labor voter.
She had the right to a personal life.
But, in your mind, only women are sluts. Right?
Whereas Tiger and Ben Roethlisberger are probably personal heroes of yours.
I say F you.
And, if you don’t think that’s lady like, I don’t give a rat’s ass. You can take your backward opinion of women and shove it up your A$$.
“Diana was all about how she felt about things. Thats what drove the Royals crazy. I dont think they put much value on feelings or whether theyre happy or not”
I don’t think anyone told Diana that feelings are not facts. The royals (especially HM) have grown up having to face facts at an early age. I don’t think HM (who survived the blitz and worked as a mechanic during WWII) really believed that Diana really had it rough. Philip was unfaithful constantly and HM found a way to cope and still lead a fulfilled life. Philip served in the navy during WWII and actually fought the Nazis.
Same with other members of the RF. Princess Anne was tormented by the press early in her life and still got on with it. HM had morning sickness while pregnant, but she got through her days without screaming about how she felt so victimized. Diana’s problem is that she sometimes thought she was the only one who ever suffered. That everyone was ‘out to get her.’
That in a nutshell is how I have always felt. Thank you.
“To me its somewhat of a mental illness thing. They gobbled up every bit of gossip and media hype about her, and just jumped off the deep end. They dont know didley squat about her that isnt media hype, but they think they knew her. Yikes...”
Minus Charles, she lived the life they dreamed of leading.
It was the same cabal that faked the moon landing that killed Our Princess, I tell ya!
I remember it as "Crocodile Fart".
Ah yes, the Jews.
“Why did she get involved with a Muslim in the first place?”
His daddy owns Herrods.
“She had the right to a personal life.
But, in your mind, only women are sluts. Right?
Whereas Tiger and Ben Roethlisberger are probably personal heroes of yours.
I say F you.
And, if you dont think thats lady like, I dont give a rats ass. You can take your backward opinion of women and shove it up your A$$.”
You are kidding right? She was the most well known and photographed woman in the world,The word Discreet comes to mind here.
I think it was a cover of Spinal Taps "Breaking the Wind." The live performance has been called "eye watering."
Knew about Thomas Paine's Common Sense in grade school. But until your post, I never actually read it before. Needless to say, the text of King George's reply indicates war.
Thanks for a great post.
Have sex BEFORE dining.
Um, maybe, I don’t know, she LIKED him?
Oh, come on. Diana was what, 20 when she and Charles married? Can you truly say that you were at your decision-making peak at 20?
A lot of people get married at 20, or at least they used to until recent times. Then they discover problems. Then they work them out.
The problems in that marriage were on both sides. It wouldn’t matter, except that they were the Prince and Princess of Wales, and were supposed to be an example to their country. The problem was, basically, that neither of them was remotely suited to the job.
And I stick by my observation that Diana was a better cover girl than future queen. She was on more covers than anyone in the past 50 years, except maybe Obama.
How could you “like” a Muslim???
It astounds me.
Are you freakin’ serious? You’re that narrow-minded and bigoted?
Look, I yield to no man in my hatred of jihadis, but to write off an entire religion based on what some goons do - well, do you write off Christians based on Timothy McVeigh, or Fred Phelps, or the Crusaders?
Because if not, you are one helluva hypocrite.
In this case, I agree with FrPR.
This site is REPLETE with newspaper articles from every part of the globe demonstrating how brutal, vicious and intolerant Islam is towards ALL non-believers.
If you think there are good Muslims, where the hell are they when their coreligionists murder, rape, torture, and enslave non-Muslims in Nigeria, the Sudan, Israel, India,Pakistan, south east Asia and the Philippines? They are silent not through fear, but because they are MUSLIMS and in their heart of hearts believe Mohammad, the Koran and the Haddiths, KNOW they are part of the UMMA and WE are not, BELIEVE in the Dar El Salaam and Dar El Harib and support the imposition of a tyrannical theocracy on the entire world - just as their religion calls for.
You call me bigoted. What would you have said about people who opposed Nazism or Stalinism?
If you think Islam is just a religion, you have been drinking politically correct liberal cool-aid.
Islam is not a religion. It is a political, social, theological and cultural system - a system which enslaves and degrades women, condones oppressing non-Muslims, supports the use of terror and violence against any who are not willing to surrender to it, and uses the freedoms of western Democracy to destroy it from within by allowing it to proselytize and practice its belief system while denying that freedom to non-Muslims in Islamic countries.
um...Xena ain’t no guy
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.