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 ...
“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.’
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.