It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Princess Diana tapes exposed

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
It seems after a battle in British courts, NBC has obtained some never-before seen footage of the Princess in her living room being interviewed in 1992 about various topics. The article states that the tape "offers a view of the princess quite different from the formal public face she usually put forth" and also discusses a former palace staff member that she fell in love with and suspected that his death was foul play.



NBC television network will broadcast a never-before-seen video tape of Diana, Princess of Wales, next week in which she says she suspects a member of her staff with whom she fell in love was "bumped off."

NBC said on Friday the two-part program starting next Monday includes excerpts of interviews Diana recorded with communications consultant Peter Settelen in her living room, discussing her childhood, marriage and struggle with bulimia.

Excerpts of the program released in advance include comments by Diana on the lack of sympathy from her mother-in-law Queen Elizabeth when Diana went to her having discovered that Prince Charles was having an affair.

NBC said one section of the interview was "on falling in love with a member of her palace staff, presumed to be Royal Policeman Barry Mannakee, who was killed in a motorcycle accident in 1987."

The two-hour special, which also features an interview with Settelen, is to be broadcast in two parts, on Nov. 29 and Dec. 6.

"This unusual tape, recorded in Diana's living room, hidden for years after her death, and fought over for months in the British courts, offers a view of the princess quite different from the formal public face she usually put forth," NBC said.


news.yahoo.com.../nm/20041126/people_nm/people_diana_dc

Maybe they should just let her rest in peace.

[edit on 11-27-2004 by ProudAmerican]




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   


The moment when Princess Diana claimed her bodyguard was murdered for having an affair with her will be shown on US television for the first time next week.

Her own words about policeman Barry Mannakee, who died in a mysterious motorcycle accident, were: "He was killed. I think he was bumped off." And she added: "He was the greatest fella I've ever had."

Scotland Yard is reinvestigating the accident as part of a probe into conspiracy theories about Diana's death.

Photographed in 1985 with bodyguard turned lover Barry Mannakee, Diana said he was "bumped off" following their affair.



www.news.com.au...


Does anyone plan on watching these specials? I'm kind of surprised they aren't being shown in the UK although I'm sure they'll be seen soon enough over there. It mentions that they're investigating her former lover's death as part of a probe into conspiracy theories about Diana's death, I wonder what other "conspiracies" they are investigating.






[edit on 11-27-2004 by ProudAmerican]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   
... in minimizing her British following, based on the hope that Charles can succeed Elizabeth--which he cannot due to Camilla's having been divorced.

... And if Will's attitude about the role of King is as bitter as his attitude about the treatment of his late Mother,

... the Crown is in deep trouble. Parliament will have to find another line of Stuarts to run Buckingham Palace.

... They can't have people who violated the same rule that Edward VIII violated--and yet retain all their privileges.

...



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The whole Diana episode is, to me, a massive cover up.

Her death is surrounded by loads of uncertainties. Too many things didnt add up, like the car that was supposed to have collided with her limo was never traced.

Certain photographic evidence was confiscated at the time of crash. why?

The blame was put on the driver of the limo saying he was under the influence of alcohol. He never had blood taken to verify he was over the limit. We were told he was drunk!

Also strange that there were no real witnesses to the crash. Most road accidents have a multitude of spectators. Where were these people?

All of the above are my understanding of what i remember. They are not necessarily the correct facts.

Any other theories about this would be welcome.

edit..typos

[edit on 27-11-2004 by Bikereddie]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I truly believe that the concept of monarchy is anachronistic and that Queen Elizabeth and her inbred family should ride off into the sunset on their horse and buggy. Like the concept of slavery that was deemed acceptable at some time or another, being royal and undertanding your "station in life" (to quote bonnie prince Charlie). I think its time for the Brits to catch up with the French - just add revolution without guillotine. Most of the royal's property should be redistributed to the millions of people who suffered to attain it for them. In the real world stripped of their royal lineage they would stuggle to find a job as a clerk at the bank.



[edit on 27-11-2004 by Mynaeris]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
You want my view on this matter??...

Let her rest in peace.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
They are the Disneyland of Britain. They bring in 179 million pounds a year. Why do you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Parliament is fully empowered to disqualify the Montbattens and replace them with another Stuart line that is fully capable of acting as responsible CEOs for the accoutraments of Royalty, Ceremony and Heraldry.

Pipe down! You'll spoil the costume Party!




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
They are the Disneyland of Britain. They bring in 179 million pounds a year. Why do you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater?



Excuse my ignorance but how do they bring this money into the UK each year?

I had dinner with Prince Phillip one night he is a pleasant old man, but definitely not special.


[edit on 27-11-2004 by Mynaeris]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   



Excuse my ignorance but how do they bring this money into the UK each year?

I had dinner with Prince Phillip one night he is a pleasant old man, but definitely not special.


[edit on 27-11-2004 by Mynaeris]



I live over here and even I'm not sure how they generate that amount of income.

Maybe its because of the tourism? hell of a lot of tourists if ya ask me.

Maybe its the British taxpayers who generate the income?

I'm no royalist and can see no good that they actually do for the amount of homeless and deprived people living in the UK.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   
www.royal.gov.uk...

Here's where the Crown gets its income--

In their own words and by their own accountants.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I'm no royalist and can see no good that they actually do for the amount of homeless and deprived people living in the UK.


Agreed

Infinite = UK republican



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I am totally confused. Why do the citizens of the UK let this monarchy just roll on indefinitely. I have studied in the UK and visited there a few times and have never bothered with the current monarchs. The historical monarchs are as interesting as the french monarchy. At least the french realized that the monarchy was an outdated system. I believe truly that with the royals becoming more of an embarassment than a perk its time to give them a small pension and a little palace somewhere and say - bye bye.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
... in minimizing her British following, based on the hope that Charles can succeed Elizabeth--which he cannot due to Camilla's having been divorced.


Is he married to Camilla? No

Is he the heir to the throne? Yes

So explain in depth why he cannot?



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
The King cannot be married to a divorced woman, as Queen.

This is the reason Edward VIII was forced to abdicate, because of a divorced woman.

Also, Anne is divorced; Andrew is divorced and Edward is reputed to be Gay though married. So HE could not serve as the Head of the Anglican Church, either.

They--Elizabeth and Philip--have NO heir who is qualified to rule.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Why has Charles defaulted?

The King cannot be married to a divorced woman, as Queen.

They--Elizabeth and Philip--have NO heir who is qualified to rule.



Why has Charles defaulted?

He hasn't, when did he do that? According to the rest of the population except YOU, Charles is NOT married. So he CAN be king. So untill he decides to marry Camilla, which he won't, he will be king.

They--Elizabeth and Philip--have NO heir who is qualified to rule.

Charles, Andrew, Edward, William , Harry. Take your pick, as far as i know NONE of them are married to a divorced woman..



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
The King cannot be married to a divorced woman, as Queen.

This is the reason Edward VIII was forced to abdicate, because of a divorced woman.

Also, Anne is divorced; Andrew is divorced and Edward is reputed to be Gay though married. So HE could not serve as the Head of the Anglican Church, either.

They--Elizabeth and Philip--have NO heir who is qualified to rule.



Emily your line of succession is incorrect. Anne, Andrew and Edward, were always placed after Princes William and Harry in the line of succession. It is the direct descendents of the heir apparent, in this case Prince Charles, therefore the next in line for the throne is Charles, then William, then Harry, after that I am not sure. Just found this link:

"1. HRH The Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales (1948)
2. HRH Prince William of Wales, eldest son of The Prince Charles (1982)
3. HRH Prince Henry of Wales, younger son of The Prince Charles (1984)
4. HRH The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York, second son of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1960)
5. HRH Princess Beatrice of York, elder daughter of The Prince Andrew (1988)
6. HRH Princess Eugenie of York, younger daughter of The Prince Andrew (1990)
7. HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex, youngest son of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1964)
8. Lady Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten Windsor, daughter of HRH The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex (2003)
9. HRH The Princess Anne, The Princess Royal, only daughter of HM Queen Elizabeth II (1950)
10. Peter Phillips, son of The Princess Anne (1977)"

www.etoile.co.uk...

What is really fascinating is the fact that catholics or those married to catholics are aautomatically excluded in the line of succession.

"Succession is regulated by the Act of Settlement, defining that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and and granddaughter of King James I - are eligible to succeed. Roman Catholics or those married to Roman Catholics are automatically excluded."

[edit on 27-11-2004 by Mynaeris]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
If you read the history of King James II, you'll see right away why the Brits threw him out and replaced him with William and Mary.

He did EVERYTHING HE COULD to repudiate Natural Law. As a result, the l689 Bill of Rights was threaded together, that forms the basis for our American Bill of Rights today--which of course is roundly being violated.

www.yale.edu...

And it's not enough that William and Harry cut in line in front of Charles' siblings. Both those boys are carrying a great deal of resentment and rage over the death of their mother. The effect of their taking rulership could be disastrous for the monarchy, if they roundly discredit and humilate "the way things work" at Buckingham Palace.

And the Queen has got to be thinking about all this, as we speak.

I wonder, who can come in an pinch-hit, if things start to slide downhill--for instance--if she's been handing out knighthoods inproperly or sharing in financial dealings that are questionable.

Who knows?




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
And it's not enough that William and Harry cut in line in front of Charles' siblings.


Huh??? How in heaven't name did you come to this conclusion? They fit exactly where the law of succession places them.

The rest is speculation.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
note the thread to which I am replying.

It has been called to me attention that William and Harry are "in front of" the brothers and sister of Charles.

I'm not going to argue--just reason.




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I believe she was killed for two reasons:

1. Land mines. She was on an anti-landmine campaign.

2. Dodi al-Fayed. She was pregnant with his child and they were going to get married--in fact, from what I read they were going to announce it within the next few days. Diana either miscarried due to her injuries or she was given an abortion. Apparently the royals were up in arms over the future King having a Muslim stepfather.

Now why did that ambulance take so long getting to the hospital? That's what I've never understood.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join