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.
Actually, any children of Diana's after she was no longer an HRH would not have been members of the royal family.
Any number of methods could have been used that would have ensured death.
originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: Tangerine
Actually, any children of Diana's after she was no longer an HRH would not have been members of the royal family.
They would have been brothers/sisters to the future monarchs. Not exactly fifth cousins twice removed.
Diana was just plain old Diana.
But because two of her kids were sired by Prince Charles, it meant that ANY future children she had by ANYONE could be considered possible heirs to the royal throne...however remote the prospect.
Therefore she was duty bound to have no more children, exactly the same as for Sarah Ferguson, formerly married to Prince Andrew. She's too old now at 55 but has been a free agent since she was 37.
And of course Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson who, in more than 30 years of marriage, had no children.
Any number of methods could have been used that would have ensured death.
Yes and they seem to have found one.
Don't understand your point here.
originally posted by: CJCrawley
I think it was a hit simply because it was just too convenient to have been an accident.
A lot of play has been made about Diana possibly being pregnant with Dodi's child, who would therefore have been "Muslim".
Total red herring; would it have been okay then if the hypothetical child's father had been Bill from S#horpe who was Christian?
The fact is that Diana was simultaneously mother to Royal heirs, yet actually a Royal outsider; the divorce made sure of that.
Ergo, there was no possibility that she could get pregnant again...to ANYONE.
The British Establishment wouldn't, couldn't have allowed it, because any future children would have been half siblings to Harry and William, and therefore, at the very least, members of the Royal Family.
What if that had been the Clampetts from Manchester? Doesn't bear thinking about.
Frankly, Diana, being the loose cannon that she was, all bets were off.
Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson could at least be trusted to abide by the rules, and their 30-something year marriage produced no issue.
You're assuming that these people were under edict or tradition to not have children and that is simply not true.
As for Edward, he was the child in the relationship with Wallis.
there is no evidence that Diana's death was a planned assassination.
originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: Tangerine
You're assuming that these people were under edict or tradition to not have children and that is simply not true.
I'd like to agree. Any evidence to back this up?
As for Edward, he was the child in the relationship with Wallis.
Explain.
Cos that just sounds like some dodgy factoid you've picked up from a woman's magazine at the dentists.
there is no evidence that Diana's death was a planned assassination.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest it was indeed that.
But you believe whatever seems correct to you.
I don't know you and don't care.
originally posted by: Neocrusader
Just to add for those somewhat lacking in royal blood
Rather than myself try to lead lame horses to water
Perhaps check the royal family lines
Those of Windsor but more importantly those of the spensor's (Diana's family side)
And the evidential reason for Charles and Diana's marriage starts to shine through
The Spencer's have a greater claim on the thrown than the windsor
A Spenser/Windsor child ensured the windsorw not only retain the crown but also produce an heir with no competition
originally posted by: Neocrusader
The Spencer's have a greater claim on the thrown than the windsor
originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: hellobruce
It is not allowed to air without 87 edits so banned it never was allowed to air
No, the edits were proposed by the lawyers working for the film maker, so they knew it was just crap and full of lies, so it is not banned, just they know they will be sued if it is made available, so they did not do a general release.
originally posted by: artistpoet
but to just say the documentary is "crap and full of lies" without even watching the documentary is so immature and false ...
There you go again, making crap up (just like the "documentary")!
Why claim I never watched it? As I said, it is full of lies and crap, which is why their own lawyers knew they had to make 87 changes to remove the lies and libel before it could be released.