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.

 

Princes Diana doc BANNED unlawful killing

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Don't forget Lady Diane foretold her own death in the exact manner which it occurred.




posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
This is the interview I listened to last week.

Part one :


Part two :


She was bumped off.....no doubt about it in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

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.


They would still not be members of the royal family. The line to inherit the throne is very long and not everyone on it is part of the royal family. Members of the royal family are HRHs. You're assuming that these people were under edict or tradition to not have children and that is simply not true. There are people who choose to not have children or more children and people who can not have children. As for Edward, he was the child in the relationship with Wallis.

As much as some people would like to believe it, there is no evidence that Diana's death was a planned assassination. Not everything is a conspiracy.
edit on 14-1-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Don't forget Lady Diane foretold her own death in the exact manner which it occurred.


Actually, no. She said the brake lines would be tampered with and they weren't.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

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.



Has it also not occured to you that over the decades some obvious high profile murders were commited and for some reason the murderers can not be found or is the cause of death officially declared as accident or suicide.

Because there is no journalist or whatever investigation able to change that official conclusion it is my opinion it can not be other than that there is a government, or elements therein responsible for that.

The sad thing is that these "elements" are more powerful than the sum of everybody else who can have a say in this. Now we can ask ourselves how far does this influence (read power and control) go...?




posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

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.





Plenty of royals have had illegitimate children throughout history, thus creating unwanted heirs (or pretenders) to the throne. Children of Diana's not fathered by Charles would not be heirs to the throne. Diana, herself, was not in the line of succession. How, then, could she produce heirs if they weren't fathered by someone who was? She was no longer an HRH and her children not fathered by Charles would not be HRHs and not part of the Royal family.

Your misogyny speaks for itself. I'm educated and read history books. Edward's life story has been well-documented. He was an irresponsible playboy and admirer of Hitler. He married a woman who had a long-term relationship with a ranking Nazi.

What actual evidence suggests that Diana's death was an assassination ordered by a member of the Royal family or, if you prefer, MI6? Having died in an accident is not, in itself, evidence of an assassination.
edit on 14-1-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-1-2015 by Tangerine because: typo correction



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

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


Why don't you just come right out and say that to which you are alluding. The House of Windsor managed to hang onto the throne before Diana and have managed since.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Neocrusader
The Spencer's have a greater claim on the thrown than the windsor


They do? How about backing that claim up.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




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.


OK so 87 edits the producer would not make ... as he was advised by his lawyer they would be deemed libellous
It could be an act of integrity or cowardice but to just say the documentary is "crap and full of lies" without even watching the documentary is so immature and false ...

edit on 15-1-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




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.


Here I go again ... You say the documentary is full of lies and crap ... could you please point out the lies and crap you speak of so we can discuss them intelligently
... If not I can only assume you have not watched the film and it is you that is making "crap" up ...




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join