Late Princess Diana Enbalming to Hide Pregnancy?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy

A Princess driven by a drunkard. Come on. They should have come up with with a more believable explanation.

She had predicted that her in-laws were plotting her death in a car crash.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]


She wasn't a princess and she had a documented history of hysteria.

Far more likely it was a combination of catastrophic injuries caused by not wearing a seatbelt and French emergency care.

After hearing how they dealt with Sir Frank Williams, France is just about the last place on earth I would want to rely on an ambulance.

The British royal family's history is littered with bastards, both real and literal, what would one more be? In fact he wouldn't have even been royal. He would have had no claim on the throne, not being of royal blood, and he would have had no claim on the resources of Britain, except those given to every citizen. In fact the UK could have extracted far more from him than he could from them.




posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy


There is no way the British authorities would tolerate a "moslam child" as the half brother to the next King of England.


Why? He'd have no claim to the throne. He'd have no claim to anything even remotely connected to William or Harry; that's not how succession works in the UK.



The drunk driver theory does not stick with any intelligent person.


Au contraire. Considering Henri Paul had previous DUI convictions and a history of alcoholism, it's not exactly a leap to conclude that he was over the limit when he got behind the wheel of that car.

Don't forget that as a she was no longer part of the royal family (in any practical sense), she had little protection from the "rest of the world".



She had predicted that her in-laws were plotting her death in a car crash.


Oh very probably. And she might've been right. But the accident itself was just that. An accident. Henri Paul's driving got her before MI5 ever did.

Wait, maybe that's the conspiracy. Maybe Henri Paul was hired by MI5 to do the job....



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
It's likely that Diana would have married Dodi. Not only would William and Harry have a Muslim half-sibling, but it's possible that Diana would have converted to Islam--or be heavily influenced by it, and in turn her boys might have been influenced. That was unacceptable.

They say that the British royals are one chromosome away from insanity. Know what, I found out I'm related to them (like 18th cousin), and I've been researching the genealogy there...and there's so much intermarrying it isn't funny. And Diana was descended from the Stuart line.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Diana would have married Dodi. Not only would William and Harry have a Muslim half-sibling, but it's possible that Diana would have converted to Islam--or be heavily influenced by it, and in turn her boys might have been influenced. That was unacceptable.



Wow, another brilliant theory. What are you on Amethyst ?

So many motives exist for her murder.


Anyway, it was not the driver who should be blamed. He didn't kill her.

It was that SAS man in the car.

He is the only one to "survives" the crash. How convenient.

Furthermore, he claims that he doesn't remember a thing.

What !!

Get this:

British SAS. Best trained Special Forces in the world. Chosen to "guard" a Princess. Car crash in Paris. He lives. She dies. He loses memory of that night. Other than that he is fine. He lives happily ever after.

Who in their right mind is going to swallow that !!



[edit on 2-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
With all due respect...he was also the only one wearing a seat-belt.

No conspiracy, sorry.

Just common sense.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
With all due respect...he was also the only one wearing a seat-belt.

No conspiracy, sorry.

Just common sense.



Except that normally bodyguards don't wear seatbelts--they have to be ready to protect the person they've been hired to protect. Unfastening a seatbelt could mean the loss of seconds.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
With all due respect...he was also the only one wearing a seat-belt.

No conspiracy, sorry.

Just common sense.



Except that normally bodyguards don't wear seatbelts--they have to be ready to protect the person they've been hired to protect. Unfastening a seatbelt could mean the loss of seconds.



Amethyst has a point, bodyguards as a general rule dont wear a seatbelt for the reason stated above. The only thing i can think of is that he saw that Henri Paul was driving erraticaly and clipped his seatbelt on ( self preservation is a powerful thing ) he may even have tried to convice Fayad and Dianna to fasten up also. If you look at him when he got out of the Hostpital he had some quite bad facial injuries and to me its not that far out that he has no memory of the event.
And dont think for a minuite that either Dodi and Mohamed Fayad are devout Muslims, Dodi was a well know play boy, he drank, gambled etc so dont be fooled by Mohammed Fayads portrait that he has painted of his son, he was no Angel.
As has been said Dianna was really no longer a Princess, she still had the title but really she was a commoner when she divorced Charlie, albeit a well bred commoner. By that i mean she didnt come from a Royal House and was a Princess before marrying Charlie, yes she had Royal Ancestors Charles II being one but she was still classed as a commoner.
Any offspring between Fayad and Dianna would have absolutaly no claim to any title, unless they bought one off ebay, Dianna was a commoner so the child would have been a commoner as well. I dont think it would have bothered the establishment at all because the child would not have any royal rights or privilages, none.
It would have be a minor embasasment thats all, nothing more.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
Wow, another brilliant theory. What are you on Amethyst ?

So many motives exist for her murder.


Anyway, it was not the driver who should be blamed. He didn't kill her.

It was that SAS man in the car.

He is the only one to "survives" the crash. How convenient.

Furthermore, he claims that he doesn't remember a thing.

What !!

Get this:

British SAS. Best trained Special Forces in the world. Chosen to "guard" a Princess. Car crash in Paris. He lives. She dies. He loses memory of that night. Other than that he is fine. He lives happily ever after.

Who in their right mind is going to swallow that !!



[edit on 2-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]

Uh right, ok are you trying to suggest it was "the SAS" orah best in the world cough BS cough planned and killed both of them?
Mabye you want to tell me how the SAS could kill them if they dont run royal protection and its a serperate unit that do that....?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
It's likely that Diana would have married Dodi. Not only would William and Harry have a Muslim half-sibling,


Duh. Being a Muslim is just like being a Catholic or a Protestant, you can't be born a Muslim any more than than you can be born belonging to any other religion. You become a Muslim by upbringing or choice or both. However this is a moot point, as there was no child to belong to any particular religion.

The problem with all the conspiricies that claim that Diana and Dodi were assisinated is that there is not one shred of evidence that they were. Not one little bit. Nothing. Nada. Nowt.

Just morbid speculation.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
...it's possible that Diana would have converted to Islam--or be heavily influenced by it, and in turn her boys might have been influenced. That was unacceptable.


Wouldn't have mattered one bit.

By law the monarch of the UK must be C of E, it's been that way since William and Mary of Orange.

And Charles has already stated that when he takes his oath of kingship (or whatever the hell you call it at a coronation) that he will declare himself "Defender of the faiths". FaithS plural.

The only title Diana could call on was that of Lady, as she was before she was married. Her divorce settlement removed her from the Royal Family, as such she had no right to bodyguards from the DPG. I believe Trevor Rhys-Jones was one of Dodi's private guards (could be very wrong on that).

Being a bodyguard is risk-management. If Trevor Rhys-Jones was wearing his seatbelt, I'd say he managed his risks perfectly. Bodyguards will and do wear seatbelts, they're no good to you dead or concussed in a car-crash if the "enemy" orchestrated that crash and is now approaching your car.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
[edit on 4-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Look people. All Brits know it already. British paper MIRROR printed so many detailed evidences of her murder.

Its so easy:

They saw their beautiful Princess having a fling with a muzzie. They hated this. Anyone else would have been alright. A muzzie was simply unacceptable.

They tailed her. Bugged her car, the rooms, the boat, everything.

Once they confirmed that she was carrying a moslam child, she was dead meat. This was one act too far. She had to go.


They knew that an SAS guy was her private body guard.

Luckily for them, he too hated the idea of a moslam screwing a white British Princess.

They didn't have to try hard to get him to finish her off.

He was offered immunity from investigation. Paid handsomely.

The rest is history. What a way to finish a beauty.



We never saw her body again. Not even photos.

No independent public investigation.

SAS gentleman claims he can't remember a thing.





Her brother also suspects wrong doing.

Now it is said that her sons are getting suspicious. Maybe in the future they will launch full inquiry.

Truth always come out.




[edit on 4-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Wow.

No evidence whatsoever, mr conspiracy. Just supposition.

Fwiw, I'm a Brit. And guess what? Not all of us believe it was part of a conspiracy. And...we generally consider the Mirror (along with The Sun) to be the equivalent of the US's Inquirer and/or Weekly World News.

If Diana and Dodi did have a child, that child would have had absolutely no influence on the throne, and absolutely no relevance at all in terms of political gain or loss.....the matter just wasn't important.

Even assuming that being Muslim was undesirable to the Royal Family, a Muslim half-sibling to the future Monarch was just not a threat whatsoever - there'd be no chance of that child ever gaining the throne (if only because that's just not how succession works).

They just wouldn't care.

[edit on 4/10/05 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Twinkle.

You seem to think that people only commit murder due to some threat.

muslims child was simply intolerable. motive was pure racism. oppertunity existed. no risks of getting caught was evident. royals gave the green light.

You may continue to blame the alcohol, or the paparazzi photographers. However, they are innocent.

Princess is DEAD. August 31. It was a Midsomer Murder.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
Twinkle.

You seem to think that people only commit murder due to some threat.


LOL no, that's really not the case here...although there's actually a lot of truth to the statement in general. Perhaps you misunderstood my post?



muslims child was simply intolerable. motive was pure racism. oppertunity existed. no risks of getting caught was evident. royals gave the green light.

Princess is DEAD. August 31. It was a Midsomer Murder.


And your proof of this is....?

There's no proof. No evidence. Just a solid tendency to join dots where no dots actually exist.

At least, that's how it appears in this case.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
Look people. All Brits know it already. British paper MIRROR printed so many detailed evidences of her murder.

Its so easy:

They saw their beautiful Princess having a fling with a muzzie. They hated this. Anyone else would have been alright. A muzzie was simply unacceptable.

They tailed her. Bugged her car, the rooms, the boat, everything.

Once they confirmed that she was carrying a moslam child, she was dead meat. This was one act too far. She had to go.

Uh no, the british government does not kill just because she or may not have been carying a muslim child.


They knew that an SAS guy was her private body guard.

Yet again why would they have an SAS man as the body guard?


Luckily for them, he too hated the idea of a moslam screwing a white British Princess.

Your opinion or his?
[qutoe]
They didn't have to try hard to get him to finish her off.

He was offered immunity from investigation. Paid handsomely.

The rest is history. What a way to finish a beauty.

Uh no, your demonising the SAS, the UK government and the royal family.
Thats all.




We never saw her body again. Not even photos.

No independent public investigation.

SAS gentleman claims he can't remember a thing.
[/quoe]
Yeah thats because its the royal family, I wouldnt want ANYONE going near the royal family without atleast 30 of our soldiers near them.






Her brother also suspects wrong doing.

Now it is said that her sons are getting suspicious. Maybe in the future they will launch full inquiry.

Truth always come out.

[edit on 4-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]

The truth is not black and white, its grey.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
muslims child was simply intolerable. motive was pure racism. oppertunity existed. no risks of getting caught was evident. royals gave the green light.

I'll point it out again: being a muslim is not a "race", it is a religion. You cannot be born muslim. There is no evidence that she was pregnant and even if she was the child would have a mother who was nominally christian and a father who was nominally muslim. So what? Nobody here in the UK would have given a toss.



You may continue to blame the alcohol, or the paparazzi photographers. However, they are innocent.

Yes they are. I blame the driver who was drunk, on painkillers and breaking the speed limit. He crashed the car into a pillar at 70mph killing everyone in the car not wearing a seatbelt. Crashing in this particular tunnel is quite common (the French are terrible drivers!) and an average of one person a year has died in it since it was opened (I suppose they were all killed by the Royal Family as well)

What exactly do you suggest this "SAS man" did to assasinate the occupants of the car? He somehow made it crash at great speed while he was in it?!? Was he completely mad as well? How would he have done this wearing a seatbelt?



Princess is DEAD. August 31. It was a Midsomer Murder.

And your point is....?



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy

They knew that an SAS guy was her private body guard.

Luckily for them, he too hated the idea of a moslam screwing a white British Princess.

They didn't have to try hard to get him to finish her off.[edit on 4-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]


If that's true, then he'd be the next to die. You never, ever leave loose ends in a conspiracy like this.

Dead men tell no tales and if you can arrange one traffic accident, why not two?



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

If that's true, then he'd be the next to die. You never, ever leave loose ends in a conspiracy like this.

Dead men tell no tales and if you can arrange one traffic accident, why not two?



Remember, they don't kill SAS men.

Therefore, the SAS man who actually finished off the Princess in Paris is not a threat at all.

Hence he is not a loose end. He is very loyal. Why else do you think they chose him?

It was him who did the final deed.

Trevor Rees-Jones, British Army trained SAS Special Forces, is the actual killer of Princess Diana.


I would love to see him interrogated by Sherlock Holmes.

But somehow I don't think that will ever happen. Unless of course, Prince Williams wakes up, and orders Scotland Yard to catch the killers of his mother.


---



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy

Trevor Rees-Jones, British Army trained SAS Special Forces, is the actual killer of Princess Diana.


I would love to see him interrogated by Sherlock Holmes.

But somehow I don't think that will ever happen. Unless of course, Prince Williams wakes up, and orders Scotland Yard to catch the killers of his mother.


A) You're seriously accusing this man of murder, based on what you've said so far in this thread? Wow. You have absolutely nothing at all in terms of evidence to back this up....do you really need this to be conspiracy that badly?

B) It would also help if Sherlock Holmes were actually alive and kicking. Obviously, this is not the case.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join