Princess Dianna . The real reason she died

Even though if she had lived and had the baby and it wouldnt have been in line for the crown , is it possible that the royal family didnt want the shame of having tainted blood in there family tree??

Just a thought

Omega

I don't think that Princess Diana was a direct descendant of Jesus/Issa and I don't think that had anything to do with her being assassinated. I also doubt that Jesus/Issa even had children. There is evidence that Issa was not crucified, that he moved to India, and that before he died at the age of eighty he declared to be the Galilean Messiah. There is also evidence from gospels not included in the Bible that he was married to Mary Magdalene and that she was was never a prostitute but was considered to be a respected spiritual teacher and disciple of his in her own right.

As hard as it may be to believe, jealousy and resentment does lead people to seek murder. So it appears to be in Princess Diana's case. Jealousy and resentment of her political influence and popularity from the reigning royals was the motivation for them to initiate a discreet process of her demise. If she was truly out of the loop as far as any possible child with Dodi being an heir to the crown, then that could not have been a reason to have her assassinated. She even stated in one of her own letters that she was afraid of being killed from Prince Phillip. There is no evidence that I've seen, only wild speculation, that she was a descendant of Jesus/Issa and that that was the twisted rationale for having her murdered.

Upon veiwing the previouse post i decided to do a little bit of research into this matter and what i found simply astounded me.

Apparently Dianas death was foretold in the bible and nostradamus predicted that her death would happen .

i have loads more info on the subject but i have to get offline now but i will post my findings tommorow.

sorry for the inconvenience.

Omega

Actually im not waiting till tommorow allthough it now is twenty past midnight . i have submitted my post read it and tell me what u think.

Cheers
Omega


[edit on 12-4-2006 by Omega85]

As you've probably guessed I'm not a subscriber to the 'she was killed because she was going to have a muslim baby' theory. To be honest - her image as a saint would have been very tarnished if she had a child out of wedlock - especially as I read somewhere she was toying with the RC faith at the time of her death. (Surely she would have had to convert to Islam if she married Dodi...).

I also am dubious about claims that 'she' wrote the attributed passages about Prince Philip, and to be honest, I've always thought that she was not the saint the publicity machine made her out to be but a very manipulative and manipulated individual. (Surely anyone who can blithely consent to information about suicide attempts when pregnant with a child while the said child is still a child is not in anyway a 'saint', ie all those people who said she *loved* those boys ... )(and yes I have described her in the past as one diamnd short of a tiara...)

However... I do think that there are questions about her death but instead of looking for fanciable plots and theories about whether it was a drastic abortion or a plot to prevent the bloodline of jesus being contaminated by a muslim (which by the laws of probablitly have happened already at some point in the past if there was such a bloodline) why don't we look more prosaically at the alternatives? Fot instance her land mine campaign was beginning to hurt the defence industry was it not?

[edit on 18/4/06 by JAK]

I've come across the Nostradamus Quatrain about Diana before. You don't have to convince me on that issue. However, Charles hardly fits the bill as the third Antichrist that was predicted by Nostradamus. He doesn't have an army at his command, he is not middle-eastern, and he isn't actively pursuing the activity of conquering other nations. Saddam Hussein did fit that description nicely. Fortunately, he was defeated. Which is not to say that other "Antichrists" won't emerge. In light of that, I think we need to keep a close eye on the current president of Iran, as well as the dictator of North Korea.

You mentioned Diana also being in the Bible. Where would that be?

Not definit but it dose seem somewhat "curiouse"
Revelation Chapter 12 it speaks of the Woman of Great Babylon. This woman would give birth to the Anti-Christ. This baby has been spoken of as the moonchild brought forth by the moon goddess. Although it isn't clear in the bible, the woman who gives birth to this child wears a crown of 12 stars and yet has the sun on her face and the moon at her feet. The Moon goddess, the goddess of childbearing, and the goddess of the hunt and the Patroness of the white stag are all terms that somewhat describe diana in a way.

What do u think?

Omega

ps. i am not convinced charles is the antichrist but there is some startling points that i have read.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Omega85]

Omega,

Diana had her faults, as we all do, but somehow I think that it would have been a significant stretch for her to have fostered a future child to be an Antichrist or imperialistic leader. If anything, I think she wanted to get away from power trips in politics - especially royal politics.

People want so badly to believe in heroes and there are so few of them these days. To many, Diana became a heroic figure.

But I intuit that future events will reveal more heroic figures in the public light that will become just as popular as Princess Diana and Mother Theresa.

In that context, things are not as bad as many think.

Sorry, but I only read the first post in this thread. I thought of something and just had to post it- I hope it hasn't been mentioned already. If so, my apologies for that as well.

If you've been around ATS long enough, then you've likely seen plenty of posts and threads accusing the Royal Family, among others, of being Reptilian shapeshifters! Now, lets assume just for a moment (no matter how hard it may be) that this is actually true. Let's also assume that the original post in this thread is true, and that Princess Diana is a decendent of Jesus Christ.

Now... the theory... in the Reptilian's next step towards world power and domination, they have created the ultimate blood line- part Reptilian- part Jesus Christ! Obviously they're not going to get Jesus Christ himself, but they could get some of his better DNA. The result is Prince Harry and his brother (I apologize to my British friends for not remembering the less-popular one!). Maybe they are now being trained for leadership and control of the Reptilians/NWO/whatever.

I just want to add before I am mocked that I do NOT believe this theory. I think its insane. I just thought it would be funny if all of us were wrong and all the people whom most of us consider nuts are actually right about this stuff! LOL

Hi rasputin....just a lil' correction here...Prince Harry IS the more 'unpopular' son, it is the golden boy William (Wills) who is destined to reign after his father.....

Just a small mix up there.........thought to tell you......since this is about the ONLY thing I actually know about the Royall Windsor line....so I had to jump in and make this clear because its the only thing I can add.

Interesting thread going on here....

[edit on 18/4/06 by JAK]

Omega,

Intriguing, however inconclusive, research and analysis on the life and practices of Prince Charles.

Rasputin13,

If David Icke, who I saw speak at a seminar in Atlanta years ago, is right about shape-shifting Reptilians being in key leadership positions, then we are all in very big trouble.

But I hardly think so.

We have other areas of concern, some of which are almost just as frightening.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
By orchestrating her death, MI6 ensured that her future child with Dodi would never have the opportunity to be in the British royal family. If she lived, married Dodi, and had their child in the UK, the whole issue of the child's royal status would be up for consideration - something that the reigning royals in Britain didn't want to happen.

She was not a member of the royal family. Any child she had with Dodi - and there is no evidence that she was pregnant - would not have been in the succession, as she was not a child of the Queen. Incest is not a trait that the Royal Family goes into these days. Marrying cousins went out of fashion when Victoria croaked 105 years ago.
Most of the 'Dodi was going to marry Diana' has been touted by Dodi's Dad, who is five cans short of a sixpack.

[edit on 18/4/06 by JAK]

Yes, but any further children she would have had would not have been in the line of succession - the link goes from the successor, German Charlie, not his spouse and certainly not his ex-spouse. She was treated as a member of the Royal Family after the divorce as a matter of form and courtesy. If she'd been thrown out on her ear with hardly a penny there would have been uproar. In case you ask, I'm Cymraeg, and as German Charlie's my so-called 'Prince' I'm intitled to be as rude as I like about the prat.
Ahem. Rant over. Where was I?
Oh and your claim that the Royal Family control the media is rubbish. I'm a member of the media and I know that they hold no such control over us.

Everyone has there own opinion wether some believe it to be rubbish or not....I have 2 questions for you .
1 - What part of the media do u work for
and
2 - Are you the Boss of your workplace and/or industry??

ALSO PAUL RICHARD
i am sorry but in my last post i didnt aknowladge your quote in Darkminds post . i want to say that i see your point and i agree with you.

Also Darkmind ... is there any record of a royal having a child to a non royal?
and if so who was it and what is of the child??

Just a thought
Omega.

PS. darkmind i am originaly from Breman so your thoughts on "your prince"
have no ground with me whatsoever because it is irellivant.And remember everyone has there own opinion and I respect that as should everyone else .

Originally posted by Darkmind
She was not a member of the royal family.

Even after she lost her HRH title, she was still technically the Princess of Wales. Although not directly in line as a successor to the Crown, she was still a Royal. Royalty is all a matter of degree.

Omega,

I appreciate your civility.



[edit on 13-4-2006 by Paul_Richard]

No need Paul Richard your opinions and views are both logical and down to earth and i respect that.
On another note though i noticed that darkmind hasnt replied about my Qs regarding his "No Such Thing As Media Manipulation" comments...... and he called my views rubbish....OH WELL everyone has there own opinion i guess.
I would like to know your opinions on Media Controll in England regarding the Dianna incident. Such as do u think its possible that there was some sort of media coverup? and even though this is logical to me (Because i believe in media manipulation) why do you think they would do it??

ALSO Darkmind i have one thing to say about your comment on the media not being controlled in anyway, and since u refered to yourself as "Us" (when refering to yourself as a member of and worker for the media) i gather that in reality you believe that all media are together in some way? Well what u said is your opinion and thats awsome allthough i will say this.
Take a look at Your so called TEAM MATES who were around at the time of september eleventh and then when you have a logical response as to why they covered up so much , only then will i retract my statements about Media Controll. Maybie after i research your evidence that is......
EVERYONE HAS THERE OWN OPINION AND THATS GREAT ,RESPECT OTHERS OPINIONS . to me thats all part of becoming wise and mature.......

PAUL RICHARD once again thank you for your curtiouseness i respect it and u a great deal and i would like to hear your opinions on that which i have asked of you.(If u dont mind that is)

Cheers
Omega

Christ had no decendants, that is satanic disinfo, her death was a sacrifice, thousands of years ago at the same spot where she died in France, that same site was used by the cult of the goddess Diana, ironic...

Ashtar Slayer, Indeed you are entitled to your opinion and i have covered the tunnels origins before however i must ask u this.
how can u say that christ had no descendants and that this theory is satanic misinfomation??
I must ask u what your theory is on the holy grail is also.
And do u have any proof or something close to those of your statement???
I will gladly appreciate your reply and i hope to hear from u soon .

Omega

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Omega85]