[Hugo]

I just can't help feeling she is still here and she has faked her own death. This has been my theory since day 1. One way to get out of the public eye.

[spitfire]

Id love to believe your theory but unfortunatley she is at rest.

[the_stillness]

It was a tragic occurance, but the death was real and sadly - still no real answers to what happened? But they do like to dwell over it a bit

[Tom4784]

Either way, I hope she is in a happy and better place.

[CassetteFinger]

Sorry but she is dead.

[Jack]

Face it she is dead. If she was still alive it would be so selfish of her to abandon her children, thinking she was dead. William and Harry meant everything to her and she simply wouldn't put them through that.

[Hugo]

Based on my thorough analysis and study, Princess Diana has finally broke free and become a 100% ordinary people, living happily with Dodi Al Fayed in a small tropical island near middle east ! The reasons are very clearly indicated :


(1) She has said before during one press interview, she will make a "shocking announment" after she has finished her holiday, what kind of news can be as shocking as both of them killed in a car crush ?

(2) Princess Diana planned to withdraw from public life at the end of this year, according to a journalist who interviewed her several hours before the fatal car crash in Paris. How can she become an ordinary people if everyone still interested in her life, the only solution is to let the whole world believe that, she is dead.

(3) The strong and powerful S-class 600 Mercedes can withstand very high impact, and most importantly, it is fully equipped with bullet-proof high strength materials which prevent any kidnapping, and is capable of running more than 180 km/h without any problem. How can this heavy duty high end car chased by the poor little motocycles and scooters used by the paparazz ? Also, if the Mercedes really wants to run away from them, with the huge horse power, this can be done easily!

(4) What is there to avoid the paparazz, Princess Diana has already openly confessed the relationship with Dodi Al Fayed, and the press reporters have also taken many exciting pictures about two of them during the holiday on cruise. There is nothing to shoot while

Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed sitting in the big car and going to the hotel, at least, nothing interesting !

(5) Dodi Fayed was buried last night in a private ceremony, one day after the fatal accident. Why so hurry ? The fastest the Al Fayed family settle the ceremony, the lesser the chance other people will find out the truth !

(6) Why only one body guard following Princess Diana ? It is not logical for the rich and famous celebrities to bring just one body guard when they go out. What happen the only one body guard needs to go to toilet ? What happen Princess Diana needs to go to the rest room ? Who will protect her ? This question definitely open up many interesting leads for many other people to investigate.

(7) Come back to the 6000cc Merceds, what level of impact can you image, in order to kill 3 people instantly ? The car must be running at least above 200 km/h !!! Have anybody checked the tunnel ? What kind of damage has the accident caused on the wall of the tunnel ?

(8) Diana's last chauffeur not a professional driver (and drunk?). This is all rubbish ! Just image, a billionaire and a princess, going out for dinner and use a security officer as chauffeur ? Please ask youself, these rich people will only use the best driver they can

employed under the sun, don't ever believe this kind of lousy excuse.

(9) Also, anyone apart from the royal family and high ranking officials saw the dead bodies ? Any pictures shot on the bodies ? NO!

(10) Dodi has an established movie studio located in Hollywood, USA. What kind of movies cannot be produced by Hollywood magic ???

(11) As for meeting Prince William & Harry, this is the most simplest problem to solve, anytime they feel like it, they can call each other, using Satelite video conferencing, the princes can meet her at the small tropical island anytime anyday !

(12) Also, with the most advance technology in plastic surgery (pls compare Michael Jackson's before and after) , can you still recognise her after a few months ?

With this perfect setup, Princess Diana can get back her very own private life, and Prince Charles can finally marries Camilla, his long time girl friend......, what a best idea !

The above are the most prominent reasons why I said Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed are still alive and enjoying good life, the use of the entire car crush incident is the only way Princess Diana can think of in order to enjoy her private life forever. Hence, please send my

regards to both of them next time anyone of you happen to meet someone look exactly like Princess Diana !!!

[Ruth]

Originally posted by {Checkmate}
(1) She has said before during one press interview, she will make a "shocking announment" after she has finished her holiday, what kind of news can be as shocking as both of them killed in a car crush ?

If she was planning on faking her own death, why on earth would she give a clue like that in a public interview?

(2) Princess Diana planned to withdraw from public life at the end of this year, according to a journalist who interviewed her several hours before the fatal car crash in Paris. How can she become an ordinary people if everyone still interested in her life, the only solution is to let the whole world believe that, she is dead.

Well, that's if you believe what the journalist says. And we all know how honest journalists are...

(3) The strong and powerful S-class 600 Mercedes can withstand very high impact, and most importantly, it is fully equipped with bullet-proof high strength materials which prevent any kidnapping, and is capable of running more than 180 km/h without any problem. How can this heavy duty high end car chased by the poor little motocycles and scooters used by the paparazz ? Also, if the Mercedes really wants to run away from them, with the huge horse power, this can be done easily!

It's a very powerful car - it's not a miracle machine. The driver was drunk, and no matter how powerful the car, a drunk driver is capable of crashing it.

(5) Dodi Fayed was buried last night in a private ceremony, one day after the fatal accident. Why so hurry ? The fastest the Al Fayed family settle the ceremony, the lesser the chance other people will find out the truth !

I understand that the burial took place so quickly because that it what is expected in his religion.

(7) Come back to the 6000cc Merceds, what level of impact can you image, in order to kill 3 people instantly ? The car must be running at least above 200 km/h !!! Have anybody checked the tunnel ? What kind of damage has the accident caused on the wall of the tunnel ?

Not necessarily. The three people that were killed were the three people who weren't wearing seat belts. The bodyguard who was wearing a seat belt survived.

(9) Also, anyone apart from the royal family and high ranking officials saw the dead bodies ? Any pictures shot on the bodies ? NO!

Well, what did you expect them to do - put the bodies on display for the public to look at?! Apparently there were photos of the bodies taken by the paps, but obviously not released (that would have been in extremely bad taste).

(10) Dodi has an established movie studio located in Hollywood, USA. What kind of movies cannot be produced by Hollywood magic ???

I don't get the point you are trying to make.

(11) As for meeting Prince William & Harry, this is the most simplest problem to solve, anytime they feel like it, they can call each other, using Satelite video conferencing, the princes can meet her at the small tropical island anytime anyday !

This is not 'evidence' - this is speculation on your part.

(12) Also, with the most advance technology in plastic surgery (pls compare Michael Jackson's before and after) , can you still recognise her after a few months ?

Again - speculation, not evidence.

regards to both of them next time anyone of you happen to meet someone look exactly like Princess Diana !!!

That would completely contradict your 'plastic surgery' theory!!!

[spacebandit]

All her death proved once again is the old adage that everyone loves you when your dead.

While she was alive, as anyone old enough to remember as an adult, who doesn't look at the world through rose tinted spectacles can attest - she became a laughing stock.

She was generally regarded as a media manipulating self serving clothes horse who jumped on causes for the embarrassment it would cause the royal family whenever she appeared on TV.

While Charles treat her abysmally, thats a given - she wasn't too concerned about committing adultery herself with a number of guys whilst globetrotting around the world - leaving children with nannies. The amount of time she actually spent with her children in the last few years of her death is of course glossed over.

The truth of the public image of the woman in life is very different to the appearance given it after her death.

Everybody loves you when your'e dead - indeed.

[Sunny_01]

it's very sad that you can not accept Diana's death, BUT the reality is she is gone.

You raise some interesting points but as Ruth has already answered each of them with the logical responses I will not go over them all again other than to say sadly she is gone.

Diana was more than capable of manipulating the media to suit her needs as she showed us time and again, she was always in the press, she always played for the cameras.

Like Spacebandit has pointed out she was no angel but now that she has gone people choose to make her into some kind of saint. Yes she "seemed" like a lovely lady but we only saw what she wanted us to see, none of us saw her behind closed doors.

[Lauren]

Originally posted by Sunny_01

Like Spacebandit has pointed out she was no angel but now that she has gone people choose to make her into some kind of saint. Yes she "seemed" like a lovely lady but we only saw what she wanted us to see, none of us saw her behind closed doors.

True, but thats the case with anybody?
We'll never know someone truly, inside & out.

[the_chosen_one]

Originally posted by spacebandit
All her death proved once again is the old adage that everyone loves you when your dead.

While she was alive, as anyone old enough to remember as an adult, who doesn't look at the world through rose tinted spectacles can attest - she became a laughing stock.

She was generally regarded as a media manipulating self serving clothes horse who jumped on causes for the embarrassment it would cause the royal family whenever she appeared on TV.

While Charles treat her abysmally, thats a given - she wasn't too concerned about committing adultery herself with a number of guys whilst globetrotting around the world - leaving children with nannies. The amount of time she actually spent with her children in the last few years of her death is of course glossed over.

The truth of the public image of the woman in life is very different to the appearance given it after her death.

Everybody loves you when your'e dead - indeed.

I suppose “rose tinted spectacles” are often far more accurate than bitterly cynical ones.

Diana was hugely popular with the public during her lifetime, obsessed over by the British press ever since her marriage to Charles at 20 years old and it’s this popularity which added to her tensions with the Royal family, made her a target of the media in later years and ultimately led to her suspicious fate.

A girl chosen by Royalty to become the wife of the first heir to the throne and bear his children. It was of no consequence that Charles “loved” another woman (Camilla Parker Bowles)and had confided to friends that he “did not yet love her (Diana), but was sure he could”, he went ahead with the marriage the family wanted.

Let me reiterate, Diana was a 20 year old girl when she married Charles.

From that day forward, Diana was hounded by the press until the day she died. They loved her and couldn’t get enough. A beautiful young English woman and wife of the heir to the British throne (the first in 300 years), the amount of pressure on her shoulders must have been unenviable, but did she buckle? Of course she didn’t. She was always strong of character; this is the reason the public began to respect and admire the woman.

What set her further onto the path which she would later refer to as the “Queen of Hearts”, is her extensive charity work. Working with children, the homeless and the landmine campaigns she’s famous for. She used her position as a subject of the press to visit AIDS sufferers and lepers and shake hands with them for the cameras, dispelling myths about the diseases.

There’s your media exploitation.

So what have we got left from your spiteful dismissal of the life of a sincere and decent person? Oh right, “leaving children with nannies” whilst she went “globetrotting around the world” with “a number of guys”? - That spin makes it sound almost as inaccurate as your other points.

She was photographed on a summer holiday with Dodi Fayed, minding her own business, trying to get on with her life. Extra marital affairs which both parties took part in because the marriage was over. That's about it. However long ago it started, the old quote from James Hewitt speaks volumes; his relationship with Diana brought "happiness to a very unhappy woman".

As for William and Henry, they will have been receiving their strict Royal upbringing at a time when the bitter separation would have caused endless complications regarding Diana's contact with her sons. Divorces are bad enough for us commoners, so it’s not hard to understand, the Royal family will have had a very large say in how much of William and Henry’s time should be shared with their Mother. I’m sure Diana expended every hour she was allowed with them, acknowledging the interests of their highly pressured duties. I only need leave it to Henry to clarify…

Prince Harry said
"She will always be remembered for her amazing public work. But behind the media glare, to us, just two loving children, she was quite simply the best mother in the world.
"She was our guardian, friend and protector.”

So yeah, the media tried desperately, nay, pathetically to disparage the image of Diana in her final years, and maybe some morons found it amusing (I certainly wasn’t unlucky enough to meet any), but far from being a “laughing stock”, ‘til the end of her days, Diana remained a thorn in the side of the Royal family for the simple fact that so many loved her when she was alive…

…and so they should. Despite her faults, she was a great person.

[spacebandit]

Originally posted by the_chosen_one

I suppose “rose tinted spectacles” are often far more accurate than bitterly cynical ones.

Diana was hugely popular with the public during her lifetime, obsessed over by the British press ever since her marriage to Charles at 20 years old and it’s this popularity which added to her tensions with the Royal family, made her a target of the media in later years and ultimately led to her suspicious fate.

A girl chosen by Royalty to become the wife of the first heir to the throne and bear his children. It was of no consequence that Charles “loved” another woman (Camilla Parker Bowles)and had confided to friends that he “did not yet love her (Diana), but was sure he could”, he went ahead with the marriage the family wanted.

Let me reiterate, Diana was a 20 year old girl when she married Charles.

From that day forward, Diana was hounded by the press until the day she died. They loved her and couldn’t get enough. A beautiful young English woman and wife of the heir to the British throne (the first in 300 years), the amount of pressure on her shoulders must have been unenviable, but did she buckle? Of course she didn’t. She was always strong of character; this is the reason the public began to respect and admire the woman.

What set her further onto the path which she would later refer to as the “Queen of Hearts”, is her extensive charity work. Working with children, the homeless and the landmine campaigns she’s famous for. She used her position as a subject of the press to visit AIDS sufferers and lepers and shake hands with them for the cameras, dispelling myths about the diseases.

There’s your media exploitation.

So what have we got left from your spiteful dismissal of the life of a sincere and decent person? Oh right, “leaving children with nannies” whilst she went “globetrotting around the world” with “a number of guys”? - That spin makes it sound almost as inaccurate as your other points.

She was photographed on a summer holiday with Dodi Fayed, minding her own business, trying to get on with her life. Extra marital affairs which both parties took part in because the marriage was over. That's about it. However long ago it started, the old quote from James Hewitt speaks volumes; his relationship with Diana brought "happiness to a very unhappy woman".

As for William and Henry, they will have been receiving their strict Royal upbringing at a time when the bitter separation would have caused endless complications regarding Diana's contact with her sons. Divorces are bad enough for us commoners, so it’s not hard to understand, the Royal family will have had a very large say in how much of William and Henry’s time should be shared with their Mother. I’m sure Diana expended every hour she was allowed with them, acknowledging the interests of their highly pressured duties. I only need leave it to Henry to clarify…

So yeah, the media tried desperately, nay, pathetically to disparage the image of Diana in her final years, and maybe some morons found it amusing (I certainly wasn’t unlucky enough to meet any), but far from being a “laughing stock”, ‘til the end of her days, Diana remained a thorn in the side of the Royal family for the simple fact that so many loved her when she was alive…

…and so they should. Despite her faults, she was a great person.

You may not have met anyone who sick of the sight of her on TV - and her endless media expolitation.

You say the media manipulated her - well that was two way street.

No, rose tinted spectacles are never accurate - except in hindsight to those too young to have experienced life at the time as an adult, and who have grown being fed by the media creation and exploitation of the new consumer friendly image.

The very media manipulation you attempt to condemn has created the image of a person you now seek to excuse and the truth you seek to revise.

The media didn't make Charles treat her like garbage, he did that all by himself

The media didn't make her shag other men before she was divorced - she did that all be herself.

You use a haggard quote by James Hewitt to explain away her adultery, that only proves you havent been paying too much attention to the media manipulation you seek to condemn, as Hewitt was quite happy to flog his story off to the highest bidder, and the very quote you use came from out of one of his money grubbing exercises. Seems you are happy to use the same "media manipulation" of Diana to further your own ends

Every one of her charity "works" were accompanied by the camera crews, now you may say that is how thise things get publicity, and that is true - yet anyone old enough to remember the times is quite aware that the charity shindigs more often than not co-incided with an event by Charles, as they played on-upmanship with each other in the press and on TV.

You say she had a "suspicious" death - well thats a wacky theory.

She was killed when the drunk french chauffer, employed by the father of her then latest in a string of boyfriends, crashed the limo - nothing suspicious, just a drivers skills impaired by drink driving.

Suspicious death ? don't make me laugh - oops too late, a wacky theory indeed.

You refer to yourself as a "commoner" in reference to the royal family - well I don't regard myself as any more or less than their equal, except in monetary terms, and the one difference between me and them is that I work for mine.

As for being on a "holiday" with Dodi Fayed - the relationship with Dodi Fayed raises all sorts of questions, which anyone who was an adult at the time and kept abreast of the news will tell you was yet another example of media manipulation on her part. Among other things, at the time it was being reported that Harrods - Dodi's fathers flagship shop, was going to lose its Royal Seal [it has since] - there were stories about it for months, then - oops, she just happens to start shagging Fayeds son - yes that made big copy in the press, media manipulation courtesy of Diana herself, or a "happy" co-incidence that just happened to make copy ?. No doubt you will claim "spin"

That was of course just one of many stories of the day - but instead you look through the rose tinted spectacles of hindsight, I would suspect, borne of someone not an adult at the time , and take in the created image of the woman and not the actual reality - then attempt to quantify both into a fictitious image to suit your own purpose. My my my, and ain't that just what manipulation is all about ?

Thats what I call bitter and cynical - , to twist the truth to make someone what they were not, and so by implication lay all blame onto others still alive is spiteful revisionism at its finest.

Incidentally - the label "Queen Of Hearts" - came after her death, and after Charles stated that is how he would her to be remembered, and then taken as the title for a book by Marc Cerasini - surely you knew that - certain parts of your post have striking similarites to parts of the jacket synposis of that book, so I will assume you do.

Another poster agreed with my earlier points in this thread, I wonder if you will post specially and label them as "bitter and cynical", post about their "spin" - or do you keep your rose tinted views only for little old me ?, I suspect so.

Many indeed loved her when she was alive, but nowhere near as many as when she was dead.

[Sunny_01]

I think the problem is Diana was able to gain approval from many people and genuine love of complete strangers. That does not mean that we all loved her or took everything that she did as being another step towards sainthood.

I didnt dislike Diana, however I was not her biggest fan, I didnt fawn over her every movement. She appeared to love her sons very much BUT she did have a public life that often left her children seperated from her, which I am sure was difficult for them all, but at the end of the day duty or not she had choices that she could make with regards to her children. Before I am flamed I am not implying that she was a bad mother, quite the opposite I am just saying she was not the perfect mother as some would believe.

I dont think there was anything suspicious about the death of Diana, when you are in a car with a drunk man behind the wheel it is a high possibility that a nasty accident will happen. Diana was the sad vicitm of someone who thought they were above the law.

I think the constant cospiracy theories are more disrespectful to her memory and her children than the actual way that she died. I think people simply struggle becuase it was such an unexpected way for her to die.

[the_chosen_one]

Originally posted by spacebandit
You may not have met anyone who sick of the sight of her on TV - and her endless media expolitation.

You say the media manipulated her - well that was two way street.

No, rose tinted spectacles are never accurate - except in hindsight to those too young to have experienced life at the time as an adult, and who have grown being fed by the media creation and exploitation of the new consumer friendly image.

The very media manipulation you attempt to condemn has created the image of a person you now seek to excuse and the truth you seek to revise.

The media didn't make Charles treat her like garbage, he did that all by himself

The media didn't make her s**g other men before she was divorced - she did that all be herself.

You use a haggard quote by James Hewitt to explain away her adultery, that only proves you havent been paying too much attention to the media manipulation you seek to condemn, as Hewitt was quite happy to flog his story off to the highest bidder, and the very quote you use came from out of one of his money grubbing exercises. Seems you are happy to use the same "media manipulation" of Diana to further your own ends

Every one of her charity "works" were accompanied by the camera crews, now you may say that is how thise things get publicity, and that is true - yet anyone old enough to remember the times is quite aware that the charity shindigs more often than not co-incided with an event by Charles, as they played on-upmanship with each other in the press and on TV.

You say she had a "suspicious" death - well thats a wacky theory.

She was killed when the drunk french chauffer, employed by the father of her then latest in a string of boyfriends, crashed the limo - nothing suspicious, just a drivers skills impaired by drink driving.

Suspicious death ? don't make me laugh - oops too late, a wacky theory indeed.

You refer to yourself as a "commoner" in reference to the royal family - well I don't regard myself as any more or less than their equal, except in monetary terms, and the one difference between me and them is that I work for mine.

As for being on a "holiday" with Dodi Fayed - the relationship with Dodi Fayed raises all sorts of questions, which anyone who was an adult at the time and kept abreast of the news will tell you was yet another example of media manipulation on her part. Among other things, at the time it was being reported that Harrods - Dodi's fathers flagship shop, was going to lose its Royal Seal [it has since] - there were stories about it for months, then - oops, she just happens to start sh*****g Fayeds son - yes that made big copy in the press, media manipulation courtesy of Diana herself, or a "happy" co-incidence that just happened to make copy ?. No doubt you will claim "spin"

That was of course just one of many stories of the day - but instead you look through the rose tinted spectacles of hindsight, I would suspect, borne of someone not an adult at the time , and take in the created image of the woman and not the actual reality - then attempt to quantify both into a fictitious image to suit your own purpose. My my my, and ain't that just what manipulation is all about ?

Thats what I call bitter and cynical - , to twist the truth to make someone what they were not, and so by implication lay all blame onto others still alive is spiteful revisionism at its finest.

Incidentally - the label "Queen Of Hearts" - came after her death, and after Charles stated that is how he would her to be remembered, and then taken as the title for a book by Marc Cerasini - surely you knew that - certain parts of your post have striking similarites to parts of the jacket synposis of that book, so I will assume you do.

Another poster agreed with my earlier points in this thread, I wonder if you will post specially and label them as "bitter and cynical", post about their "spin" - or do you keep your rose tinted views only for little old me ?, I suspect so.

Many indeed loved her when she was alive, but nowhere near as many as when she was dead.

You’ve basically reiterated your first post, just with more mistakes. Not to mention assumptions and lies.

How ironic that you’d use this “”. Possibly, the only thing which might appear to win you this argument, by the looks of things.

So first off the bat, you lay your hope in the fact that I’m too young to know what happened in the detailed affair of Charles and Diana. Well, I don’t even need to back it up, seeing as the assumption alone puts a huge black mark over your typically flawed argument, right from the get-go.

Then you claim I “say the media manipulated her”. Well, no I didn’t. I said the media hounded her in early life, then tried to disparage her image in later life. There’s a difference. This seems to be the basis of your argument that Diana manipulated the media herself, therefore, people didn’t actually like her in her lifetime? Or maybe you’re using this argument to try and prove what a despicable person you think she is? Well, as I pointed out in my first post, from the age of 20 the media latched onto Diana and there’s nothing she could do about it. She learnt to live with it and learned wisely how to use the media to help people and make a difference. It was perfectly natural that she’d continue to use it to tell her side of the story when the divorce got bitter.

You start wittering about some “truth I seek to revise”. Well, no, I speak from a point of view which is truthful and deals in facts, few of which you’ve been able to counter, TRUTHFULLY, so it’s blatant that the only revisionist is yourself, by your continuous mistakes.

Again, you resort to spinning her affairs into something seedy and disgusting, because it’s the only real thing you’ve got on her. “The media didn't make her s**g other men before she was divorced” or “she just happens to start sh*****g Fayeds son”. The obnoxious wording is there to suit an agenda, nothing more. I suppose with it being your only true ammunition against the woman, you need to garnish it to it’s most devastating effect?

You claim my quote of her “suspicious death”, a “WACKY THEORY”!!!!

What the good god is so wacky about one of the most suspicious high profile deaths in decades? What a ridiculous comment.

Wow, this is getting boring.

You say the “Queen of Hearts” thing came after her death, but again you’re talking rubbish, because she herself coined the phrase when she predicted she’d never be Queen, but would prefer to be known as “the Queen of people’s hearts”.

So in one of your final and most feeble attempts to discredit my argument, you allude to the fact my post was “strikingly similar” to the jacket synopsis of Marc Cerasini’s book (something I’ve never read) , despite the fact my post succinctly and comprehensively counters every point you attempted to make in that dreadful opening post. I suppose Marc Cerasini knew you were going to make that post, so he wrote his jacket synopsis, specially, eh?

Dear oh dear. How ironic this “” is becoming.

Originally posted by spacebandit
Another poster agreed with my earlier points in this thread

It looks to me like they avoided the bull**** in your post and tried to appear agreeable, where possible, maybe so as not to leave you looking completely foolish. However, the fact you’ve tried to use it as part of your argument, just makes you look completely foolish, in my opinion.

There’s other points I could take apart, but I just can’t be bothered.

[Wiglet]

Personal experience coming up here.

I went up to Kensington Palace to sign the Book of Condolence there. I queued up for about four hours if I remember rightly after a train/tube and long walk to get there. The tube station nearest was closed and I had no idea how to get to Kensington Palace so in the end I walked from Hyde Park with what seemed like hundreds of other 'mourners'. It wasn't just one or two so doesn't that just show you the impact this singular woman had on the general public back then? We all walked along the same route with our bunches of flowers or some cases wreathes, passing past Buck House and Harrods like a macabre funeral procession without the coffin.

I can't remember why I felt so strongly about going up to London? I would say it was mostly because I felt Diana was an icon and no matter how you feel about her, there will never be another like her and I wanted to pay my respects to her. I had gone up to London as a child to see the fireworks when she and Charles had become engaged and so I felt I had been part of her life already. It seemed almost like she was a member of my family and signing the book was like a memorial service.

Up in Kensington Gardens there were little shrines around the ltrees with people either praying with lit candles or crying. Seeing the mass of flowers was truely amazing and I will never forget that scene. I had seen the flowers at Buck Palace however most of them had been moved by then. The sea of flowers at Kensington Palace showed that there were many many people in this country (who could reach London at least) who wanted to show something? Was it affection, admiration or pity? Who knows what those emotions were! It was a sureal day and the images of which I will hold in head till the day I die myself.

Checkmate, when I was up in London that day it was almost as though myself and the other strangers I met were mourning not for Diana but for every person we had lost from our lives. Because prominant people in the public eye like Blair for instance were seen with a tear in their eye, it was accepted that it was OK to grieve for everyone no matter who you were. So everyone grieved in their own way for those they had lost including Diana. Checkmate, you need to do your own grieving and accept that DIana did die that day. Tragically sad but true.

[spacebandit]

Originally posted by the_chosen_one


You’ve basically reiterated your first post, just with more mistakes. Not to mention assumptions and lies.

How ironic that you’d use this “”. Possibly, the only thing which might appear to win you this argument, by the looks of things.

So first off the bat, you lay your hope in the fact that I’m too young to know what happened in the detailed affair of Charles and Diana. Well, I don’t even need to back it up, seeing as the assumption alone puts a huge black mark over your typically flawed argument, right from the get-go.

Then you claim I “say the media manipulated her”. Well, no I didn’t. I said the media hounded her in early life, then tried to disparage her image in later life. There’s a difference. This seems to be the basis of your argument that Diana manipulated the media herself, therefore, people didn’t actually like her in her lifetime. Or maybe you’re using this argument to try and prove what an despicable person you think she is, but as I pointed out in my first post, from the age of 20 the media latched onto Diana and there’s nothing she could do about it. She learnt to live with it and learned wisely how to use the media to help people and make a difference. It was perfectly natural that she’d continue to use it to tell her side of the story when the divorce got bitter.

You start wittering about some “truth I seek to revise”. Well, no, I speak from a point of view which is truthful and deals in facts, few of which you’ve been able to counter, TRUTHFULLY, so it’s blatant that the only revisionist is yourself, by your continuous mistakes.

Again, you resort to spinning her affairs into something seedy and disgusting, because it’s the only real thing you’ve got on her. “The media didn't make her s**g other men before she was divorced” or “she just happens to start sh*****g Fayeds son”. The obnoxious wording is there to suit an agenda, nothing more. I suppose with it being your only true ammunition against the woman, you need to garnish it to it’s most devastating effect?

You claim my quote of her “suspicious death”, a “WACKY THEORY”!!!!

What the good god is so wacky about one of the most suspicious high profile deaths in decades? What a ridiculous comment.

Wow, this is getting boring.

You say the “Queen of Hearts” thing came after her death, but again you’re talking rubbish, because she herself coined the phrase when she predicted she’d never be Queen, but would prefer to be known as “the Queen of people’s hearts”.

So in one of your final and most feeble attempts to discredit my argument, you allude to the fact my post was “strikingly similar” to the jacket synopsis of Marc Cerasini’s book (something I’ve never read) , despite the fact my post succinctly and comprehensively counters every point you attempted to make in that dreadful opening post. I suppose Marc Cerasini knew you were going to make that post, so he wrote his jacket synopsis, specially, eh?

Dear oh dear. How ironic this “” is becoming.

It looks to me like they avoided the bull*** in your post, and tried to appear agreeable, where possible, maybe so as not to leave you looking completely foolish. However, the fact you’ve tried to use it as part of your argument, just makes you look completely foolish, in my opinion.

There’s other points I could take apart, but I just can’t be bothered.

You spout about your truth, in that you have countered my points "truthfully" - yet you do not back up your truths - you cannot as it is only opinion,and as your entire "opinion" is based upon post mortem glad handing bio's and reportage, and not historical record and report, subjective of course on opinion of contemporary news, I'm not suprised. Considering the familiarity of the text of your first post to anyone well read enough or even able to browse throuigh synopsis online, the is perfectly apt.



As you do not know the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion" - you argument strives to be foolish and languishes around infantile



You do not counter a single one of my points, as already stated you merely offer opinion of your own and claim it as "fact" without a shred of corroboration you merely allude to such, that is the argument of choice that revisionists love, and so how very David Irvine of you to try that one.



As for your original "Queen Of Hearts" reference, that is what I responded to, you now switch it to an earlier label,
"The Queen Of peoples hearts". Two different labels given at two different times In the context of the former, which was the one you used - my information is prefectly apt, you try to counter my argument by pathetically attempting to move the goal posts - now very semantic of you, how very....Nick.... from thread to thread where you will follow

Oh the irony



l
As for Wacky theories... the theory of suspicious death in this case is wacky, and uninformed, and patently false, the stuff of the fantasist - who when faced with mountains of corroborating evidence to support the accident truth of the incident, prefers instead to dwell on the conspiratorial . What next... Lizard people in disguise as humans ?,

As you say I lied in my post, if you were honest you would prove it and provide links to independent sources proving your claims, so that all who can be bothered can read independent verification of the truthfullness in your rebuttal, and the truth of your claims, of course....IF you were honest, but I have a feeling that you ain't going to be able to provide any, except of course from the post mortem glad handing bios and the conspiracy sites.

once again it all comes down to ......



as for irony....

The supreme irony of life is that hardly anyone gets out of it alive.

Robert Heinlein

[the_chosen_one]

More of your typically tedious waffle to attempt to salvage yet another lost argument. How utterly trite. I've read it all from you before, time and time again, it's surprising just how quickly you'll jump off topic to employ your tired old predictable tricks (I suppose I see it so often because you trying to cover up your mistakes is quite common, with the amount of ridiculous comments you make). Personally, I find it quite pathetic. Just an opinion (lol). The few weak points you do bother to make, don't really require a response in the context of such a moronic post. Maybe a little harsh, but fully deserved. (as for calling you on lying, it's backed up in the post. Missed that, did you?)

To be fair, the debate still had legs, in my opinion; it's just a shame you couldn't pick up the ends to make them meet. (waffle is the preferred course of logic, right? Oh, and head pat smilies. )

You bring up "Nick", but the thing is, as much as you try, you're not much of a replacement for "nodisharmony". At least he was aware of the fact he talked out of his a***. (I'm not too sure you are!)

You're both as bad as each other. I'll at least offer you that, as a parting consolation.

[the_stillness]

Originally posted by wiglet
Personal experience coming up here.

I went up to Kensington Palace to sign the Book of Condolence there. I queued up for about four hours if I remember rightly after a train/tube and long walk to get there. The tube station nearest was closed and I had no idea how to get to Kensington Palace so in the end I walked from Hyde Park with what seemed like hundreds of other 'mourners'. It wasn't just one or two so doesn't that just show you the impact this singular woman had on the general public back then? We all walked along the same route with our bunches of flowers or some cases wreathes, passing past Buck House and Harrods like a macabre funeral procession without the coffin.

I can't remember why I felt so strongly about going up to London? I would say it was mostly because I felt Diana was an icon and no matter how you feel about her, there will never be another like her and I wanted to pay my respects to her. I had gone up to London as a child to see the fireworks when she and Charles had become engaged and so I felt I had been part of her life already. It seemed almost like she was a member of my family and signing the book was like a memorial service.

Up in Kensington Gardens there were little shrines around the ltrees with people either praying with lit candles or crying. Seeing the mass of flowers was truely amazing and I will never forget that scene. I had seen the flowers at Buck Palace however most of them had been moved by then. The sea of flowers at Kensington Palace showed that there were many many people in this country (who could reach London at least) who wanted to show something? Was it affection, admiration or pity? Who knows what those emotions were! It was a sureal day and the images of which I will hold in head till the day I die myself.

Checkmate, when I was up in London that day it was almost as though myself and the other strangers I met were mourning not for Diana but for every person we had lost from our lives. Because prominant people in the public eye like Blair for instance were seen with a tear in their eye, it was accepted that it was OK to grieve for everyone no matter who you were. So everyone grieved in their own way for those they had lost including Diana. Checkmate, you need to do your own grieving and accept that DIana did die that day. Tragically sad but true.

I feel for you Wiglet and I understand how easy it is to get caught up with all those people in London mourning the tragic loss of Diana - Princess of Wales. It is terrible when someone loses their lives in a horrible car crash - through no fault of their own. I also think it is equally terrible when a 12 year old boy from Portsmouth - trips up over a loose paving stone and goes flying into a brick wall - hits his head in sadly the wrong spot and dies instantly. That is equally as bad, as both are tragic - agreed? I absolutely agree with that and anyone who thinks that the death of the Princess is any more or any less than the example I have given, can only be described as deluded. Sorry if that offends some people, but it is reality. I do agree that it is understandable for someone to walk around Harrods or Buckingham Palace or anywhere else where mourners are hanging around and flowers are lying there on the ground or against the Harrods building. I won't deny that.

If you felt the need to wait for four hours to sign a book of condolence, then that is your own choice and I respect your own feelings on the matter - but to me, she is nothing more than an ordinary person, who just happened to be wealthy and the daughter of a wealthy family who also had an Earl as a brother. Prince Charles doesn't go for [poor folk] - you know. But the people of Britain and many many abroad really felt like you did - [each to their own], of course.

When Tony Blair shed a tear, many people believed that he really cared for her, and the people watching that also believed that. I agree that it could be real. But it could also be Crocodile tears, or just like yourself - [getting caught up in the emotion of it all]. That is a weakness that many of us fall victim to. I am certainly no different, but I certainly don't think any less of someone else dying in tragic circumstances - who is less famous or not famous at all. I remember my mother telling me when I was 12 years old - that it was terrible and a friend of hers was also making a special trip to London. At that time, it never meant too much to me and today, I feel the same. Sorry if that doesn't seem right? But I have heard other terrible stories of people losing their lives, which hurts me a lot more. The whole Diana accident and everything else has been blown out of proportion. I hate these - [further investigations over what happened on that day of the accident] and who's to blame and who's not to blame, it happened - let sleeping dogs lie, eh?

[sexy_leigh]

she dead so like get over it,

[spitfire]

Originally posted by sexy_leigh
she dead so like get over it,

Charming.

[spacebandit]

Originally posted by the_chosen_one
More of your typically tedious waffle to attempt to salvage yet another lost argument. How utterly trite. I've read it all from you before, time and time again, it's surprising just how quickly you'll jump off topic to employ your tired old predictable tricks (I suppose I see it so often because you trying to cover up your mistakes is quite common, with the amount of ridiculous comments you make). Personally, I find it quite pathetic. Just an opinion (lol). The few weak points you do bother to make, don't really require a response in the context of such a moronic post. Maybe a little harsh, but fully deserved. (as for calling you on lying, it's backed up in the post. Missed that, did you?)

To be fair, the debate still had legs, in my opinion; it's just a shame you couldn't pick up the ends to make them meet. (waffle is the preferred course of logic, right? Oh, and head pat smilies. )

You bring up "Nick", but the thing is, as much as you try, you're not much of a replacement for "nodisharmony". At least he was aware of the fact he talked out of his a***. (I'm not too sure you are!)

You're both as bad as each other. I'll at least offer you that, as a parting consolation.

Another obvious post that once again "claims" a victory - wow, think about all the lives could be saved if generals could do that



and no you have yet to back up the "lies" claim, as you have not actually specified one - perhaps you can edit a post to include one, alternately just claim that everything you write is from a completely truthful POV and don't bother backing up the claim - oops you already did that



and you have not proven the "truthfulness" of your opinions, stating an opinon and saying it is the truth - well that dog don't hunt, except on Fantasy Island



Not an honest man then, still just a jaded rose tinted revisionist, with single layer invective and, as ever, first with the insults, ain't that always the way




Caliesta Majneira

[the_chosen_one]

I think you just need a big hug.

Only messin'.

No hard feelings.

[spacebandit]

The Obvious Child





Predictable Comedy

[Ruth]

I agree with Sunny - I really don't think there was anything suspicious about Diana's death whatsoever. Unfortunately 1000s of people are killed by drunk drivers - Diana was one of those. I think the reason people believe that it was suspicious is because they want to - whether they realise it or not - because it was such a shock when she died...people just couldn't believe it. I also think this accounted for the outpouring of emotion which we saw after her death - would there have been quite such a public show of grief if say, she had died after a long illness, and people were therefore not so shocked?

I was not a fan of hers when she was alive and I refused to suddenly decide that she was wonderful after she had died (the hypocrisy shown by the press was enormous in that respect - they slated her terribly while she was alive, and then loved her enormously when she died - however, this is typical behaviour by the press). Regardless, nobody should die in that manner - killed by an irresponsible drunk driver - and I felt very sorry for her two sons who had to do their grieving very much in public.