Conspiracy Theory? Was Princess Diana Murdered?

Accident. Conspirarcy theorists never give up, but at least this one makes a change from previous wacky theories though.

Those are significantly different characterisations from what I understand about them. Starting with her maj, she isn't 'very much aloof' at all, and in her younger days was known to 'sneak' out in ordinary clothes and head scarf to go shopping around the markets of London to keep 'in touch' with the people. She also, of course, served as a mechanic and truck driver in the Auxiliary Territorial Service during the latter stages of the war (her husband, of course, was an active Naval Officer, and the couple lived in Malta while he was in service before she became queen). She also has her late father's sense of duty and service, and sense of tradition. Obviously being born into that position, she is by no means one of the 'common people', and that will inevitably come with certain attitudes, but, don't forget, this is the monarch who did a James Bond sketch for the opening of the Olympics.

Charles is far from being an unprincipled person - he holds very strong beliefs about some issues (and isn't afraid to express them, which some in certain sectors of 'the establishment' (especially the 'modern architecture' establishment!) really don't appreciate). Again, he was born into an odd position, but again he has that same sense of duty, service and tradition. He also served in the Navy and Air Force, and does a massive amount of charity work and public ceremonial work (opening things and so on). If he has a failing, of course, it is in remaining attached to the love of his life, even when he ended up married to someone else - you could call that 'unprincipled', but on the other hand it does demonstrate a certain ongoing loyalty even when previous circumstances didn't lend themselves favourably to that love.

To look further into that kind of picture being painted of particular members of the royal family, you have to look (as with anything) at the source of them, and what they were intended for. Diana was hugely popular among some sections of society as the 'fairy tale princess', and particularly in the USA and US media (who love nothing more than an old fashioned fairy tale!). However, all might not have been as it seemed - she was much better at manipulating the press that the royal family, without doubt, and manoeuvred herself quite consciously and deliberately into her 'queen of hearts' role. In the first instance, for example, one of the 'tests' for new royals is visiting Balmoral, and doing the traditional things that are done there. 'Balmorality', as it is known, something which her maj and Charlie are both enthusiastic supporters of (both being great lovers of the countryside, country living, farming, and country people - as it happens a relative of my mother tennant farmed on a royal estate, and her maj used to visit to talk to him quite regularly, and she really knew her stuff about farming). Diana claimed to them to be enjoying it and being a supporter of it, but it later transpired that she was simply lying to ensure she protected her position as the suitor of the heir to the throne. I wouldn't call her anything remotely like a 'reliable witness' - in fact, I would go as far as to say that she was a hard-nosed manipulator utterly dedicated to gaining wealth and privileged for herself, and doing whatever it took to ensure that (and she did it very well - picking the prominent charities that were 'in vogue' at the time, making the right fashion decisions, keeping the public 'on side', doing cleverly thought out interviews about how hard done by she was and how awful the royals were to her and how she just wanted to be 'queen of hearts', and so on). That picture of royalty that has been peddled to the people of the USA in particular comes from her, and for that reason I wouldn't trust a single word of it.

It may very well be that her maj was 'aloof' at times with her. Maybe she didn't like or trust her. I don't find it hard to understand that! That's nowhere near the same thing as having her murdered, though - she was still the mother of her grandson, the future King, and the whole family would have been well aware of her popularity, and that if anything should happen to her because of them it would probably be the end of the monarchy. That isn't something they'd have risked, even though she was, frankly, in some ways a pain in the royal backside to them!

Charles's 'affair' can be read in a different way, too - having been prevented from marrying the woman he loved due to circumstances, he was effectively forced to marry someone else because of his position and the duty to produce an heir to continue the line of succession (not something most people have to concern themselves with). Under the circumstances, his continued relationship with the woman he loved could be seen as demonstrating quite remarkable loyalty, even if that could be said to be misplaced. He can't really be accused of being a serial philanderer or anything.

Quite apart from that, of course, the USA does have a particular obsession with public figures having to appear absolutely 'squeaky clean' and perfect in their private lives. It isn't nearly so common in the UK, and doesn't really exist at in much of Europe - ask a Frenchman if he cares whether his politicians and public figures are having affairs! Maybe it's partly down to the relative importance of religion in politics - in the USA a political figure has to be seen to be a 'good Christian', and has to dutifully wheel out the 'perfect' and smiling wife and kids at every event possible (something I personally find particularly odious, to be honest!). It doesn't matter whether it is actually 'true', and people are often not quite what they are in private when they appear in public so nobody really knows, but it's seems so essential to the political process in the US. I don't buy the connection between being a good public servant and not ever having an affair at all - I don't think it follows at all. Many great leaders have had affairs, and it's not hard to understand since many of them work very long hours away from home, and the affairs are quite often with work colleagues that they see more of anyway - it can be as simple as drifting apart from one person and falling for another, and I don't see that that makes someone a 'bad person' who is unfit to fulfil their public role at all, nor a person who is necessarily 'dishonourable'.

A vital thing to note again is the original source of those descriptions of those particular members of the royal family, which seem particularly popular beliefs among the population of the USA. They come from post-divorce interviews with Diana, who by that point was:
a. Very popular
b. Very bitter
c. Very, very good at manipulating the media and public opinion (especially in the USA, where she was especially popular).

As for the stuff about religion and Dodi being a Muslim, that's total nonsense. Whether Charles a actually a fully committed Christian or not we will never know, of course (nor do we need to), but he's done a great deal to try to promote interfaith relations generally. It's long been strongly rumoured (never officially confirmed, of course, but very widely acknowledged) that Charles would like to change the official Monarch's title from 'Defender of the Faith' (i.e. the C of E in particular) to 'Defender of Faith', in other word the right of a person to hold and follow their beliefs, without prejudice about what beliefs they may be. His mother is of a different generation, of course, but as Head of the Commonwealth has had a great deal of personal contact with a wide variety of faiths and a huge number of leaders and worshipper from all faiths (including Islam). I seriously doubt that his religion would be much more of an issue to her than it would be to him (and it's really not likely to be an issue to him at all). Dodi's highly dodgy 'businessman' father, of course, is likely to be much more of an issue for them, but not something that he and the mother of the future king would have been murdered over (even if they could, which they almost certainly couldn't anyway - it would have been an entirely illegal act, not something that any government would have agreed to, and not something that could have been done without the specific approval of the government of the day).

In which way is the Queen bizarre? Whether she is liked or disliked, I doubt that anyone can claim she hasn't done the job expected of her, which isn't twiddling her thumbs as far as many people are concerned. She may be criticised for having disliked Diana, but you won't be finding any statements of hers that she did. Only press speculation.

And that she can call on the military to do her bidding? Well, that's out of the window. If necessary, they could have had her thrown out of the Royal family as they did with Prince Andrew's former wife. There was no need to go to such extremes as to get rid of her by murder.

Plus a drunken chauffeur, a speeding car, the following press, the time of the night, the route? The lying in wait? No other traffic in the tunnel at that particular time? A claim that one car was seen in the turmoil?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9699795/Does-MI6-have-a-licence-to-kill.html

Of course, conspiracy theorists might suggest that 'they would say that', but it certainly appears that the 'secret service' in the UK operates under considerably tighter rules, and under much closer scrutiny, than its US counterparts, and has done for decades. MI6 is not the CIA, and nor is it as portrayed in James Bond movies. It has certainly been involved in operations of dubious legality in the past, but those involving actual assassination plots seem to be some way in the past - more recent dubious activity seems to be restricted to being an accessory to the CIA in providing information that allows them to break international law, and turning a blind eye when they do.

In the case of an assassination of Diana, the action would have to have been specifically approved by the Foreign Secretary. I believe the Foreign Secretary at the time would have been Robin Cook - anyone who knows anything about the late Mr Cook will, I'm sure, find any notion that he would approve such an action to be utterly and completely laughable (he was a man of undoubted principle and ethics, and resigned from the government, being by then Leader of the House of Commons, over the Iraq War).