Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Princess Diana 'was killed after plan to frighten her went wrong'
Daily Mail ^ | 8:40 PM on 11th March 2010 | Mail Foreign Service

Posted on 03/11/2010 1:10:12 PM PST by Niuhuru

Princess Diana died after attempts to frighten her into dumping Dodi al Fayed and ending her anti-establishment activities went horribly wrong, a leading lawyer has claimed.

Michael Mansfield claimed he was sure Diana's 'killers' had no intention of ending her life in a Paris tunnel in August 1997 and simply wanted to scare her. But he claimed the operation to torpedo her relationship with Dodi, and silence her planned criticism of the British government over foreign arms sales, backfired spectacularly.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britishroyalfamily; diana; napl; princess; princessdiana; royals; royalty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last
To: Niuhuru

If a lefty Islamist lawyer claims it, it must be true!


21 posted on 03/11/2010 1:49:38 PM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Always some charlatan trying to scam a buck.

Let the poor woman RIP.


22 posted on 03/11/2010 1:49:52 PM PST by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Ill go there. Because royalty is despotic by it’s very essence. And after Thomas Paine wrote “common sense”, and utterly filleted the concept of royaly about 6 ways, it’s inexcusable to defend it. You really need to read it,, it’s a tour de force on the topic of royalty.

It’s a red herring to say hitler was elected.
Maybe he was, but so what? The mere fact that an evil man was elected, in no way can logically give support to royalty as a concept, hereditery positions, and devine right. It does not logically follow that if a bad man can be sometimes get elected, that royalty is good. It’s a non sequitur.


23 posted on 03/11/2010 1:50:54 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Most of the Brits I know think Charles is looney. but they love the Queen and detest Prince Philip.


24 posted on 03/11/2010 1:51:33 PM PST by kalee (The offences we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we engrave in marble. J Huett 1658)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

“She was a beautiful woman and her motives were right, but her dalliance with that damn Muslim was unforgivable.”

She wasn’t that attractive. Only the title made her appear that way. She was rather crane like and dorky with a slighly oversized breathing apperatus.


25 posted on 03/11/2010 1:52:04 PM PST by Bruinator (God is Great.... Beer is good.... people are?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bruinator

Plus I’m sure her bulimia didn’t make lovemaking any more pleasant. Everyone keeps forgetting that people who barf their meals might not smell good.


26 posted on 03/11/2010 1:53:24 PM PST by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

I have a great deal of admiration and respect for Queen Elizabeth, who has dedicated her life to working for her country.

I can’t say the same about Charles, who is a clueless idiot. Or Diana, who was made to be a cover girl, not a princess. Theirs was a marriage made in hell, and for that they shared the responsibility.


27 posted on 03/11/2010 1:54:18 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984

I always thought the Royals were nothing more than parasites on true taxpaying citizens.

According to the law, the royals own everything and allow commoners the right to work the fields for 10% of the yield. This was serfdom. Now we have freedom and pay in excess of 50% of the yield. Things are better now.


28 posted on 03/11/2010 1:54:21 PM PST by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bruinator

I liked her breathing apparatus and the rest of her wasn’t bad either.

Guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


29 posted on 03/11/2010 1:55:46 PM PST by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, Guts and Guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

He get a “pass” because of his obvious inbreeding breeding.


30 posted on 03/11/2010 1:56:22 PM PST by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

touche’


31 posted on 03/11/2010 1:57:02 PM PST by Bruinator (God is Great.... Beer is good.... people are?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

If Diana was home with her kids she would be still alive


32 posted on 03/11/2010 2:00:18 PM PST by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Charles didn’t go on Panorama and suggest that the entire succession be centered on her son because Charles didn’t make her happy or fulfilled. And Charles didn’t call into question the lineal legitimacy of her second son in front of the entire world. All because Diana, despite her NUMEROUS blessings, didn’t feel fulfilled.

If I had a daughter-in-law that did that, I’d be beyond ticked. Charles didn’t pick that fight, everything he did was in response to what Diana did. Charles is an eccentric, not a bulimic drama addicted nutjob who made it her personal mission to destroy the life of her husband, his family, and her second son. How many numerous articles are there that Harry looks just like Hewitt?

She brought a lot of her misery onto herself. She marketed herself as a sexpot and then proceeded to wonder why men might not want to commit after bonking her. Stalking a married man and tormenting his wife with threats and screaming and making it so bad that the husband had to call Scotland Yard because he thought it might be terrorism.

Then cavorting with Dodi on his yacht and not caring about what her sons might see and read about. Not caring about her reputation to make their lives a little bit easier. I can’t imagine how William must have felt, seeing his mother on television going on a paranoid psychotic rampage against his own family that loved him, no matter the problems of his mother. Telling him about Camilla, but omitting her own adultery.

It’s a known fact that she discussed her relationships with her barely adolescent son who likely couldn’t understand half of the stuff she shoved on his shoulders and into his mind. She went over the divorce terms with him. I find it completely unforgivable. No mother who loves her children does that sort of thing.


33 posted on 03/11/2010 2:00:26 PM PST by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat

Yes she would have. I can’t understand how someone with all her blessings could allow herself to be so unhappy. Jackie O. had her husband’s brains blown out in front of her, but didn’t write a big book about it and use it as an excuse to live a self destructive life.


34 posted on 03/11/2010 2:01:39 PM PST by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
I always thought the Royals were nothing more than parasites on true taxpaying citizens.

That's incorrect. The Royal Family subsists on its own income. Even when it got the civil list monies, that money was in lieu of income from the Crown Lands.

Unlike the Kennedies and other American royalty, the Royal Family pay their own way. Also they very rarely suffocate people in lakes!

35 posted on 03/11/2010 2:05:38 PM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Diana died because her driver was blind drink and because she wasn’t wearing a seat-belt.

There is no mystery here.


36 posted on 03/11/2010 2:06:23 PM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The *princess* was a tramp. A muzzie loving tramp at that.


37 posted on 03/11/2010 2:07:13 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

The only sane answer is that the entire sickness is based upon the royal system. Charles was as crazy as she was,,, and both were as crazy as his mom. Elitist spoiled child, raised to think she is somehow superior. She really thinks that,,, doesn’t that amaze you?

Where does this idea that royals must be deferred to come from? Im sickened everytime an America leader curtsies, bows, etc etc to royalty,,,but especially British royalty. They should be the ones showing deferrence to an American president. The french had the right idea about royalty,, and have been the better for it as a society.


38 posted on 03/11/2010 2:07:21 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bruinator
She wasn’t that attractive. Only the title made her appear that way. She was rather crane like and dorky with a slighly oversized breathing apperatus.

I never cared for her looks, either. I guess being "royal" gives one some bonus points in the looks department.

39 posted on 03/11/2010 2:08:17 PM PST by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DanielRedfoot

LOL.....I hate those terms....Esp. when the “journalist” is interviewing someone


40 posted on 03/11/2010 2:09:16 PM PST by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson