I never thought she was a beautiful as she was made out to be, but in terms of looks, she was way out of his league. Course, having six castles and being heir to the throne of England probably made him a little more desirable.
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 ...
All the hoopla over Diana’s death would fill a soap bubble the size of our galaxy. And once popped, nothing... Enough all(fricken)ready!
Come up with solid proof, or shut your pie hole. (not you WC)
That being said, I don’t have a problem with rational sorrow over Diana’s death. I was sorry to hear of it. The boys lost their mother and I don’t like to see that sort of thing.
I don’t use the term ‘rid ourselves’ in conjunction with England. Although we did fight for our independence and take it by force, we do have a special relationship with Great Britain. When push comes to shove, I’ll take Great Britain’s support up against just about anyone’s support globally. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and even Tony Blare stood by the U.S. when we needed them, and I’d like to think we would stand by them as well.
With what is taking place in the world today, I’m not sure Great Britain will always be there. If it weren’t, it would be a sad day for me and our nation.
Despite our differences, we have a lot of heritage mixed up with Great Britain and other nations surrounding it on the islands. I’d hate to see that heritage lost to swarms of third worlders who don’t have a clue when it comes to the 21st Century.
Hmmmm... I would of hit it!
LOL... A poignant observation, that.
And where did their income initally come from? Hereditary privilege and position, and lands owned by the crown. It was stolen 150 years ago and more,,, and now they are insisting they live on “their” income.
This would be like NAZIS melting the gold teeth, investing the gold,, collecting the profits,, and then claiming they “subsist on their own income”.
Indeed. It looks as if we may soon be fighting another one if our electoral process does not have the desired effect.
Royal wealth,, sounds like great work,,(if you can get it)
“Ms. Windsor is given the income from the 33,000 acre Duchy of Lancaster, £11.9m in 2007. She also has free run of three palaces, a castle and two racehorse studs.
Her son Charles is allowed to take the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. In the 2007 - 2008 year that gave him £16m before tax, of which some went on “official duties” and the rest of which was his to spend as he pleased. According to figures published by the Financial Times in 2008 a “head of a clan” in the Italian Mafia can expect to make only £408,000 a year.
The Duchy’s land holdings include the 70,000 acres of Dartmoor. Charlie does not own the Duchy’s property and cannot take any of its capital.
The Duchy of Cornwall, from which Mr. Windsor draws most of his income, and the Duchy of Lancaster that funds his mother, are both exempt from corporation and capital gains tax.
This has been questioned by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, which has been particularly concerned that this gives the Duchies an unfair advantage in the property market that provides much of their profits.
The Accounts Committee inspects the accounts of the Duchies but the Auditor-General is not allowed to examine their financial records.
Mr. Windsor is taxed on only 30 per cent of his income.”
Michael Mansfield QC IS a leading Barrister in Britain and has been at the forefront of many high-profile cases since the 1960s. He is working for Mohammad Al Fayed, and is no doubt being paid handsomely to use the legal system to promote his client’s bonkers conspiracy theorist agenda.
The fact that Michael Mansfield is a left-wing radical republican no doubt allows him to relish this opportunity to be paid potray the Royals as homicidal maniacs who killed off the mother of Princes William and Harry...
I never thought she was a beautiful as she was made out to be, but in terms of looks, she was way out of his league. Course, having six castles and being heir to the throne of England probably made him a little more desirable.
Was she just supposed to twiddle her thumbs when Charles had the kids?
Only a jackass would think that!
>The *princess* was a tramp. A muzzie loving tramp at that.
Good, attack on the basis of Character (or rather, the lack thereof) rather than on birth-status.
People refuse to accept it I guess because she’s stll seen as a victim and therefore not responsible for what happens to her. The simplest explanations are often the hardest to accept.
What’s to detest about Prince Phillip? He served Britain in front line naval service during WWII and is deliciously politically incorrect. He even called out the idiots who (unfortunately successfully) banned handguns in the wake of Dunblane by basically saying ‘Why not ban cricket bats if someone went beserk with one?’ A comment which caused a lot of butthurt amongst many people, in common with a lot of the things he often says....
I agree with *the boys lost their mother* sadness, *it’s never a good thing*, blah blah but, the women who cried for a week or more.... come on! You didn’t even know the women.
My ancestry comes mainly from Ireland, Scotland and Wales. That England is screwing it up for the rest of Great Britain.
>I’ll go there. Because royalty is despotic by it’s very essence.
Then please explain why Jesus in not only a king, but the King of Kings, and not merely “Despotism Made Flesh”.
>And after Thomas Paine wrote “common sense”, and utterly filleted the concept of royaly about 6 ways, it’s inexcusable to defend it.
Ah, well here I am Defending it. Royalty is not, by nature, inherently evil.
>You really need to read it,, it’s a tour de force on the topic of royalty.
And here I thought it was “a tour de force on the topic of royalty AS IMPLEMENTED BY CORRUPT MAN.”
>It’s a red herring to say hitler was elected.
Not really. A -> B is NOT the same as ~A -> ~B. IOW we have to define our playing-field for the debate; by stating that diplomatic processes can give rise to evil rulers, and non-diplomatic ones can give rise to good rulers I am steering the debate towards Character and human-nature.
>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.
See above.
“Hereditary-Position -> Evil-Person” is not the same as “Not-Evil-Person -> Not-Hereditary-Position”.
>It does not logically follow that if a bad man can be sometimes get elected, that royalty is good.
True, but the other-way works too: if bad men are sometimes born to power it does not mean that elections are good.
“we do have a special relationship with Great Britain.”
‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.’
George Washington
You might do well to remember the horrific damage England inflicted upon is. The “special relationship” is designed to do nothing more than give England access to America’s power, to fulfill *their* foreign policy. It’s hard to think of a nation which, as a government, has dealt with the USA in a more cynical manner. They attacked us in 1812. They tried to split us again in the civil war, they conspired to bring us into WWI, literally demanding that we feed Americans into the British Army. They were bitter that we founght as Americans.
They fully threatened to sink our merchantmen while we were neutral, while criticizing Germany for doing it if the ship was headed to England.
After the war they wanted us to forgive all their war debts as “America’s rightful contribution”.
They demanded a fleet double the size of ours in the Naval Treaty of 1921.
England is the absolute root of the entire middle east conflict, and the India/Pak conflict, and now,,as we clean up their mess, they contribute a token force, and have the audacity to say *they* are helping US? Utterly Amazing!
England SOLD the Russians the jet engine for the MiG-15!
And now, Much of the international banking crisis leads straight to London.
England has been one of the greatest menaces to moral government, American freedom, and individual liberty on earth. It’s just disguised in a teacup. The only decent thing they have contributed is a series of explorers. And most of them were treated badly at home later.
As a final how do you do,,misery in Manchester, in the era of Oliver Twist and Ebeneezer Scrooge inspired 2 nice men. Marx and Engals.
With special freinds like england,, who needs enemies?
Of course, this is just my opinion.
I too remember when Prince Phillip spoke out against the gun control laws. He was savagely attacked for it but did not back down.
However, post-separation/divorce, Diana became more and more visibly promiscuous and her battles with the Royal Family were tedious and nothing anyone I knew could care about. Diana had a very comfortable lifestyle, two lovely children and a title, which is a big deal in the U.K. Her well-publicized complaints about her famous in-laws and the paparazzi fell on deaf ears in my house. She was passably attractive but nothing that would snap a man's around to stare at her had she not been famous.
This lawyers assertion that Diana's untimely, rather gruesome death was an "unexpected consequence" of some murky establishment plot to frighten her away from the millionaire Muslim playboy, 'Dodi' Al-Fayed, may or may not be true. After more than a dozen years, who really cares anymore?
While I have no use for the 'Royal Family' and never was enchanted by Princess Diana, I do respect our national and ethnic ties to Great Britain and of course, back in '97, I was sorry to learn of Diana's death at age 36 in a stupid and unnecessary car accident, plot or no plot. However, I thought the U.S. TV coverage was excessive and I slightly resented this near-worship of what seemed like a pampered, vapid and somewhat promiscuous young mother...but that's me.
feh...
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.