aliihsanasl wrote:
This will be more interesting

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1758595/

'I felt Diana's presence during the film. I asked her if I could carry on - and she gave me permission': An extraordinary interview with Diana star Naomi Watts

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/a ... z2cP5dV6Mo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

aliihsanasl wrote:

Regina wrote:

aliihsanasl wrote:

Weaver wrote:It wouldn't be a royal family child - she was divorced from Charles. No succession questions involved, as she was then simply the mother of the eventual heir.

Yes she was already divorced but relations before law is something dynasty traditions another. That alleged child would have blood relation with the future prince.

Actually I dont know how the blood ties in the British dynasty is, for Ottomans only father carries the royal blood. Wifes of most of the Sultans of Ottoman empire are not even Turk intentionally to prevent any claims for power.

So what?
The British monarch does not have any "claims to power." Btw, have you got any evidence for that pregnancy?

I said alleged child but Dodi's father Mohammed say that Diana informed him about her pregnancy on the phone, to tell the truth I find him not reliable because he's very angry after losing his son but we have Diana's word that she will reveal something shocking next month and there are claims that they were already engaged.[/quote]


Ms Spencer had been in a relationship with with Hasnat Khan before the one with al Fayed. And apparently, they were discussing getting married. Are you saying Khan had a lucky escape, or what?

Regina wrote:

aliihsanasl wrote:

Regina wrote:

aliihsanasl wrote:

Yes she was already divorced but relations before law is something dynasty traditions another. That alleged child would have blood relation with the future prince.

Actually I dont know how the blood ties in the British dynasty is, for Ottomans only father carries the royal blood. Wifes of most of the Sultans of Ottoman empire are not even Turk intentionally to prevent any claims for power.

So what?
The British monarch does not have any "claims to power." Btw, have you got any evidence for that pregnancy?

I said alleged child but Dodi's father Mohammed say that Diana informed him about her pregnancy on the phone, to tell the truth I find him not reliable because he's very angry after losing his son but we have Diana's word that she will reveal something shocking next month and there are claims that they were already engaged.

Ms Spencer had been in a relationship with with Hasnat Khan before the one with al Fayed. And apparently, they were discussing getting married. Are you saying Khan had a lucky escape, or what?[/quote]

Yes thats the guy I mentioned and I feel he was lucky. In his absence Dodi lost his life, in a documentary I watched someone close to Diana said ' Diana was with Dodi just to make Khan jealous for her, she was actually in love with Khan '

aliihsanasl wrote:Yes thats the guy I mentioned and I feel he was lucky. In his absence Dodi lost his life, in a documentary I watched someone close to Diana said ' Diana was with Dodi just to make Khan jealous for her, she was actually in love with Khan '

Ah, so obviously Khan is the culprit here. He had Dodi killed to clear the way for himself, and his plan just went awry and ended up killing Diana as well.



Seriously, aliihsanasl. You're usually pretty reasonable, but you're going off the rails here.

Shrunk wrote:

aliihsanasl wrote:Yes thats the guy I mentioned and I feel he was lucky. In his absence Dodi lost his life, in a documentary I watched someone close to Diana said ' Diana was with Dodi just to make Khan jealous for her, she was actually in love with Khan '

Ah, so obviously Khan is the culprit here. He had Dodi killed to clear the way for himself, and his plan just went awry and ended up killing Diana as well.



Seriously, aliihsanasl. You're usually pretty reasonable, but you're going off the rails here.

I didn't say anything like that.

All I said was she was hanging with Khan for months, another Muslim guy just like Dodi. Rumours started that their relations advancing towards marriage and Diana expecting a baby then somehow they split and Diana had 2 holidays with Dodi. She used Dodi to make Khan jealous and return to her.

What I said was if Khan would be with Diana he would be the one wasted. I dont believe even if it was an assassination secret service really want to kill her lover. Saving the future king's honor from having a non-British Muslim sister-brother would be enough.When Diana died with her baby neither Dodi nor Khan could be his step-father. It makes sense but just because it makes sense to me or any other person doesnt mean that it happened that way.

Diana in many different interviews said that her former husband's family want to get rid of her, even a few months before the accident she said ' My husband is planning an accident in my car. '

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2cRiNmBwF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And also during her marriage Diana had a love affair with one of her bodyguard afaik and this guy died in a traffic accident too right ?

You got the timeline wrong. That note was written four years before her death, and it remains doubtful if she did indeed write it. At that point there was no Muslim lover on the horizon. So what was Charles' motive? Those people were headed for a divorce. The days of Henry VIII were well and truly over at that point.

ED209 wrote:OK then - how might she have been assassinated?

Apparently by using a method that has never been duplicated before or since, involving a suicide driver combined with meticulous long-term urban design, performed in front of multiple witnesses, and carrying with it a significant chance of survival.

Which could have been foiled completely if she'd bothered to put a seatbelt on before (or while) being driven at excessive speed around a busy city.

aliihsanasl wrote:Do you think royal family would be happy with a child of Diana from Dodi ?

Why not?
She was effectively an ex-princess-by-marriage, and so just a commoner.

All it would have meant was that a future monarch might have had a half-sibling or two who was potentially Muslim, but who had no place in any line of succession.

Given the full siblings some recent monarchs have had (party girls, seeming Nazi sympathisers, etc), I think they could have handled that with relative ease.

A drunken driver was speeding and he hit a concrete post in a tunnel. She was not wearing a seat belt and she died, that's it.

At the risk of being seen to be tasteless on potentially multiple levels:
"Clunk click, every trip!".

pensioner wrote:A drunken driver was speeding and he hit a concrete post in a tunnel. She was not wearing a seat belt and she died, that's it.

Sad but true I think.

pensioner wrote:A drunken driver was speeding and he hit a concrete post in a tunnel. She was not wearing a seat belt and she died, that's it.

Precisely. It is evidently hard for many to accept that a person so famous, glamourous and rich when she was alive could die in a manner so mundane, tawdry, and devoid of meaning. But she could, and did.

Shrunk wrote:Precisely. It is evidently hard for many to accept that a person so famous, glamourous and rich when she was alive could die in a manner so mundane, tawdry, and devoid of meaning. But she could, and did.

Personally, I'm still shocked.

Shocked that the TV decided to cancel the motorbike racing I wanted to watch, and instead stay on the air live to 'keep up with developments'.
Developments which seemed to amount to nothing more than 'Amazingly - she's still dead'

Shocked that the media went on and on and fucking on about how 'A nation mourned', when none of the blokes (and hardly any of the women) I knew had much to say beyond "Daft bitch should have worn a seatbelt" or "I wonder how much coverage there would have been if this speeding ex-princess's car had mown down some entirely innocent pleb?"

DarthHelmet86 wrote:If there was an assassination they picked the worst way to do it. All that attention, all those cameras, all the media outlets watching. No, real assassins would have done it somewhere quiet and made it look like nothing but natural causes or murder by her lover.

So you mean real assassins would choose to utilize a more discreet method which would actually arouse more suspicion because everyone knows assassinations are more likely to be discreet.

Interesting. Like the Chinese proverb, " The safest place is the most dangerous place, the most dangerous place is the safest place".

Shrunk wrote:

pensioner wrote:A drunken driver was speeding and he hit a concrete post in a tunnel. She was not wearing a seat belt and she died, that's it.

Precisely. It is evidently hard for many to accept that a person so famous, glamourous and rich when she was alive could die in a manner so mundane, tawdry, and devoid of meaning. But she could, and did.

She could die a mundane death. It's plausible.

But then again, if she was assassinated, it's plausible that it's done in a way such that it would come across as if she had died a mundane death.

50-50.

If it can be conclusively proven/disproven, there wouldn't be a conspiracy theory in the first place.

Car crash ... not a particularly reliable assassination method, even less so in this day and age, of airbags and multiple crumple zones, especially in plutocrat penis extensions such as Mercedes-Benz S-Class limos. It would require the driver to be in on the plot, and willing to commit a very messy suicide.

If someone was seriously plotting to assassinate Diana, a far more reliable way of doing it would be to arrange for her to do another land mine field trip, like the one she conducted in 1997, and arrange for a large anti-tank mine to go off under her feet. A mine designed to blow up an M1 Abrams main battle tank, would have distributed her as a fine aerosol over a 100 metre radius at three miles per second. Far more effective, also leaves nothing for the coroner to go over. Arrange for said "accident" to happen somewhere in Africa, and it would also give the Daily Mail readers yet more reasons to hate The Bleeding DarkiesTM.

Calilasseia wrote:If someone was seriously plotting to assassinate Diana, a far more reliable way of doing it would be to arrange for her to do another land mine field trip, like the one she conducted in 1997, and arrange for a large anti-tank mine to go off under her feet.

If they actually allowed her to walk around on mine fields without first inspecting it for mines, they might as well have her travel around without bodyguards so any random lunatic could just run up to her with a chainsaw.

Oh that's the point, though. If anyone were going to do this properly, they'd make sure that an inspection took place, but one that missed the strategically planted anti-tank mine. Facilitated by the fact that modern anti-tank mines are more difficult to detect than their antecedents, courtesy of the absence of metal parts. Then, send her out on her little soujourn, and the moment she reaches X marks the spot, someone hidden away pushes the requisite button, and hey presto, one nice little princess aerosol.

Given the high risk involved in traversing any stretch of land known to be seeded with mines, it wouldn't be too difficult to paint this as a 'tragic accident', because real accidents of this sort have killed professional soldiers given the task of eliminating those mines. Professional soldiers whom, presumably, not only knew the risks, but knew a lot of techniques for trying to eliminate that risk, and possessed a very strong motivation not to see their testicles being propelled into the stratosphere.

This conspiracy theory will be fodder for the believers for the next 2,000 years. There will be a religion built up around her, and edifices dedicated to her worship. In 2197, there'll be an interstellar forum where people will argue about whether she actually existed or not, and the discussion will go on for 5 years before someone finds an ancient text that tells about her children...

How would that be a tragic accident if the detonation was button-activated. And it would have to be button-activated, because part of the security measures in place was to have people walking ahead of her.

Agrippina wrote:This conspiracy theory will be fodder for the believers for the next 2,000 years. There will be a religion built up around her, and edifices dedicated to her worship. In 2197, there'll be an interstellar forum where people will argue about whether she actually existed or not, and the discussion will go on for 5 years before someone finds an ancient text that tells about her children...

That's almost on par as saying that 2,000 years from now, scientists will claim that everything we know about the universe was wrong. Evolution was wrong. Gravity was wrong. Even the word "wrong" was wrong.