Diana’s death. This makes for interesting reading

It was not a crime scene

I find it strange that we don't know so many details, considering how complicated crime scenes can be worked out, these days.
No more than a series of bad choices, in all probability, but this thread itself shows many variations on the facts.

I agree with easybee. Prince Andrew was not or is a pedophile. Paedophiles are described as having a sexual interest in prepubescent children. The young woman in this case were all well over that description, in fact in this country and in some US states were not under age and could legally be married. As for Saville you would have thought that the BBC would have rumbled him years before, but apparently it was 'vicious rumours.' P. C probably thought the same, Saville was very clever at covering up his tracks. We don't know that P.C didn't attempt to help Diana with her eating problems and other mental issues, at least originally. She allegedly threw herself downstairs in an attempted suicide much to the horror of the queen mother, but we don't know that this is fact anymore than we know why Diana didn't wear a seat belt, she appeared to be more and more erratic as time went on, and even palace security officers can be out witted. P.C would have had every reason to be concerned.

Good post Esmay.
The Fayed’s may not have been ‘ the type’ to be invited into the circles the RF moved in. They were no more unacceptable imo than Saville, or Bishop Peter Ball. Ball resigned in 1993 after being cautioned for sexual abuse of boys. He was supported by PC and continued to officiate in several churches after that. In October 2015, he was sentenced to 32 months hmp after admitting the abuse of 18 young men between 1977-1992. Further charges remained on file.
I acknowledge how good sex offenders are at hiding in plain site. However rumours about Saville would be known to the RF security police. Hard to believe PC never heard.
Diana was naive and vulnerable at 19. That and her childhood, combined with her isolation in those early years of marriage, no wonder she needed the psychotherapy she engaged with and benefitted from

eazybee

What an extremely unpleasant and inaccurate post, Glorianny.

What's inaccurate eazybee? Charles had a close and significant friendship with Savile, who he sometimes regarded as an adviser. Given the RF's abilities to research backgrounds you do wonder why nothing ever emerged until after his death.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10693583/As-new-letters-lay-bare-relationship-did-Prince-Charles-know-Jimmy-Saviles-abuse.html
As for Andrew and Epstein well that's been discussed a lot.

What an extremely unpleasant and inaccurate post, Glorianny.

Rock bottom and still drilling

Having had an accident in Paris -I know just how long the emergency services take to come .
And how inefficient they were .

No insults to the French or to France intended and maybe other gransnetters have had better experiences than we did .

None of us were badly injured or so we thought at the time - even so it was terrifying -though later I discovered a long term back injury and a family member also had problems .

I really believe that the whole tragedy was a combination of unfortunate circumstances :

A sad and traumatised Diana being manipulated by
Mohammad Fayed , a son trying to please his social climbing father , a habitually drunken chauffeur ( who probably was brilliant at hiding it ) , the greedy paparazzi chasing them through the streets of Paris , ill judged timing ... and probably the feeling of youth and immortality that we have before disaster strikes !

I don't think that the Royal family or the government would make such a decision or take such a risk.

Rest in peace , beautiful Diana and please let's stop the endless conspiracy theories .

Glorianny

Glorianny

Anniebach

Who wouldn’t be concerned if their children were taken on holidays with the Fayeds

William and Harry had their own security who went with them whenever they were with their mother. So why would anyone be concerned?

Of course you might have been concerned if they were girls because their father was very friendly with Jimmy Saville.

And their uncle with Jeffrey Epstein- To know one paedophile might be considered an accident, to know two....?

Glorianny

Anniebach

Who wouldn’t be concerned if their children were taken on holidays with the Fayeds

William and Harry had their own security who went with them whenever they were with their mother. So why would anyone be concerned?

Of course you might have been concerned if they were girls because their father was very friendly with Jimmy Saville.

Anniebach

Who wouldn’t be concerned if their children were taken on holidays with the Fayeds

William and Harry had their own security who went with them whenever they were with their mother. So why would anyone be concerned?

Yes, I certainly would have been concerned.

Who wouldn’t be concerned if their children were taken on holidays with the Fayeds

Callistemon21

Jaberwok

Harry was 12 not 9, William just 15 when their mother died. Who knows if Charles was keeping an eye on her (spying), perhaps with good reason as she did seem, at times to behave recklessly and no doubt he worried about not only her but his sons when they were in her care.

Although, if he was, it would have been out of concern for his children and for Diana herself as her lifestyle seemed to become reckless.

Oh come on Callistemon21 a man who had watched his bulimic wife suffer and driven her to attempt suicide was suddenly concerned for her? Especially as at the time his popularity rating was much less than hers.

Jane43

Glorianny

Grandma French Diana believed Charles was using her security team to track her movements and record who she was seeing. This has never been disproved. Charles at the time was disliked by most of the public and jealous of his wife's popularity. So it is highly possible.

Diana believed that because it was one of the lies told to her by Martin Bashir. At the time of her death Diana and Charles were on relatively good terms.

Diana believed it long before Bashir got involved. She ditched her security in 1993 when she realised Charles was being informed of her every move and any liasons. The Bashir interview was 95. Funny how things get changed and twisted in this case isn't it.

Jaberwok

Harry was 12 not 9, William just 15 when their mother died. Who knows if Charles was keeping an eye on her (spying), perhaps with good reason as she did seem, at times to behave recklessly and no doubt he worried about not only her but his sons when they were in her care.

Although, if he was, it would have been out of concern for his children and for Diana herself as her lifestyle seemed to become reckless.

Glorianny

*Grandma French* Diana believed Charles was using her security team to track her movements and record who she was seeing. This has never been disproved. Charles at the time was disliked by most of the public and jealous of his wife's popularity. So it is highly possible.

It was obvious from much of what Diana said that she was gullible and paranoid.

Anniebach

Again , Trevor Rees Jones was wearing a seatbelt

I think you might have to keep re-stating this fact every couple of pages or so...

Charles was not particularly popular at that time, but Diana's image was beginning to tarnish, because of her unbalanced behaviour and constant publicity seeking, which ultimately caused her death.

Glorianny

*Grandma French* Diana believed Charles was using her security team to track her movements and record who she was seeing. This has never been disproved. Charles at the time was disliked by most of the public and jealous of his wife's popularity. So it is highly possible.

Diana believed that because it was one of the lies told to her by Martin Bashir. At the time of her death Diana and Charles were on relatively good terms.

Jaberwok

MissAdventure

Jaberwok

Harry was 12 not 9, William just 15 when their mother died. Who knows if Charles was keeping an eye on her (spying), perhaps with good reason as she did seem, at times to behave recklessly and no doubt he worried about not only her but his sons when they were in her care.

That makes good sense.
Perhaps she was being watched for those reasons.

Perhaps she wasn't at all and was just paranoid.

Prince Harry was two weeks from his 13th birthday so it must have been a very very unhappy time indeed. If only their mother had worn a seat belt. Perhaps she was being observed, perhaps she wasn't, who knows, but I would think almost certainly P.C would have been somewhat worried particularly where his sons were concerned. As it turned out, with good reason.

When the children were with Diana she had their security teams to watch them. The idea that she had to be watched even when they were not with her is ludicrous. She was an independent woman who had divorced Charles and had the right to a life without any interference.

Yes, particularly with the future heir as one of the children, quite apart from the love and concern for his children.

I really hadn't considered that angle.

MissAdventure

Jaberwok

Harry was 12 not 9, William just 15 when their mother died. Who knows if Charles was keeping an eye on her (spying), perhaps with good reason as she did seem, at times to behave recklessly and no doubt he worried about not only her but his sons when they were in her care.

That makes good sense.
Perhaps she was being watched for those reasons.

Perhaps she wasn't at all and was just paranoid.

Prince Harry was two weeks from his 13th birthday so it must have been a very very unhappy time indeed. If only their mother had worn a seat belt. Perhaps she was being observed, perhaps she wasn't, who knows, but I would think almost certainly P.C would have been somewhat worried particularly where his sons were concerned. As it turned out, with good reason.

Joseanne

mokryna

Joseanne

Interestingly I was reading an article in a Brittany newspaper (Ouest-France) by Henri Pauls's best friend today. He fervently believes that Henri Paul was thrown to the lions and defends him with an account of that night 25 years ago.

I can’t see it because of the paywall.

I'll try to paraphrase in a bit, though it probably won't add much to the already known conspiracies, so don't want to muddy the waters. It was more a look at the man himself from his best friend's view.

Just shows that everyone, everywhere wants to peddle a different story from their own perspective.

Perhaps but there are some discrepancies. Why weren't his parents permitted an independent blood test? How if he was an alcoholic did he manage to renew his pilots licence a few days before? Something that requires blood and urine tests. I know there are functioning alcoholics but most of them don't have such things.

mokryna

Joseanne

Interestingly I was reading an article in a Brittany newspaper (Ouest-France) by Henri Pauls's best friend today. He fervently believes that Henri Paul was thrown to the lions and defends him with an account of that night 25 years ago.

I can’t see it because of the paywall.

I'll try to paraphrase in a bit, though it probably won't add much to the already known conspiracies, so don't want to muddy the waters. It was more a look at the man himself from his best friend's view.

Just shows that everyone, everywhere wants to peddle a different story from their own perspective.