Princess Diana Conspiracy.

[zheer]

  Was it an accident, or was it planed . Discuss.

[prometheus]

David Icke did it!

[thalbergmad]

Planned.

A Princess possibly marrying a Muslim could not be allowed. She was an embarrasment to the Royal Family and needed to be removed.

I am pleased for Mr Fayed that the inquest is going to be heard by a jury. The attempt by the Deputy Royal Coroner to hear the case herself is extremely suspicious. It would have been a forgone conclusion.

Thal

[shortyshort]

A Princess possibly marrying a Muslim could not be allowed. She was an embarrasment to the Royal Family and needed to be removed.

Agreed.

Although I don't actually care. I do believe this to be the case.

Shorty

[thalbergmad]

I don't really care myself to be honest, but i will be interested in the findings of the inquest.

I admit to not liking Diana and thought the Funeral and outpouring of grief was overboard.

It is easy to go poncing around the world doing good when you have bugger all else to do and so much money that you don't have to work.

Thal

[arensky]

Planned.

A Princess possibly marrying a Muslim could not be allowed. She was an embarrasment to the Royal Family and needed to be removed.

I agree.

[dnephi]

I did it. 

AND I"M GLAD I DID IT!! I"D DO IT @) TIMES.

[ahinton]

Planned.

A Princess possibly marrying a Muslim could not be allowed. She was an embarrasment to the Royal Family and needed to be removed.

I am pleased for Mr Fayed that the inquest is going to be heard by a jury. The attempt by the Deputy Royal Coroner to hear the case herself is extremely suspicious. It would have been a forgone conclusion.

Thal

In principle, I, too, am pleased that the inquest will be heard by a jury, although one may well suspect that a large amount of jury nobbling will go on in this case, so the foregone conclusion that you suspect had the case been heard inprivate by the Deputy Royal Coroner may still be exactly the ame and for not dissimilar reasons. Why you would be pleased for Mr al-Fayed in particular is unclear, unless he is a friend of yours; whilst Mr al-Fayed will understandably have a diffeent agenda to the rest of us in the matter, I would have thought that the decision as to whether this hearing should be in private or in public was not - and indeed should not be - merely to satisfy the requirements of Mr al-Fayed.

Even if one makes allowances for the likelihood that the truth can still not be guaranteed to emerge from this hearing, I do not personally believe that there was in any case any conspiracy surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Apart from any other considerataion, the manner in which she died seems to me to be far from indicative of the kind of subtlety required to see such a conspiracy through successfully; its sheer clumsiness and riskiness was surely just too great and one can only imagine that, if the Royal Family really did seek to engineer her demise in this way, they must be a bunch of the most gormless idiots that ever tried to organise anything - the proverbial piss-up in a brewery isn't in it. No, it just isn't credible; had there been a genuine mission to kill her, with or without killing Dodi al-Fayed as well, this could have been achieved in any one of hundreds of far cleaner and less suspicious ways.

It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this hearing may be, but I'd be wary of trusting its conclusions as the end of the matter - and I am neither Mr al-Fayed nor one of his mouthpieces nor even a shareholder in any of his businesses.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I agree.

A UK princess possibly marrying a Muslim may well have been a problem, even if not necessarily regarded universally as an "embarrassment"; there'a new play on about this very subject at the moment, although I cannot now recall the name of either the play or its author (someone may come to my rescue here). One cannot help but look back at the Wallis Simpson situation, for all that it was 70 years ago, where the King in waiting was about to marry someone considered "unsuitable" because she was an American, a divorcee and not a member of the established Church of England. I think that, today, there would be far more of a concern were the Prince of Wales to have married a Muslim; he, after all, is currently the future UK monarch, whereas Diana, Pricess of Wales had already divorced the future monarch so, had she eventually married Dodi al-Fayed (which was not in any case a certainty), it would be a very different matter from the monarch being married to a Muslim.

If there is a real embarrassment in this case, it is surely that it's still rumblng on almost ten years after her death, as though some people, rightly or wrongly, just won't let it go but we still do not appear to know the facts and perhaps never will with any degree of certainty. It also seems likely that the marriage of the Price of Wales to Diana Spencer was something of a non-starter in the sense of what one may reasonably hope for any marriage, "royal" or otherwise.

Now supposing the Prince of Wales had married Joyce Hatto...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Now supposing the Prince of Wales had married Joyce Hatto...

Then he would probably have issued his own version of the Chopin-Godowsky Etudes.

Thal

[dnephi]

Then he would probably have issued his own version of the Chopin-Godowsky Etudes.

Thal

For 2 hands 1 nose and 2 feet.

[thalbergmad]

I would have thought his ears would be rather more useful.

Thal

[ahinton]

Then he would probably have issued his own version of the Chopin-Godowsky Etudes.

Thal

Well, I take leave to doubt that he'd have issued someone else's in his wife's name, as has a certain other person of whom we know...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

as expected - i will speak for God (hahah -  just kidding - but i feel compelled - so it might be true)

God saved her from embarassing herself!  God is both merciful and just and i think He saw her pain more than anyone else.  she truly did love charles at the first and was sorely grieved.  especially after giving him two lovely boys.  whenever i see them - i think of her and charles and noone else.  if God hates divorce - how  much more so - a royal family divorce. 

i think that God will allow her memory and name to be forever attached to the royal family - and she will always be 'the queen of hearts.' 

also, on her behalf - i don't think she was superhuman and had natural desires and unfulfilled love needs.  i don't think anyone holds this against her (or dodi) and even God himself will forgive her.  remember king David and bathsheba.  it ends up bathsheba's son solomon built the temple to God - so God is quick to forgive and unending in mercy.  and yet - He deemed this case to be important enough to keep diana 'in the faith.'

[thalbergmad]

God saved her from embarassing herself! 

Oh, so God let her die with 2 other people in a horrific car crash to avoid her embarassing herself.

The most sensible explanation yet.

I hope you are called to give evidence at the inquest. I could do with a laugh.

Thal

[pianistimo]

i am just stating my opinion, thal.  nothing more.  after all - this is a conspiracy thread.  i have not made any outlandish guesses on that plane - as you may note.  as i see it - each of our lives is unusual in birth, life, death.  much more planned than we realize - and yet freewill.  the planned part being our dna, our talents, our personality, what God wants to use us for.

the consequences of sin are a natural pattern that God sets in motion.  He doesn't have to lift a finger.  the paparazzi did it for Him (although i highly doubt it was planned by humans - as it seemed that the naturalness of the situation was Godlike.  i'm talking about the timing.  she had not married dodi.  she had no more children).  but, He would not allow Diana to have children by another man, imo.

[ahinton]

as expected - i will speak for God (hahah -  just kidding - but i feel compelled - so it might be true)

Can't He speak for Himself? - at least to those with the supernatural powers to be able to listen?...

God saved her from embarassing herself!

Did He? When? Where? How? Why?

God is both merciful and just and i think He saw her pain more than anyone else.

Did He tell you that or are you just assuming it (and, if the latter, why are you assuming it and on what basis?)...

she truly did love charles at the first and was sorely grieved.

That much may well be true.

especially after giving him two lovely boys.

She didn't "give" them to him! He is their father and she gave birth to them.

whenever i see them - i think of her and charles and noone else.  if God hates divorce - how  much more so - a royal family divorce. 

So your God now discriminates between Royal divorces and other ones, valuing the former above the latter? I'm really beginning to go off your God big time - and that is less an anti-Royalist statement as it is one of dismay to think that God, who should surely be above such things, favours Royal families above all others. Anyway, if He does do so, He must be getting right Royally fed up with the current UK incumbents, where although ER and the surnameless Phil have stuck it out for a long time, three quarters of their family have ended up divorcing.

i think that God will allow her memory and name to be forever attached to the royal family - and she will always be 'the queen of hearts.'

Why on earth do you suppose that God determines how those who believe in Him, those who don't and those who either aren't sure or couldn't care less will remember the late Princess of Wales?

also, on her behalf - i don't think she was superhuman and had natural desires and unfulfilled love needs.  i don't think anyone holds this against her (or dodi)

Here you return to plausibility...

and even God himself will forgive her.

...but not for long! "Even God will forgive her"! Well, that's mighty generous of Him! But you don;t say what for...

remember king David and bathsheba.  it ends up bathsheba's son solomon built the temple to God - so God is quick to forgive and unending in mercy.  and yet - He deemed this case to be important enough to keep diana 'in the faith.'

If anyone understand this bit, do please let us know. "Keeping her in the faith"? He might have done better for Himself and for others had He kept her OUT of that car...

I really do think that you're making matters worse by mixing your personal interpretations of Christianity and the rôle of your Christian God with some fairly tacky sentimentality here, you know...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

i am just stating my opinion, thal.  nothing more.  after all - this is a conspiracy thread.  i have not made any outlandish guesses on that plane

Some of what you wrote instead of "guesses" sounds even more implausible than actual guesses might have done...

as you may note.  as i see it - each of our lives is unusual in birth, life, death.  much more planned than we realize - and yet freewill.  the planned part being our dna, our talents, our personality, what God wants to use us for.

Ah - the free will to be used. How wonderful. Not.

the consequences of sin are a natural pattern that God sets in motion.

I thought He was against "sin". Why does He do this, then?

He doesn't have to lift a finger.

So He can't play the piano, then. I'm going off this God of yours even more now!

the paparazzi did it for Him

Hey! That's not fair! You leave "ada" out of this!...

(although i highly doubt it was planned by humans - as it seemed that the naturalness of the situation was Godlike.  i'm talking about the timing.  she had not married dodi.  she had no more children).  but, He would not allow Diana to have children by another man, imo.

So there WAS a conspiracy, then - but it wasn't the Royal family behind it, but GOD! Boy, has He got a lot to answer for! Trouble is, even if Mr al-Fayed gets his day(s) in court interrogating Princes Philip and Charles (yikes! what a spectacle that will be!), he almost certainly won't even get to call Queen Elizabeth to the stand, let alone God (for whose presence he'd probably have to do some underhanded deal with the Archbishop of Canterbury in any case and the said Rown Williams might not even be a Harrods shareholder, so that could prove a tad difficult).

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

So He can't play the piano, then. I'm going off this God of yours even more now!

It would still be possible.

Reading some of Bernhard's posts would indicate that you don't actually have to lift a finger.

Thal

[ahinton]

It would still be possible.

Reading some of Bernhard's posts would indicate that you don't actually have to lift a finger.

Thal

I still think that you'd have to move at least one to cause that car crash...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i realize you may disagree, ahinton - but the idea of kingship stems from the bible itself.  the king being a servant of the people - originally.  one who is both ordained by God and man.  but, lately, it seems - leaving God out is easier -especially when it comes to divorce.

the coronation anthems often come from psalms and other places with distinction that they obtained this title from both God and man.  the coronation ceremony itself - being very old and stemming back to biblical times and the very throne of David - which was said to never lack an heir to the throne (which it hasn't to this very day). 

the modern day interpretation is that kings are not necessary.  too much unsubstantiated spending and noone seems to value genetic heirs to a throne.  and, yet - you have to admit 'the crown' has a long and distinguished history and that the queen herself has been cause for much honor (in the way she dealt with world war II) being quite fearless and the way her mother has been.

as i see it - kings represent their country.  if a history of scandal or divorce is prominent among a christian nation...people talk.  even if we think it is obsolete.  they still do.  it wouldn't be gossip if noone cared.  there is something that people innately understand is 'not right' about a person in high places having 'scandals' surround their name.  i stand by what i said - no matter what - because it is my  opinion and i feel that i have as much right to feel what i do about the matter as you, ahinton.  and, if you do not like 'my God' - then that is your right.  in my heart - on the day she died - it was as if God showed his love for her great sufferring by taking her out of her misery and still allowing her boys to have the integrity of an intact family.  they were royal blood and deserved the honor and distinction of a royal name that was not shared by other sibilings from the next marriage (if there was to be one).  i think dodi had good intentions and probably would have married her if it were possible.  the thing is - i don't think God had this in mind.

 

[zheer]

 pianistimo, am glad you wont be part of jury, since we hope these guys think more with their head than their hearts. Bringing God into everything does not make for a good case. I've noticed when you do'nt have a sure explenation you refer the subject back to God, for instance, i ran over my cat, instead of thinking dam i should have looked ,you would say,well God wonted to teach me a lesson to be more careful so that i dont kill anyone and the cat was lonely so he is know in heaven with other cats.

[ahinton]

i realize you may disagree, ahinton - but the idea of kingship stems from the bible itself.  the king being a servant of the people - originally.  one who is both ordained by God and man.  but, lately, it seems - leaving God out is easier -especially when it comes to divorce.

No such rulers before Biblical times? Oh...

the coronation anthems often come from psalms and other places with distinction that they obtained this title from both God and man.  the coronation ceremony itself - being very old and stemming back to biblical times and the very throne of David - which was said to never lack an heir to the throne (which it hasn't to this very day).

Coronation anthems and such like draw on such texts (when they do) because that it what is commissioned for the purpose; this would only happen in a country where the monarch is to preside over a nation whose principal religion - or rather "establishment" one - is Christianity, so it would be a bit silly in Thailand, for example...

the modern day interpretation is that kings are not necessary.  too much unsubstantiated spending and noone seems to value genetic heirs to a throne.

King George the Bush, as in? I don't think that this is the case, actually, even if only because plenty of non-monarchical premiers of nations have similarly been accused of such financial corruption and self-serving. As to genetic heirs to the throne, there's no absolute guarantee that the longest serving monarchy - i.e. the British one of which you write here - will always have such heirs ready and willing to assume the increasingly perilous position of monarch in the present and future world where Britain is part of an ever-expanding EC and where the so-called "British" sector of the population will likely no longer be in the majority in 20 years' time.

and, yet - you have to admit 'the crown' has a long and distinguished history and that the queen herself has been cause for much honor

If you mean the English (later British) one, then yes, it does indeed have a long and distinguished history; to what extent the present Queen "has been the cause for much honor" depends on individual viewpoints, I imagine, but there can be no doubt that she has continued to work tirelessly and, although she certainly isn't short of a pound or two in the bank, she has put the country before self pretty much consistently and, given that she has such personal wealth, she certainly ain't doing it for the money.

(in the way she dealt with world war II) being quite fearless

Her accession was some eight years after WWII ended...

and the way her mother has been.

Ah, yes, that; keeping the English gin industry alive all by herself while maintaining an overdraft at Coutts & Co. even larger than the one that I have there!...

as i see it - kings represent their country.  if a history of scandal or divorce is prominent among a christian nation...people talk.

You mean that they don't do so when the same circumstances arise in non-Christian nations?...

even if we think it is obsolete.  they still do.  it wouldn't be gossip if noone cared.

Oh, come now! It's the job of the news media to decide what people will gossip about and what they're supposed to be interested in...

there is something that people innately understand is 'not right' about a person in high places having 'scandals' surround their name.

Maybe so, but aren't people so used to it by now that, when they encounter the known history of Queen Elizabeth II of Britain, their jaws drop in sheer disbelief at the extent to which she appear to be the exception to this?

i stand by what i said - no matter what - because it is my  opinion and i feel that i have as much right to feel what i do about the matter as you, ahinton.

Of course you do! Quite right, too. But do plase stop calling me "ahinton". I call you "Susan", don't I? I'll stop doing so if you'd rather I didn't, however...

and, if you do not like 'my God' - then that is your right.

It's not quite as straightforward as that; I just don't feel drawn towards certain things that you have written about and attributed to Him at the points where I have replied to you thus.

in my heart - on the day she died - it was as if God showed his love for her great sufferring by taking her out of her misery and still allowing her boys to have the integrity of an intact family.

Not only do you appear to ascribe to God exclusive responsibility for the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, you seem also to believe that robbing those boys of their mother was considerate to them; where's your Christian compassion now, Susan? - did you accidentally leave it in Church?

they were royal blood and deserved the honor and distinction of a royal name that was not shared by other sibilings from the next marriage (if there was to be one).

But there wasn't another such marriage until several years later in any case! - and was it OK to leave them motherless and carrying that Royal name when not only had their father's marriage hit the rocks but their Aunt Annie's and Uncle Andy's had done so as well?...

i think dodi had good intentions and probably would have married her if it were possible.  the thing is - i don't think God had this in mind.

Perhaps he did and perhaps he would have done that; we'll never know for sure now, will we? As to whether or not God had it in mind for these two to marry, it is not difficult to extrapolate from what you write here that you appear to believe that God felt that it would be inappropriate for Diana, Princess of Wales to marry a Muslim (despite the fact that she could conceivably have been stripped of her title had she done so and the Royal household determined such a marriage to be inconsistent with retenton of such a title - remember the case of Edward VIII?), so He arranged all the circumstances that led to the two of them being killed in that car crash and then let the whole thing rumble on and on in the public media as her motherless children grew up under perpetual public scrutiny until the point at which He would finally hand on a plate not the head of John the Baptist but a possible opportunity for Mohammed al-Fayed to interrogate the Princes Philip and Charles at the British taxpayers' (very considerable) expense in a court of law that would surely be far better used for the hopefully forthcoming trials(s) of one William Barrington-Coupe. Were you to be correct about God's rôle here, you would be illustating just why I'd want to have nothing to do with a God that behaved like that; fortunately, however, I do not believe that you are correct in this. It gives me a heavy heart indeed to think that your Christian beliefs lead you to imagine such cruel scenarios as this. It also occurs to me that it's a very good things that you're an American citizen, since this fact will exonerate you from serving on the jury in this case and the remaining jurors from treating you in a way that I would not want to see anyone treat you. Furthermore, were the court to conclude that the sole perpetrator of the crash that caused the deaths of those two was God, some might see this as a very convenient means by which to avoid having to convict and send anyone to prison for conspiracy to commit murder.

Susan, you can come across as remarkably hard-hearted sometimes, for all that I'm quite sure you don't really mean to; it's not a pretty sight, believe me.

As to the possible outcome of this hearing, one may suppose that the worst imaginable situation might be one in which Prince Philip and Prince Charles and - dare one even think it - Queen Elizabeth Herself were, by dint of the skilful manipulation of lawyers, pronounced jointly and/or severally guilty of conspiracy to commit murder when in fact they were innocent; if a British court under the Queen's own ultimate jurisdiction were to convict them all of this, innocent or not, I think that another handing on a plate would result pretty swiftly - that of the Presidency of the People's Democratic Republic of Britain to one James Gordon Brown...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

alistair, if i am hard-harded - to the same you are a wishful thinker.  james brown?  people's democratic republic of britain?  it will never happen.  but, this of course is my opinion. you see - i believe in manifest destiny and that what we see during and after an act of God is more respect for Him.  he untimately has each one of our lives under consideration and knows all the hairs on our heads.  i do not consider myself worthy to judge God - so if He decides to allow diana to die before disgrace - that is a loving act.  Her boys will not have to deal with decades of scandal.   it is not like she had never married a royal.  she was already married and separated.  but, to God - when two are joined - it is by HOLY matrimony.  it may not mean that much to humans - but it means a lot to God. people in government are supposed to be examples of right behaviour.  if a Christian nation - how much more so?  and yet - we are often outdone by righteous behavior by nations which do not know Jesus - although i do think they know God (Allah).  He has many names and many worshippers - and many worship him in truth.  by living a good life.

i think actions speak louder than words.  if a person has actions - no matter how much the reasons - that go against the words of the bible there are consquences.  it is as if sin 'rules' for a time - and then the consquences kick in.  they are 'natural consequences' that God set in motion at the time sin entered the world and moreso when He gave His law.  people understand when something happens to them and often attribute later an understanding and respect for God that they previously did not have.

ps i believe we will all be judged - so if one is judged now and given consequences but has ETERNAL LIFE - which is the more loving.  a punishment for an instant - or eternal death?  the thief on the cross thought his sufferring far less than the rewards of being with Jesus Christ in the hereafter.  all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  some sins God calls us to account for now.

[ahinton]

alistair, if i am hard-harded - to the same you are a wishful thinker.

Why? In how much of the above did I impart what I think should happen and in how much did I merely comment on your own remarks and those of others? Anyway, we've already got one "wishful thinker" on here, have we not?!...

james brown?

Gordon Brown, Prime Minister in waiting (his first name happens to be James) and aspiring President of this country and perhaps the whole of Europe as well, who knows?

people's democratic republic of britain?  it will never happen. but, this of course is my opinion.

I agree that it is most unlikely; I merely do not dismiss the possibility outright. It is most unlikely that any, let alone all, of the Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles will come to be adjudged guilty of conspiracy to commit murder (and, for the record, I do not believe for one moment that they did - although that is just MY opinion), but if that did happen, whether or not they actually were guilty, I think that the British monarchy would have a major problem surviving it.

you see - i believe in manifest destiny and that what we see during and after an act of God is more respect for Him.  he untimately has each one of our lives under consideration and knows all the hairs on our heads.  i do not consider myself worthy to judge God - so if He decides to allow diana to die before disgrace - that is a loving act.  Her boys will not have to deal with decades of scandal.

Leaving aside the fact that you've now reduced the charge that you make against God from conspiracy to murder down to allowing manslaughter to occur without attempting to prevent it, what makes you think that Princess Diana's two sons have NOT had to deal with at least the one decade of scandal that has elapsed since the death of their mother? This has rarely been out of the news here, Iraq and Afghanistan or no Iraq or Afghanistan. Those lads have had to take it all on the chin and still are doing so. And of what "disgrace" were you accusing Diana from which God somehow conveniently excused her by allowing her to die in a car accident? - you don't specify that at all...

it is not like she had never married a royal.  she was already married and separated.  but, to God - when two are joined - it is by HOLY matrimony.  it may not mean that much to humans - but it means a lot to God.

And why and how is it any different for someone who has married a member of the British Royal family? Are you also now saying that God doesn;t recognise divorce in any circumstances, Royal or otherwise? He doesn't allow the possibility that those humans that He is supposed to have designed might make mistakes? Dear me!

people in government are supposed to be examples of right behaviour.

"Supposed" is the operative word! - or at least it was, for I don't think many expect anything like that any more; as someone recently told a friend of mine, "don't even think of going into politics; you may have a first class law degree but you're hopelessly lacking in corrupt practice!"

ps i believe we will all be judged - so if one is judged now and given consequences but has ETERNAL LIFE - which is the more loving.  a punishment for an instant - or eternal death?  the thief on the cross thought his sufferring far less than the rewards of being with Jesus Christ in the hereafter.  all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  some sins God calls us to account for now.

Well, now that you're on your judgement-day hobby horse again, would you mind just sending God an email asking Him to list all of mine that have to be accounted for immediately so that you can forward that list to me for consideration?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

so if He decides to allow diana to die before disgrace - that is a loving act.  Her boys will not have to deal with decades of scandal. 

What utter turd.

Her boys have had to go through hell.

Hardly a loving act.

Thal

[zheer]

someone recently told a friend of mine, "don't even think iof going into politics; you may have a first class law degree but you're hopelessly lacking in corrupt practice!"
Alistair

   Your friend is well informed, Aistair have you read the book Ghost Wars by Steve Coll, flipping heck talk about corruption.

[ahinton]

   Your friend is well informed, Aistair have you read the book Ghost Wars by Steve Coll, flipping heck talk about corruption.

I haven't as it happens, but I do know of it; the point is that most people nowadays expect that, if someone decides to make a career in politics, they must have a certain talent for evasion, corruption and the like. The point that the person advising my friend was making is that, armed with a first class law degree, it would be better (and probably more lucrative) to work with clients' corrupt practices than try one's luck with promoting one's own.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

ok.  for the record - i don't judge diana as having done anything but follow her heart.  but, according to the bible - the royal family is exactly that.  a royal dynasty.  not something to take lightly or to randomly switch when one pleases.

[thalbergmad]

My word, you do produce some garbage.

Put your Bible down and get out more.

Thal

[ahinton]

My word, you do produce some garbage.

I am going to burn in the fires of hell, for i am a non-believer

D'ya know, if people didn't produce so much garbage, there might be less material to stoke up the fires of Hell, so that might not be such a big deal anyway; anyway, if Hell is in any sense like UK prisons as they are today, you'd probably have to join a long queue to get in there in any case and, as you waited patiently in line, you'd be told repeatedly that there's no room at the inn-side because of prison overcrowding and, let's face it, if all the world's dead homosexuals of both sexes are filling up the place (Hell, that is), the chances that overcrowding there may reflect UK prison overcrowding are surely all that much greater.

But I digress, for neither the Princes Philip or Charles nor Queen Eizabeth II nor the late Princess of Wales are or were homosexual, so let's get off that other topic or three and right back onto this one to resume consideration as to whether or not the last-named of these was the victim of a conspiracy to murder (and, as I have already stated, I believe it is absolutely not the case that her death was anything other than accidental).

Best,

Alistair