Di No Princess?
rickg...@my-deja.com
Royals, and a new book which had been serialized in England and was about to
be out in US. I cannot remember the author, but she was referred to as
"respected." In any event, Sir David was soberly shaking his head in
recognition of the book's portrayal of Di as a person with serious
personality problems, which Sir David said indicated that "any man would find
it hard to stay married to her." He also suggested that in Britain there
was starting to be a new wave of sympathy for Prince Charles in recognition
of what Di may "really" have been as a wife. And, of course, there was the
discussion about her having no intention of marrying Dodi as she was
two-timing him with the "true" love of her life (or was it just for the
summer?).
Can our UK friends verify or dispute this apparent change in attitude about
culpability for Royal problems? Will her reputation continue to be
posthumously sullied?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
cromwell
rickg...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7rbqkg$uaj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
was alive. It simply isn't new. Sally Bedell Smith is about to make the
argument in her forthcoming book, Penny Junor also made the same argument
and Chris Hutchins made similiar claims in 1996.
I have problems with such syndromes as BPD, Repressed memory, Multiple
Personality and the rest. I am extremely sceptical of the latter two
because I have a pretty good running knowledge of them. At present, I
reserve judgement on the BPD.
What I do not think is any doubt, is that Princess Diana exhibited symptoms
which definitely come under the category of mental health disorders or
illnesses. Self-mutilation, bulimia, suicidal tendencies, depression all
fall within this orbit. But of course, these are not revelations that have
come to into the public forum since her death. The public was made aware of
them as early as 1992 by Princess Diana herself!
As for David North, I don't particularly value his opionions . This is
the same who has spent much time, getting the British public to swallow the
con-man Uri Geller. If Sir David is incapable of spotting a conjuring trick
when he see's one, he's highly unlikely to provide any meaningful insights
into the relationship of Charles and Diana is he?!
You obviously do not live in the UK, because you would realize that Princess
Diana's reputation is not being 'posthumously sullied' as you put it. The
opposite is happening. The Sun newspaper for example, has been carrying out
a nasty campaign against Mr. James Hewitt and his attempt to make Princess
Diana's letters public for a sum of money. The Daily Mirror has led a
vigorous campaign to get a memorial to her. Vivienne Parry, columnist for
the Sunday tabloid, The News of the World, has reserved a corner of her
column each week for a memorial to Princess Diana. In her column of the
29th August 1999, she demanded that Tony Blair give this entire issue his
personal attention because she believes, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, who
chairs the Memorial Committee, is falling down on the job,
"As far as he's concerned, Kensington didn't want a memorial so that's it
for the nation, too. He's now washed his hands of the whole problem and
gone back to the cosy confines of the Exchequer"
Thus Parry thinks that the two most senior members of the British Government
should lay aside the pressing problems of interest rates, fiscal policy,
Northern Ireland and East Timor and priortise the pressing and urgent need
for a memorial to a woman dead two years now.
Literary output, overwhelmingly presents a pro-Diana bias. Books such as
Sally Bedell Smith and Penny Junor are rare indeed, yet they are attacked
and villified as if authors have nothing better to do, than character
assassinate Princess Diana! Yet the Smiths and Junor's are a minority.
Overwhelmingly, the trend is toward sanctification.
Geoff.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '20:45:07' on 'Fri, 10 Sep
1999', rickg...@my-deja.com writes:
>I watched Sir David Frost on a talk show the other night discussing Di, the
>Royals, and a new book which had been serialized in England and was about to
>be out in US. I cannot remember the author, but she was referred to as
>"respected." In any event, Sir David was soberly shaking his head in
>recognition of the book's portrayal of Di as a person with serious
>personality problems, which Sir David said indicated that "any man would find
>it hard to stay married to her." He also suggested that in Britain there
>was starting to be a new wave of sympathy for Prince Charles in recognition
>of what Di may "really" have been as a wife.
Frost is rather high up in the British and indeed the international
media elite.
--
banana
Kariana
having been married to Diana. Those poor boys having had Diana as such a
caring loving mother, who of course just made it seem like she was a loving
mother. We are suppose to believe that life was hell for Charles and the
boys, and now were also suppose to believe Harry isn't even Prince Charle's
son. So much back stabbing towards a woman who is dead and cannot defend
herself, who cares if the kids get hurt, as long as Charles can be with
Camilla who cares what they say about Diana?
<rickg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7rbqkg$uaj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I watched Sir David Frost on a talk show the other night discussing Di,
the
> Royals, and a new book which had been serialized in England and was about
to
> be out in US. I cannot remember the author, but she was referred to as
> "respected." In any event, Sir David was soberly shaking his head in
> recognition of the book's portrayal of Di as a person with serious
> personality problems, which Sir David said indicated that "any man would
find
> it hard to stay married to her." He also suggested that in Britain there
> was starting to be a new wave of sympathy for Prince Charles in
recognition
the
> discussion about her having no intention of marrying Dodi as she was
> two-timing him with the "true" love of her life (or was it just for the
> summer?).
>
> Can our UK friends verify or dispute this apparent change in attitude
about
> culpability for Royal problems? Will her reputation continue to be
> posthumously sullied?
>
>
Kariana
who is no longer with us. It is immoral.
Kariana
Alvin H. White <GODS...@HOME.COM> wrote in message
news:jfraN+mkU9=ZIMJzut8...@4ax.com...
> </html>
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:14:51 -0700, "Kariana" <kar...@inreach.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So much back stabbing towards a woman who is dead and cannot defend
> >herself, who cares if the kids get hurt, as long as Charles can be with
> >Camilla who cares what they say about Diana?
>
> <Soap Box On>
>
> When children grow up in a loving family they
> may not be accustomed to a high level of
> false speech.
>
> However, when they enter the world as adults
> they will find, sooner or later, that there is a lot
> of falsity in the world.
>
> So while it can be a little off balancing for a
> short while if one considers world history
> including wars, crime, etc. this is far from
> a worst case.
>
> There is a great deal of difference between
> "someone saying something" and "someone
> saying something true".
>
> I think, hope and pray that they will become
> adults in their time and survive the transition.
>
> For a while. Like the rest of us.
>
> Good luck.
>
> <Soap Box Off>
>
> <a
>
href="http://members.home.com/godsbrain/index.htm">G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.<a><br>
Alvin H. White
cromwell
Kariana wrote in message ...
>No Soap Box. It is wrong. WRONG. You don't say such things about anyone
>who is no longer with us. It is immoral.
>
> Kariana
Kariana, what sort of an approach to history is this?
For example. I am a great fan of John Lennon, who I consider to be the
greatest song writer of contempary music if not all time and who was
tragically gunned down in New York in December 1980. The response to
Lennon's unexpected and sudden death, makes good comparisons with Princess
Diana.
8 years after his death, Albert Goldman wrote a scurrilous and wicked
account of his life entitled "The Lives of John Lennon". The book contained
all sorts of nonsense. As an admirer of Lennon, do I think the book should
not have been published? Of course it should! Why? Because I share a
belief with thousands of others, that truth and the right to express
opinions has a higher value than what what we like or dislike about a
particular person.
I know you have a familarity with ACPD so you will realize that posters are
constantly dipping into contempary history to take sides in the conflict
between Diana and Charles. This conflict is often invoked as some kind of
precursor to her death. It affords us an explanation. Charles was a cad
and Diana a victim. As she was a victim of Charles in her marriage, she was
also a victim of Charles in the Alma Tunnel.
Recently, references have been made to Charles adulterous relationship with
Camila Parker Bowles and some have even blamed the latter for Diana's death.
Now it is possible, that the letters that James Hewitt has in his
possession, might confirm what Penny Junor and Sally Bedell Smith are
saying, that Diana was the first to have an affair with Barry Mannakee? If
this was true then everything would be bathed in a different light. What
I'm saying is that you can not allow the pro-Diana lobby access to history
and its insights but close it off to those who may see things in a different
way. That my dear is immoral.
Allow me to give you another example, a better one perhaps. Days after the
tragedy, the media in the Middle East began to claim that the MOTIVE for
Diana's death was that she was having a serious relationship with a Muslum,
that could lead to possible marriage. This is probably the only reason that
I have ever come across for those who believe she was murdered. But this
argument is placed in its proper context when you realize that Diana was
having an affair with a practicing Muslum for nearly TWO YEARS and had
actually sought permission from his family to marry. Yet there were no
mysterious accidents and Diana lived to begin her fateful relationship with
Dodi Fayed. Distasteful though this revelation may be to those who admired
Diana, it helps us give a clearer picture of the manner of her death.
The whole point about the mental health stuff is that this is not some
revelation made after her death. As I have shown, such things were being
said long before she died and were revealed by Diana herself. Are we to
change history, invent some whiter than white narrative, because it makes us
feel better and keeps the reputation of our icon intact? I say this is
immoral and downright dangerous!
"Let the truth prevail though the heavens fall" Jim Garrison.
Geoff.
okerry
> >Royals, and a new book which had been serialized in England and was about to
> >be out in US. I cannot remember the author, but she was referred to as
> >"respected." In any event, Sir David was soberly shaking his head in
> >recognition of the book's portrayal of Di as a person with serious
> >personality problems, which Sir David said indicated that "any man would find
> >it hard to stay married to her."
Well, yes, exactly. This is the story that has been pushed by the RF
practically from the start. Diana was not the first women to be told, on
discovering evidence that her fiance / husband was cheating on her, that she was
"paranoid" and "crazy" and "imagining things" -- and she will not be the last.
Charles and the rest of them knew they had a huge problem on their hands as
soon as they realized that Diana was not the mouse they thought she was. The
stupid girl actually wanted a real marriage, wanted a husband who was in love with
her, and expected him to pay attention to her! Even worse, she would not hold
still for him having a mistress. What man could possibly be expected to live with
such a woman?
He also suggested that in Britain there was starting to be a new wave of sympathy
for Prince Charles in recognition of what Di may "really" have been as a wife.
She was "really" a woman who married a man who did not love her and only wanted
her for what she could do for him -- and dumped her the instant he realized that
she expected something from him in return. (Divorce had nothing to do with it -
the relationship was over long before that.) Such things happen every day, which
is why Diana's story is so fascinating to so many; even a princess who marries a
Prince can still be unloved and discarded.
toml...@my-deja.com
banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <7rbqkg$uaj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, posted to
> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '20:45:07' on 'Fri, 10
Sep
> 1999', rickg...@my-deja.com writes:
>
Di, the
> >Royals, and a new book which had been serialized in England and was
about to
> >be out in US. I cannot remember the author, but she was referred to
as
> >"respected." In any event, Sir David was soberly shaking his head in
> >recognition of the book's portrayal of Di as a person with serious
> >personality problems, which Sir David said indicated that "any man
would find
there
> >was starting to be a new wave of sympathy for Prince Charles in
recognition
> >of what Di may "really" have been as a wife.
>
> media elite.
> --
> banana
toml...@my-deja.com
who guested at his big birthday bash.....?
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '20:40:03' on 'Mon, 13 Sep
1999', toml...@my-deja.com writes:
<re. David Frost>
>Who is he married to? and
>who guested at his big birthday bash.....?
I don't know. He was friendly with more than one US president though.
--
banana
JCondon840
I don't know who guested at his birthday bash. Is he still married to Dianne
(sp?)
Carroll (singer and actress)? Or am I hopelessly out of date? (Probably.)
What bothers me is that Frost was a friend of both Diana and Charles, and knew
them well. So, if he, in fact, made those remarks about Diana, it doesn't say
much for his ideas of friendship and loyalty.
Regards,
Lynda
Jacapo
JCondon840 wrote in message <19990914014523...@ng-da1.aol.com>...
>What bothers me is that Frost was a friend of both Diana and Charles, and knew
>them well. So, if he, in fact, made those remarks about Diana, it doesn't say
>much for his ideas of friendship and loyalty.
>
>Regards,
>Lynda
A journalist is a journalist - no matter what or who they are friends with -
scum of the earth.
Jacapo
Kariana wrote in message ...
>No Soap Box. It is wrong. WRONG. You don't say such things about anyone
>who is no longer with us. It is immoral.
>
> Kariana
Absolutely - "reverse ends of the moral spectrum" is a phrase
that springs to mind. Why can't they just leave her alone. I only
hope her boys haven't yet discovered the wonder of newsgroups
whilst surfing on the net. This NG would hurt them.
Jacapo
Aleeta
You have it so right!! I am so sick of people trying to say
that Diana was pregnant. It is this bullshit that stains her
very reputation, so I ask, "How can they say that they care"?
And furthermore, MAF, only cares about his hide and not
the reputation of those who died in the crash.
Aleeta
--
~ A J's Fun Photos ~
http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
Jacapo wrote in message <7rmj9s$uev$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '22:46:16' on 'Tue, 14 Sep
1999', Jacapo <J...@jacapo.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
<snip>
>I only
>hope her boys haven't yet discovered the wonder of newsgroups
>whilst surfing on the net. This NG would hurt them.
Why would it?
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '18:52:57' on 'Tue, 14 Sep
1999', Aleeta <ajoh...@psesd.org> writes:
>Jackie,
>You have it so right!! I am so sick of people trying to say
>that Diana was pregnant. It is this bullshit that stains her
>very reputation, so I ask, "How can they say that they care"?
>And furthermore, MAF, only cares about his hide and not
>the reputation of those who died in the crash.
I don't understand why you think being pregnant would have been a stain
on her reputation. Many people would have hoped Diana Fayed, her husband
Dodi Fayed, and their son or daughter, would have been happy, they would
have thought good, at least the new child will be brought up outside of
the clutches of the evil psycho Windsors - at least they do not have
Prince Charles as their father, which one wouldn't wish on anybody.
As it happens, it seems that all the pregnancy has to remember it by is
one of the four black swans at Althorp.
--
banana
herodotu...@my-deja.com
You are right, banana, most people would have been very happy for them.
What is better, to get pregnant and marry the father of the baby? or
to have an abortion? or to have a child without marrying the father?
Seems those in such a hurry to hate Mohammed al Fayed have gotten
things twisted ... as if describing William and Harry's mother as a
frivolous, mendacious, mentally ill woman running around the
mediterranean, indulging in nothing but a "fling" with a non-white, non-
British, non-Protestant man is good? Those are the stories Wills &
Harry can see in the "respectable press", in articles and statements by
people who purport to have been Diana's "friend" like Rosa Moncton,
Peter Palumbo, Elsa Bowker, and David Frost.
The better story would be one of true romance followed by marriage.
Oops, that's right, that WAS the story of Charles and Diana, wasn't it?
But it was a lie, wasn't it?
Who are the fabulators? Indeed, those who ritually spread the tall tale
of the "happy Wales marriage" are now the ones who insist that there
was no real romance between Dodi & Diana, no engagement in the offing,
and no possible pregnancy?
BTW, good pick up banana on the 4 swans. Someone else wrote to me some
time ago that they thought that the 4th swan represented the baby. It
was interesting to me that Earl Spencer said that he saw this in a
dream and decided to put the swans on the pond ...
Maxie
JCondon840
>BTW, good pick up banana on the 4 swans. Someone else wrote to me some
>time ago that they thought that the 4th swan represented the baby. It
>was interesting to me that Earl Spencer said that he saw this in a
>dream and decided to put the swans on the pond ...
>
>Maxie
>
>
Somehow I missed the swan story. Would you please fill me in, and tell me where
I might read about it? Thanks much!
Lynda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Aleeta
--
~ A J's Fun Photos ~
http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
banana wrote in message ...
>In article <937361118.463174@cacheraq001>, posted to
>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '18:52:57' on 'Tue, 14 Sep
>1999', Aleeta <ajoh...@psesd.org> writes:
>
>>Jackie,
>>You have it so right!! I am so sick of people trying to say
>>that Diana was pregnant. It is this bullshit that stains her
>>very reputation, so I ask, "How can they say that they care"?
>>And furthermore, MAF, only cares about his hide and not
>>the reputation of those who died in the crash.
>
>I don't understand why you think being pregnant would have been a stain
>on her reputation. Many people would have hoped Diana Fayed, her husband
>Dodi Fayed, and their son or daughter, would have been happy, they would
>have thought good, at least the new child will be brought up outside of
>the clutches of the evil psycho Windsors - at least they do not have
>Prince Charles as their father, which one wouldn't wish on anybody.
>
>As it happens, it seems that all the pregnancy has to remember it by is
>one of the four black swans at Althorp.
>--
>banana
Banana,
Personally speaking, I have no qualms whether Diana was pregnant or not,
under the regards of my own personal beliefs, but the rest of the world
makes harsh judgment calls and many do not cater to these stories.
I have a problem buying this story period and it is my belief that this is
another one of MAF's "FRACTURED FAIRY TALES". It's that simple.
As I said before, I cast no judgment on Diana.
Aleeta
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '20:11:50' on 'Wed, 15 Sep
1999', JCondon840 <jcond...@aol.com> writes:
<snip>
>Somehow I missed the swan story. Would you please fill me in, and tell me where
>I might read about it? Thanks much!
Lynda, the story is that Charles Spencer, Princess Diana's brother, has
said that he had a dream wherein she appeared to him and asked for four
black swans to be placed on the lake in which the small island lies on
which she is buried.
I have heard this second-hand. Hopefully somebody will be able to post
the source for this.
One interpretation is that the four swans represent four casualties:
herself, Dodi Fayed, Henri Paul, and her and her companion's unborn
child.
If anyone has heard of the symbol of a black swan being used elsewhere,
I would be interested.
In fact, intelligent discussion of the symbology of the oval would also
be welcome!
--
banana
Alvin H. White
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:43:46 -0700, "Aleeta" <ajoh...@psesd.org>
wrote:
>period
Thanks for giving us a better definition of the question.
<a
href="http://members.home.com/godsbrain/index.htm">G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.</a><br>
Alvin H. White
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 15:54:08 GMT, Alvin H. White <GODS...@HOME.COM>
wrote:
></html>
>On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:43:46 -0700, "Aleeta" <ajoh...@psesd.org>
>wrote:
>
>>period
>
>Thanks for giving us a better definition of the question.
>
Maybe it should be said for the benefit of bystanders that
that was in reference to her stated "problem."
Jacapo
banana wrote in message ...
This was not meant as a criticism of any particular discussional post -
I was merely expressing disgust at the amount of besmirching (if that's
the right word!) of Diana's name and character. I've always believed
that if you can't find anything nice to say about anyone then say nothing
at all. I certainly wouldn't want my mother to be attacked in this way,
particularly when she isn't in a position to make sure the truth comes out..
Also, I find it so laughable that there are posters on this NG who couldn't give a
shit about our princess either when she was alive or now that she's dead, but then
choose to subscribe to a newsgroup dedicated to discovering who her assasin was.
From my own point of view, as a fully paid up member of her constituency for
the rejected, I openly admired and respected her (and I wrote and told her so).
I have suspected all along that she was murdered and not much will shake me
from that belief. I think her death was needlessly tragic and I hope her boys
share her love and compassion for their fellow humans.
I am now going to unsubscribe to this NG - will someone please email me if
anyone confesses to her murder.
Many thanks
Jackie
cromwell
Jacapo wrote in message <7rr9op$r1f$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>
>
>banana wrote in message ...
>>In article <7rmj9s$uev$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>, posted to
>>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '22:46:16' on 'Tue, 14 Sep
>>1999', Jacapo <J...@jacapo.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I only
>>>hope her boys haven't yet discovered the wonder of newsgroups
>>>whilst surfing on the net. This NG would hurt them.
>>
>>Why would it?
>>--
>>banana
>
>This was not meant as a criticism of any particular discussional post -
Banana upsetting someone again. Shucks what's new.
>I was merely expressing disgust at the amount of besmirching (if that's
>the right word!) of Diana's name and character. I've always believed
>that if you can't find anything nice to say about anyone then say nothing
>at all. I certainly wouldn't want my mother to be attacked in this way,
>particularly when she isn't in a position to make sure the truth comes
out..
This issue is not about besmirching Diana but establishing the truthfulness
of certain claims. Was Diana pregnant? I do not believe she was because,
***The initial stories were based on a hoax letter,
***All of Diana's friends HAVE denied absolutely that she was pregnant,
***A NAMED doctor from a NAMED clinic, said that she examined Diana only
ten days before and was definetly not pregnant.
That brings the story to a close as far as I'm concerned.
>Also, I find it so laughable that there are posters on this NG who couldn't
give a
>shit about our princess either when she was alive or now that she's dead,
Well, I'm glad we entertained you and you are right, I couldn't give a shit
about the Princess when she was alive and now she is dead. I'm a John
Lennon fan.
but then
>choose to subscribe to a newsgroup dedicated to discovering who her assasin
was.
According to your definition. Try asking Aleeta or Mike Smith or Trevjon or
Tony or Bernhard or Katherine what they think. There are many who visit
this NG and are of an accident disposition.
I for one am here because the name of this group is
Alt.Conspiracy.Princess-Diana and I for one believe there has been a
conspiracy. The man behind it is MAF, foisting his silly conspiracy views
on the British public. By all the evidence I've seen, his disinformation is
having little impact.
Geoff.
Jacapo
'twas a shame about John Lennon
Kariana
the suspicion from the first night this NG opened, which I was apart of in
the beginning, not forming the group but becoming a part of it. From my
perspective, this NG was formed because so many of us loved Diana. No most
of us never saw her except on television or in pictures. We all knew she
was not perfect. It was that which causes me to love her. She was a REAL
PERSON. We wanted her to be happy and healthy and LOVED. We wanted her to
be able to be herself, to have a life. I live in Northern California, and I
stayed up all night
and listened to the first witnesses. I HEARD the lady from San Diego say
that she HEARD TWO EXPLOSIONS. The words were changed by the time they
ended up on CNN. I posted this before and had forgotten it was MSNBC who
first found this witness with long blonde hair. She was walking along the
<whatever that water canal river is called> and saw the cars go into tunnel,
heard two explosions, ran to the mouth of the tunnel and there was a man
screaming in foreign language to stay out of the tunnel. When she and her
male companion were then on CNN the word Explosion was replaced with noise
or some other innocuous word. I believe that forcing Camilla on Diana's
boys does a lot more damage to them then this Newsgroup started by people
who loved Princess Diana.
That this systematic downgrading of her by the British media is horrible. I
almost wonder if Prince Phillips misstatements have happened to draw
attention away from the truth. This newsgroup in the beginning was about
more than discovering conspiracy. It was more about grieving for Princess
Diana. A beautiful young women was killed because she was in the way. No
matter how they smeared her, she was still more popular. I hear how
everyone has forgotten her now and accept Camilla. I don't believe it, will
never believe it. Those who believe this was just an accident and insist
that Princess Diana got into a car knowing that the car was not armored, I
don't agree. Those that believe that a man had the Prozac blood level in
his system that they say Henri Paul had when he passed a pilots physical a
exam not two days before, have no grasp of how long that blood level takes
to achieve. I would hope that Princess Diana's boys would want the truth.
Not some glossed over lies about some stupid accident. One point that
amazes me is that no one has sued Trevor Rees Jones, the bodyguard with the
seatbelt on.
It was the job of Trevor Rees Jones to make sure the driver was sober, if
the blood tests are true, this was not done.
It was the job of Trevor Rees Jones to make sure both of his charges, Dodi
and Diana, were safe from harm, yet neither were wearing seatbelts and
neither survived when Trevor Rees Jones had his seatbelt on, and did
survive. If this was just an accident, the only person who can possibly be
blamed is Trevor Rees Jones. It was his job to give his life for Princess
Diana and Dodi Al Fayed. He didn't do that.
If deep pocket laws then implicates Mohammed al Fayed, so be it, but Trevor
Rees Jones also did not do his job. The Princess was on the floor, no
seatbelt, and Dodi had no seatbelt. This is just if this was only an
accident, Trevor Rees Jones wearing his seatbelt shows guilty knowledge
beforehand that an accident was going to happen. Judge Stephan had to be
cajoled and harassed to go to San Diego and still he did not believe these
people's accounts. He didn't believe Tomlinson. He didn't listen to the
guys who were celebrating his birthday in Paris. The judge did not even
take into consideration that the body of Henri Paul was not cooled down
properly which changes the blood tests considerably.
You have the nerve to try to guilt those of us who have been around this NG
from it's inception by telling us how it will hurt Diana's boys. Well, I
believe the love those of us who were around when this NG began and the
outpouring of anger at the Royal Family because at the least their coldness
toward Princess Diana make them somewhat responsible and bad for Diana's
boys. BTW-I know I used incorrect protocol by calling Diana Princess of
Wales as Princess Diana, but to me she will always be Princess Diana. No
matter what her faults, she was human, she cared about the poor and those
considered unworthy by the Royal Family<unless they don't have their
support>, something no member of that ice cube family, except Diana's
wonderful boys will ever have. I hope that Diana's boys find the kind of
love their Mother always wanted. I hope both boys tell the firm where they
can stick their ideas, and go their own way. I hope Diana's boys live a
real life, instead a life of duty, waiting for someone to die so they can do
a real job.
Kariana
Jacapo <J...@jacapo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7rmj9s$uev$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
>
> Kariana wrote in message ...
> >No Soap Box. It is wrong. WRONG. You don't say such things about
anyone
> >who is no longer with us. It is immoral.
> >
> > Kariana
>
>
> Absolutely - "reverse ends of the moral spectrum" is a phrase
> hope her boys haven't yet discovered the wonder of newsgroups
> whilst surfing on the net. This NG would hurt them.
>
>
>
Aleeta
I certainly hope that you don't leave this group and
it really doesn't matter what your beliefs are, only
as long as you can express those thoughts.
Most of the down playing of Diana's character
has come from this very group of conspiracists,
along with MAF as the core fabricator of the
fractured fairy tales. This in itself drove me to
look the other way. I now believe this to be the
correct way.
No matter how you believe, you have every right
to express yourself. Even though I now feel it was
an accident, I still care about the reputation of
Diana and her two boys. Especially those boys.
I too would be enraged if my mother was spoken
about in the way anything goes here. I am with
you on this one.
Aleeta
--
~ A J's Fun Photos ~
http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
Jacapo wrote in message <7rrkbs$8a0$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Steve Reed
that, in the sixties, when he was revolutionising political satire on
British television ("That Was The Week That Was") I regarded him as a
hero! How are the mighty fallen!
In article <7rjna0$7gr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, toml...@my-deja.com writes
>In article <fS+uNGAX...@borve.demon.co.uk>,
> banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <7rbqkg$uaj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, posted to
>> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '20:45:07' on 'Fri, 10
>Sep
>> 1999', rickg...@my-deja.com writes:
>>
>> >I watched Sir David Frost on a talk show the other night discussing
>Di, the
>> >Royals, and a new book which had been serialized in England and was
>about to
>> >be out in US. I cannot remember the author, but she was referred to
>as
>> >"respected."
By whom, I wonder.
> In any event, Sir David was soberly shaking his head in
>> >recognition of the book's portrayal of Di as a person with serious
>> >personality problems, which Sir David said indicated that "any man
>would find
>> >it hard to stay married to her." He also suggested that in Britain
>there
>> >was starting to be a new wave of sympathy for Prince Charles in
>recognition
>> >of what Di may "really" have been as a wife.
>>
Starting to be a campaign in the media to create such a "wave", more
like!
>> Frost is rather high up in the British and indeed the international
>> media elite.
>> --
Oh yes, bought and paid for now. Goodbye, David!
>> banana
>>Indeed Banana.......Birds of a feather.......Who is he married to?
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
The swan is a powerful symbol in Celtic mythology. Usually it indicates
(as in the Mabinogion story, "The Daughters of Llir") some unfortunate
woman who has been bewitched. The swan, in such cases, is not the silent
and rather sedentary mute swan of our ornamental waters, but the fully
wild, migratory swan (Whooper Swan/ Bewick's Swan) with its haunting cry
and rapid flight, which comes to the western seaboard of Britain, in the
Winter, from Scandinavia and Russia. The mute swan is a fairly recent
introduction.
The black swan became known even more recently (it is native in the
Antipodes) but it stormed our imagination at once. A BLACK swan? It was
a contradiction in terms! Poets and novelists - Tolkien springs to mind
- found it irresistible as a symbol of a shadow world - or a world of
shadows - like Hades - where the dead dwell for ever in restful
twilight. It would be only natural to choose black swans as the
attendants of an island tomb, where the body lay of a woman who had been
bewitched by the lure of royal splendour.
Four, you say? Two pens, two cobs, perhaps? The founders of a colony,
even! "The famous black swans of Althorp", they will say, maybe.
>
>In fact, intelligent discussion of the symbology of the oval would also
>be welcome!
What "oval", sorry?
--
Steve Reed
JCondon840
>>Somehow I missed the swan story. Would you please fill me in, and tell me
>where
>>I might read about it? Thanks much!
>
>Lynda, the story is that Charles Spencer, Princess Diana's brother, has
>said that he had a dream wherein she appeared to him and asked for four
>black swans to be placed on the lake in which the small island lies on
>which she is buried.
>
>I have heard this second-hand. Hopefully somebody will be able to post
>the source for this.
>
>One interpretation is that the four swans represent four casualties:
>herself, Dodi Fayed, Henri Paul, and her and her companion's unborn
>child.
>
>If anyone has heard of the symbol of a black swan being used elsewhere,
>I would be interested.
>
>In fact, intelligent discussion of the symbology of the oval would also
>be welcome!
>--
>banana
>
>
>
>
I appreciate the information, banana. I don't know how I missed this
story...not like me!
I have posted on another board a question about this story, so if I get any
answers back with more about it, I will post it here.
Thanks again,
Lynda
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '20:33:45' on 'Thu, 16 Sep
1999', Steve Reed <asr...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> writes:
>In article <83L2UPA7...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana <banana@REMOVE_T
>HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>>If anyone has heard of the symbol of a black swan being used elsewhere,
>>I would be interested.
>
>The swan is a powerful symbol in Celtic mythology. Usually it indicates
>(as in the Mabinogion story, "The Daughters of Llir") some unfortunate
>woman who has been bewitched. The swan, in such cases, is not the silent
>and rather sedentary mute swan of our ornamental waters, but the fully
>wild, migratory swan (Whooper Swan/ Bewick's Swan) with its haunting cry
>and rapid flight, which comes to the western seaboard of Britain, in the
>Winter, from Scandinavia and Russia. The mute swan is a fairly recent
>introduction.
>
>The black swan became known even more recently (it is native in the
>Antipodes) but it stormed our imagination at once. A BLACK swan? It was
>a contradiction in terms! Poets and novelists - Tolkien springs to mind
>- found it irresistible as a symbol of a shadow world - or a world of
>shadows - like Hades - where the dead dwell for ever in restful
>twilight. It would be only natural to choose black swans as the
>attendants of an island tomb, where the body lay of a woman who had been
>bewitched by the lure of royal splendour.
Thanks for this!
My piece of swan info: some issue to do with the restricting of the
royal prerogative with regard to the swans on the Thames was the
occasion in the early 1970s of a very rare instance of the Queen
formally telling the government she would not do what they wanted.
Is it just the swans on the Thames that she owns BTW or all swans in the
country?
>Four, you say? Two pens, two cobs, perhaps? The founders of a colony,
>even! "The famous black swans of Althorp", they will say, maybe.
>>
>>In fact, intelligent discussion of the symbology of the oval would also
>>be welcome!
>
>What "oval", sorry?
The oval lake at Althorp.
There is also an oval grass area ('The Ellipse') to the front of the
White House, between the White House and the obelisk known as the
Washington Monument. Come to that, there is an oval office inside the
White House too.
(The Washington Monument, to the nearest foot, is 555 feet high,
although not 555.55 feet high as some people who are not 'zealots of the
truth' like to claim). (While I'm at it, the biggest obelisk in London,
Canary Wharf tower, is 777 feet high. Blair met Chirac there a while
after the Crash). (Sceptics should check these facts out).
The Oval in London is also curious - land used to be a market garden but
once the property of the Dutch ambassador apparently.
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '21:43:08' on 'Thu, 16 Sep
1999', Jacapo <J...@jacapo.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>'twas a shame about John Lennon
I expect his hundreds of servants managed to find alternative
employment.
He and Yoko kept a whole floor of an apartment building just for her
clothes, so they could be kept at the right temperature.
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '19:59:21' on 'Thu, 16 Sep
1999', Aleeta <ajoh...@psesd.org> writes:
>Most of the down playing of Diana's character
>has come from this very group of conspiracists,
>along with MAF as the core fabricator of the
>fractured fairy tales.
Aleeta, I can see that you have a view about this but I still don't
understand what you are saying. The people I am aware of who have
attacked Princess Diana's character are such as Sally Bedell Smith,
Polly Toynbee, Zeffirelli, and so on. All royal toadies. Before her
death her character was also attacked by friends of Prince Charles such
as Nicholas Soames, and Prince Charles's mouthpiece Richard Dimbleby.
She was called an unstable person, a borderline mentally ill person, a
paranoiac (oh the white-coated scientific language!), a person selfishly
obstructing the heroic Prince Charles's self-sacrificial discharge of
his duties, and by Zeffirelli (just before Prince Charles attended the
premiere of one of his films) she was practically called a whore.
This is not to mention many years of press coverage which portrayed her
as an air-headed dumb blonde, far inferior to her supposedly deep and
spiritual husband. This was particularly insulting since in many
people's view, mine included, she had more intelligence (and spiritual
depth and courage) in her little finger than the foul Prince Charles has
got in his whole body.
I believe she was probably pregnant, but that is not an attack on her
character. I don't believe I have ever attacked her character, and in
fact I admired her greatly from the time of the Panorama interview on.
--
banana
Gary Stone
Aleeta <ajoh...@psesd.org> wrote in message
news:937537905.82470@cacheraq001...
> Jackie,
>
> I certainly hope that you don't leave this group and
> it really doesn't matter what your beliefs are, only
> as long as you can express those thoughts.
>
> has come from this very group of conspiracists,
> along with MAF as the core fabricator of the
> look the other way. I now believe this to be the
> correct way.
>
> No matter how you believe, you have every right
> to express yourself. Even though I now feel it was
> an accident, I still care about the reputation of
> Diana and her two boys. Especially those boys.
> I too would be enraged if my mother was spoken
> about in the way anything goes here. I am with
> you on this one.
>
> Aleeta
>
>
> --
What exactly do you mean by saying that "most of the downplaying of Diana's
character has come from this very group of conspriacists", could you please
be more precise and who in your opinion has been responsible for this
character downplay?
Geths
> >
> >
>
>
Aleeta
I can tell you one thing, it certainly hasn't been anything
from you. Apparently you have missed a few posts
on this board, but it has been going on for a long time.
From hoax stories and lies and many pertain to her
character. I myself cast no judgment on her, but
many do and it begins from lies and hoax stories.
Many people have been offended by this and it means
nothing to the offenders.
AJ
--
~ A J's Fun Photos ~
http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
Gary Stone wrote in message <5MrE3.1061$68.31281@news2-hme0>...
herodotu...@my-deja.com
"Aleeta" <ajoh...@psesd.org> wrote:
> Gethryn,
>
> I can tell you one thing, it certainly hasn't been anything
> from you. Apparently you have missed a few posts
> on this board, but it has been going on for a long time.
> From hoax stories and lies and many pertain to her
> character. I myself cast no judgment on her, but
> many do and it begins from lies and hoax stories.
> Many people have been offended by this and it means
> nothing to the offenders.
>
> AJ
Who are you talking about, Aleeta?
You clearly don't like the Jim Keith story asserting that
Diana was pregnant. It's certainly not the first such
story, however, since Time magazine wrote about it in
1997. It's "old" news in that respect.
You say you cast no "judgment on her" (meaning Laura?) but then
say "many do and it begins from lies and hoax stories."
That is an attack on Laura.
Personally I believe the story that Diana betrayed Charles
first with her bodyguard, Barry Mannakee, to be a "hoax"
story, but I don't tell anyone not to print articles that
assert that.
Maxie
herodotu...@my-deja.com
banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <937537905.82470@cacheraq001>, posted to
> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '19:59:21' on 'Thu, 16
Sep
> 1999', Aleeta <ajoh...@psesd.org> writes:
>
> >has come from this very group of conspiracists,
> >along with MAF as the core fabricator of the
> >fractured fairy tales.
>
> understand what you are saying. The people I am aware of who have
> attacked Princess Diana's character are such as Sally Bedell Smith,
> Polly Toynbee, Zeffirelli, and so on. All royal toadies. Before her
> death her character was also attacked by friends of Prince Charles
such
> as Nicholas Soames, and Prince Charles's mouthpiece Richard Dimbleby.
Yes. For example, 2 of her "real" friends, Carolyn Bartholomew and
Kate Menzies - where are they in all the interviews & books now?
The Palumbo/Bowker/Hussey bunch are all speaking for the "winning"
side, Pr Charles. What kind of friends are these who go on TV to
repeatedly tell us that she was a liar and manipulator who admitted
she caused so much trouble in her marriage? They are all so quick
like Rosa Moncton to assert that there was no chance of a marriage to
Dodi, but were they REALLY in a position to know? I think not.
> She was called an unstable person, a borderline mentally ill person, a
> paranoiac (oh the white-coated scientific language!), a person
selfishly
> obstructing the heroic Prince Charles's self-sacrificial discharge of
> his duties, and by Zeffirelli (just before Prince Charles attended the
> premiere of one of his films) she was practically called a whore.
And these attacks began long ago, not just in 1992. It is significant
in my opinion that we do learn from Sally Bedell Smith that Camilla
Parker Bowles was friends for 21 years with Stuart Higgins of the Sun.
Where were the "she's unstable" "she's mad" stories coming from?
Charles whined to Camilla;
Camilla talked to Higgins;
tabloids published stories.
Diana was under attack from the word go. To what purpose? Drive her
crazy, or at least get a doctor to say she was mental, to lock her up,
put her away, the modern equivalent of 'get thee to a nunnery.'?
> This is not to mention many years of press coverage which portrayed
her
> as an air-headed dumb blonde, far inferior to her supposedly deep and
> spiritual husband. This was particularly insulting since in many
> people's view, mine included, she had more intelligence (and spiritual
> depth and courage) in her little finger than the foul Prince Charles
has
> got in his whole body.
Thank you. I agree about Charles. Diana was superior to her husband
in every way, including smarts. I have yet to see anything written
by Charles or said by him that reveals a "deep thinker" or important
writer. It takes absolutely nothing to say, "modern architecture is
bad" and if you've see his official bio by Dimbleby, just page through
to the example of his "water color" painting ability ... or lack
thereof. The man is mediocre in all respects, his wife outshone him in
all respects, and instead of riding his wife's popularity with the
people to power, he acted IMH systematically to get rid of his wife
within a few years after the marriage. Certainly after Harry's birth
in 1984.
> I believe she was probably pregnant, but that is not an attack on her
> character. I don't believe I have ever attacked her character, and in
> fact I admired her greatly from the time of the Panorama interview on.
Yes, I agree with that. It is not an attack on her character. Her
Panorama interview I didn't see until after her death, but I admired
her when she separated & then divorced from Charles.
Maxie
> --
> banana
cromwell
banana wrote in message ...
>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '19:59:21' on 'Thu, 16 Sep
>1999', Aleeta <ajoh...@psesd.org> writes:
>
>>Most of the down playing of Diana's character
>>has come from this very group of conspiracists,
>>along with MAF as the core fabricator of the
>>fractured fairy tales.
>
>Aleeta, I can see that you have a view about this but I still don't
>understand what you are saying.
I think what Aleeta is trying to say is that it is quite irresponsible for
anyone, let alone Princess Diana, to jump out of one relationship(Hansat
Khan) and in the space of six weeks simply get pregnant. Such a thing would
reflect on a persons character.
If you saw the TV comedy hour, 'For the Love of', you would have enjoyed the
fringe and 'potty' element of the conspiracy crowd, yielding up their
arguments for the British public.
During this programme, Jon King took exactly this line against Pete Jarvis,
who finally decided to abandon his mental faculties and argue that Diana
was still alive. King objected to this, saying that Diana would never do
this
to the children. Once again, an argument from character.
Aleeta correctly points out, that far from defending Diana, as some of you
seem to believe, you are simply doing her a disservice with your pregnancy
stories. There, got it now.
The people I am aware of who have
>attacked Princess Diana's character are such as Sally Bedell Smith,
>Polly Toynbee, Zeffirelli, and so on. All royal toadies.
Twaddle. What does this mean? What's a 'royal toady' banana? Define it for
us? Sally Bedell Smith is American and to my knowledge is an author, Polly
Toybee is British and is a journalist/newspaper columnist and Franco
Zeffirelli is an Italian film director. As far as I'm aware, these
individuals are not members of the same organisation, neither do they seem
to be in co-horts, accept for their being lumped together under the rather
obscure heading of 'Royal toadies' Banana has a language unique to himself.
Before her
>death her character was also attacked by friends of Prince Charles such
>as Nicholas Soames, and Prince Charles's mouthpiece Richard Dimbleby.
Don't you mean Jonnathan Dimbleby. Richard is dead isn't he?!
>She was called an unstable person, a borderline mentally ill person, a
>paranoiac (oh the white-coated scientific language!), a person selfishly
>obstructing the heroic Prince Charles's self-sacrificial discharge of
>his duties, and by Zeffirelli (just before Prince Charles attended the
>premiere of one of his films) she was practically called a whore.
What happened to the 'Queen of Hearts'(Will someone explain to me what that
actually is?) and if all these awful things are said about her, why can't
James Hewit spill the beans? I for one, would love to know what's in those
letters.
I'm sure Princess Diana was called any number of things. I even know Tony
Blair went to the press and told them to get of her back. Charlies used
Dimbleby. Diana used Morton and Panaroma. There were leaks from the Court
of the Prince of Wales and there were stories fed to the Daily Mirror from
the Court of the Princess of Wales or whatever her proper title was.
>This is not to mention many years of press coverage which portrayed her
>as an air-headed dumb blonde, far inferior to her supposedly deep and
>spiritual husband. This was particularly insulting since in many
>people's view, mine included, she had more intelligence (and spiritual
>depth and courage) in her little finger than the foul Prince Charles has
>got in his whole body.
But how an earth can you know? Did you meet her? You don't know Prince
Charles and I'll bet you never met Princess Diana, what is your experience
of her other than the tube which forms your TV set?
Your knowledge of her comes from 'staged appearances' and orchestrated
visits, from colour photo's and centre spreads, the sound waves of radio,
etc, ect. imagies mediated by PR men and spin doctors. Get real banana!
If we draw any conclusions from what we know publicly about the
intelligence of both these individuals, you will find that they have more in
common than you think. Diana's ignorance of science and the fact, that a
high percentage of her expenditure went on such things, as 'healing'
clairvoyance 'astrology' finds commonality in the Prince's attack on GM
crops and his pastime of talking to plants. Intellectually, they were made
for each other!
>
>I believe she was probably pregnant,
We know you do but you don't have any evidence to back it up
Geoff.
Alvin H. White
>I think what Aleeta is trying to say is that it is quite irresponsible for
>anyone, let alone Princess Diana, to jump out of one relationship(Hansat
>Khan) and in the space of six weeks simply get pregnant. Such a thing would
>reflect on a persons character.
Song: "One Night With You My Baby" Possibly little to do
with Diana's character, just a timely thought.
>
>If you saw the TV comedy hour, 'For the Love of', you would have enjoyed the
>fringe and 'potty' element of the conspiracy crowd, yielding up their
>arguments for the British public.
>
>During this programme, Jon King took exactly this line against Pete Jarvis,
>who finally decided to abandon his mental faculties and argue that Diana
>was still alive. King objected to this, saying that Diana would never do
>this
>to the children. Once again, an argument from character.
But it may be possible that "who Diana was" was not "who
Diana was."
Change can take place over time and circumstances.
>
>Aleeta correctly points out, that far from defending Diana, as some of you
>seem to believe, you are simply doing her a disservice with your pregnancy
>stories. There, got it now.
Possibly doing a disservice? The police? prosecutor's staff? And
private investigators? Perish the thought.
Is that a novel idea?
>
>The people I am aware of who have
>>attacked Princess Diana's character are such as Sally Bedell Smith,
>>Polly Toynbee, Zeffirelli, and so on. All royal toadies.
>
May I remind you that there is a difference between "attacking"
and "investigating"?
>Twaddle. What does this mean? What's a 'royal toady' banana?
MAF?
>Define it for
>us? Sally Bedell Smith is American and to my knowledge is an author, Polly
>Toybee is British and is a journalist/newspaper columnist and Franco
>Zeffirelli is an Italian film director. As far as I'm aware, these
>individuals are not members of the same organisation,
The "Feeding Pirahna Club"? Want to put your finger in to
test the waters?
>neither do they seem
>to be in co-horts, accept for their being lumped together under the rather
>obscure heading of 'Royal toadies' Banana has a language unique to himself.
Maybe not so "unique unto himself" as "unfamiliar to you."
That is to suggest that YOUR understanding may be limited
more than that his description is weak.
But don't be disuaded in your criticism. I
enjoy and feel edified by your analysis.
Only trying to churn the waters a little not
clarify the confusion :-)
>
>Before her
>>death her character was also attacked by friends of Prince Charles such
>>as Nicholas Soames, and Prince Charles's mouthpiece Richard Dimbleby.
>
>
>Don't you mean Jonnathan Dimbleby. Richard is dead isn't he?!
Did Richard have anything to do with astronomy?
>
>>She was called an unstable person,
Would all the callers please line up with
the most influential at the front of the line
please.
>a borderline mentally ill person,
Would all of the "borderline mentally
ill persons" please step back so that
we can see those sane amongst you.
>a
>>paranoiac (oh the white-coated scientific language!), a person selfishly
>>obstructing the heroic Prince Charles's self-sacrificial discharge of
>>his duties, and by Zeffirelli (just before Prince Charles attended the
>>premiere of one of his films) she was practically called a whore.
"Being called" is one thing and "being" is another.
Not that they are necessarily mutually exclusive but
likewise they are not indubitably inclusive either.
Then another view is that all women are, the number
and frequency of the clientele being a more important
indicator, single/multiple use software licensing, etc.
"Hour?"
She was an hour?
How much was she an hour?
>
>What happened to the 'Queen of Hearts'(Will someone explain to me what that
>actually is?)
I don't know either. Has it anything to do with the "House of the
Rising Sun"? New Orleans?
But I also saw a song with that title the other day. I may have
downloaded it from the .mp3 groups but it went by fast. I must
have been rushed that time.
Had we the alt.binaries.conspiracy.princess-diana newsgroup I
have/can get some songs that I think give a clue to the popular
public mind of our time. In essence showing parts of the ideological
framework of the fishbowl within which we/more I/but to some degree/
they swam.
>and if all these awful things are said about her, why can't
>James Hewit spill the beans? I for one, would love to know what's in those
>letters.
I'm in agreement with somebody. Seeing that we have not much to
do here awaiting news, other than nit pick to bid(e) the time.
I read alt.binaries.erotica.amateur or some such occasionally
to help keep things in perspective. That 's XXX.
>
>I'm sure Princess Diana was called any number of things. I even know Tony
>Blair went to the press and told them to get of her back.
Possibly a "slip of the tongue?" Sigmund where are you?
>Charlies used
>Dimbleby. Diana used Morton and Panaroma. There were leaks from the Court
>of the Prince of Wales and there were stories fed to the Daily Mirror from
>the Court of the Princess of Wales or whatever her proper title was.
>
>>This is not to mention many years of press coverage which portrayed her
>>as an air-headed dumb blonde, far inferior to her supposedly deep and
>>spiritual husband. This was particularly insulting since in many
>>people's view, mine included, she had more intelligence (and spiritual
>>depth and courage) in her little finger than the foul Prince Charles has
>>got in his whole body.
But OTOH the Prince may have had more air in his little finger than
she had in the depth of her love. Go figure.
Generic only. Princes and princesses are like that
also but you probably won't read it in the Sunday
papers. The internet is another venue.
>
>But how an earth can you know?
Generic Woman. Simple my dear Watson.
Or was that number one son?
>Did you meet her? You don't know Prince
>Charles and I'll bet you never met Princess Diana, what is your experience
>of her other than the tube which forms your TV set?
I don't watch TV. I see the tabloid front page at the
grocery store.
>
>Your knowledge of her comes from 'staged appearances' and orchestrated
>visits, from colour photo's and centre spreads, the sound waves of radio,
>etc, ect. imagies mediated by PR men and spin doctors.
Chalk one up for Geoff. You got that right.
>Get real banana!
>
>If we draw any conclusions from what we know publicly about the
>intelligence of both these individuals, you will find that they have more in
>common than you think. Diana's ignorance of science and the fact, that a
>high percentage of her expenditure went on such things, as 'healing'
>clairvoyance 'astrology' finds commonality in the Prince's attack on GM
>crops and his pastime of talking to plants. Intellectually, they were made
>for each other!
>>
>>I believe she was probably pregnant,
>
>We know you do but you don't have any evidence to back it up
With the demonstrated influence of the powers that are hiding
the evidence in full view, common sense may be a better indicator
for the time being at least.
>
>Geoff.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '12:34:51' on 'Sat, 18 Sep
1999', herodotu...@my-deja.com writes:
<snip>
>For example, 2 of her "real" friends, Carolyn Bartholomew and
>Kate Menzies - where are they in all the interviews & books now?
>The Palumbo/Bowker/Hussey bunch are all speaking for the "winning"
>side, Pr Charles.
I have missed some of this. Is that Susan Hussey, the member of the
Royal Household? She is a 'Woman of the Bedchamber' - there are also
'Ladies of the Bedchamber' - what the difference is, I don't have a
clue!). Sister of William Waldegrave, former high-up cabinet minister
(chair of lots of cabinet sub-committees IIRC). Daughter of 12th Earl
Waldegrave. Wife of Marmaduke Hussey, former BBC chairman. Mother of
James Hussey, former Page of Honour to the Queen. If it is, it is
significant that somebody who is actually a member of the Household is
being put onto the battlefield.
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '17:26:18' on 'Sat, 18 Sep
1999', Alvin H. White <GODS...@HOME.COM> writes:
></html>
>On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:10:13 +0100, "cromwell"
><ste...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>I think what Aleeta is trying to say is that it is quite irresponsible for
>>anyone, let alone Princess Diana, to jump out of one relationship(Hansat
>>Khan) and in the space of six weeks simply get pregnant. Such a thing would
>>reflect on a persons character.
I haven't seen Aleeta (or indeed anybody else) say that. I would think
it would be wrong for someone to pass judgement on somebody else getting
pregnant so soon after another relationship.
>>Aleeta correctly points out, that far from defending Diana, as some of you
>>seem to believe, you are simply doing her a disservice with your pregnancy
>>stories. There, got it now.
>>Before her
>>>death her character was also attacked by friends of Prince Charles such
>>>as Nicholas Soames, and Prince Charles's mouthpiece Richard Dimbleby.
>>
>>
>>Don't you mean Jonnathan Dimbleby. Richard is dead isn't he?!
Apologies. Yes, Jonathan Dimbleby of course.
<snip>
>>What happened to the 'Queen of Hearts'(Will someone explain to me what that
>>actually is?)
Good question.
<snip>
>>Charlies used
>>Dimbleby. Diana used Morton and Panaroma. There were leaks from the Court
>>of the Prince of Wales and there were stories fed to the Daily Mirror from
>>the Court of the Princess of Wales or whatever her proper title was.
Yes. And now we only get one side.
--
banana
herodotu...@my-deja.com
banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <7s00tb$vdk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, posted to
> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '12:34:51' on 'Sat, 18
Sep
> 1999', herodotu...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> >For example, 2 of her "real" friends, Carolyn Bartholomew and
> >Kate Menzies - where are they in all the interviews & books now?
> >The Palumbo/Bowker/Hussey bunch are all speaking for the "winning"
> >side, Pr Charles.
>
> I have missed some of this. Is that Susan Hussey, the member of the
> Royal Household? She is a 'Woman of the Bedchamber' - there are also
> 'Ladies of the Bedchamber' - what the difference is, I don't have a
> clue!). Sister of William Waldegrave, former high-up cabinet minister
> (chair of lots of cabinet sub-committees IIRC). Daughter of 12th Earl
> Waldegrave. Wife of Marmaduke Hussey, former BBC chairman. Mother of
> James Hussey, former Page of Honour to the Queen. If it is, it is
> significant that somebody who is actually a member of the Household is
> being put onto the battlefield.
> --
> banana
I believe it is the same woman. And you are right, when members of the
Household are doing the definitive "speaking" for the dead, how are
we to believe them? Certainly their bias is obvious: they are pro-
Charles, anti-Diana. And who are they again?
"Lord" Peter Palumbo
"Lady" Elsa Bowker
These 2 alone probably account for 50% of the negatives on Diana in the
shows I've seen since she died.
Were these her "friends" or merely acquaintances, formal "friends" if
you will, not bosom buddies? I've read the Morton book, and the people
mentioned there as her close friends were Carolyn Bartholomew and Kate
Menzies. Not Palumbo. Not Bowker. Not Hussey or David Frost.
Maxie
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '13:22:24' on 'Sun, 19 Sep
1999', herodotu...@my-deja.com writes:
<snip>
>I believe it is the same woman. And you are right, when members of the
>Household are doing the definitive "speaking" for the dead, how are
>we to believe them? Certainly their bias is obvious: they are pro-
>Charles, anti-Diana. And who are they again?
>
>"Lord" Peter Palumbo
>"Lady" Elsa Bowker
What is Bowker's background?
Palumbo has been mentioned here before. He is a nightclub owner - he
owns the Ministry of Sound, a big nightclub in London. I.e. he makes
millions from selling illegal drugs. During the election campaign he
gave the use of a limo to Peter Mandelson. Mandelson is said to be a
friend of Prince Charles, or at least he was, when he - Mandelson - was
in the official government. Mandelson is a very senior Labour Party
person who later fell from the Department of Trade and Industry in a
financial scandal involving Geoffrey Robinson, a former financial buddy
of Robert Maxwell then working as Paymaster-General in the Blair
government. (Robinson owns the New Statesman).
My guess is that some of the money slopping around was money that had -
whoops! - disappeared at the time of Robert Maxwell's death. Maxwell was
found dead in the water, having gone over the side of his yacht for
reasons still to be satisfactorily explained. This was a few days after
he had been exposed in the British press as an asset of the Israeli
secret service Mossad. The political editor (I think I've got the title
right) at Maxwell's daily newspaper, The Mirror, was the foul-mouthed
Alastair Campbell, who later went to work for Blair and is now referred
to as 'the Prime Minister's spokesman'.
The Guardian's diary column recently ran a short about how Alastair
Campbell claimed to have been a lover of Jill Dando, the presenter of a
cop-loving 'crime solving' programme on British TV, who was killed by a
professional assassin. Campbell wrote a letter saying this was untrue.
The Diary Column then said sorry, it was a misunderstanding, Campbell
had simply pretended to have been a lover of Jill Dando, ironically or
for amusement, and someone had misunderstood. Weird, eh?
The Ministry of Sound is now expanding to the Far East - to Hong Kong if
my memory serves me correctly.
Drugs.
--
banana
Aleeta
You are being ridiculous, this conversation I am
having is about Diana and that is to whom I am
referring to. This is not a conspiracy, it is a
conversation that I am relaying by the complaints
that I receive from many posters.
AJ
--
~ A J's Fun Photos ~
http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
herodotu...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<7s0003$upd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >> Most of the down playing of Diana's character
>> >> has come from this very group of conspiracists,
>> >> along with MAF as the core fabricator of the
>> >> fractured fairy tales. This in itself drove me to
>> >> look the other way. I now believe this to be the
>> >> correct way.
>> >>
>> >> No matter how you believe, you have every right
>> >> to express yourself. Even though I now feel it was
>> >> an accident, I still care about the reputation of
>> >> Diana and her two boys. Especially those boys.
>> >> I too would be enraged if my mother was spoken
>> >> about in the way anything goes here. I am with
>> >> you on this one.
>> >>
>> >> Aleeta
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ~ Aleeta,
>> >What exactly do you mean by saying that "most of the downplaying of
>Diana's
>> >character has come from this very group of conspriacists", could you
>please
>> >be more precise and who in your opinion has been responsible for this
>> >character downplay?
>> >Geths
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Aleeta
Many have just been offended by this on this board and it is their
right to speak out about it. I was only reiterating other's feelings
towards this topic. I agree that this has been going on for years, but
where does it stop? It is not only in this newsgroup but all around us.
If lurkers decide to post their feelings towards this conversation then
it's time to show some respect toward them. This is not our newsgroup,
we don't own a thing. I also would have to say something in Diana's behalf
that she was not over, in her heart, mind and soul, Hasnat Kahn. I rather
doubt that she would be hopping in bed with Dodi. It makes no sense to
me whatsoever. It does not compute and I find repulsive okay? I don't
think she was inclined to do any such thing, nor was she ready for marriage,
at least not with him. My strong opinion.
Aleeta
--
~ A J's Fun Photos ~
http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
herodotu...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<7s00tb$vdk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <aKlv7gAC...@borve.demon.co.uk>,
> banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <937537905.82470@cacheraq001>, posted to
>> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '19:59:21' on 'Thu, 16
>Sep
>> 1999', Aleeta <ajoh...@psesd.org> writes:
>>
>> >Most of the down playing of Diana's character
>> >has come from this very group of conspiracists,
>> >along with MAF as the core fabricator of the
>> >fractured fairy tales.
>>
>> Aleeta, I can see that you have a view about this but I still don't
>> understand what you are saying. The people I am aware of who have
>> attacked Princess Diana's character are such as Sally Bedell Smith,
>> Polly Toynbee, Zeffirelli, and so on. All royal toadies. Before her
>> death her character was also attacked by friends of Prince Charles
>such
>> as Nicholas Soames, and Prince Charles's mouthpiece Richard Dimbleby.
>
>Yes. For example, 2 of her "real" friends, Carolyn Bartholomew and
>Kate Menzies - where are they in all the interviews & books now?
>The Palumbo/Bowker/Hussey bunch are all speaking for the "winning"
>side, Pr Charles. What kind of friends are these who go on TV to
>repeatedly tell us that she was a liar and manipulator who admitted
>she caused so much trouble in her marriage? They are all so quick
>like Rosa Moncton to assert that there was no chance of a marriage to
>Dodi, but were they REALLY in a position to know? I think not.
>
>> She was called an unstable person, a borderline mentally ill person, a
>> paranoiac (oh the white-coated scientific language!), a person
>selfishly
>> obstructing the heroic Prince Charles's self-sacrificial discharge of
>> his duties, and by Zeffirelli (just before Prince Charles attended the
>> premiere of one of his films) she was practically called a whore.
>
>And these attacks began long ago, not just in 1992. It is significant
>in my opinion that we do learn from Sally Bedell Smith that Camilla
>Parker Bowles was friends for 21 years with Stuart Higgins of the Sun.
>
>Where were the "she's unstable" "she's mad" stories coming from?
>Charles whined to Camilla;
>Camilla talked to Higgins;
>tabloids published stories.
>
>Diana was under attack from the word go. To what purpose? Drive her
>crazy, or at least get a doctor to say she was mental, to lock her up,
>put her away, the modern equivalent of 'get thee to a nunnery.'?
>
>> This is not to mention many years of press coverage which portrayed
>her
>> as an air-headed dumb blonde, far inferior to her supposedly deep and
>> spiritual husband. This was particularly insulting since in many
>> people's view, mine included, she had more intelligence (and spiritual
>> depth and courage) in her little finger than the foul Prince Charles
>has
>> got in his whole body.
>
>Thank you. I agree about Charles. Diana was superior to her husband
>in every way, including smarts. I have yet to see anything written
>by Charles or said by him that reveals a "deep thinker" or important
>writer. It takes absolutely nothing to say, "modern architecture is
>bad" and if you've see his official bio by Dimbleby, just page through
>to the example of his "water color" painting ability ... or lack
>thereof. The man is mediocre in all respects, his wife outshone him in
>all respects, and instead of riding his wife's popularity with the
>people to power, he acted IMH systematically to get rid of his wife
>within a few years after the marriage. Certainly after Harry's birth
>in 1984.
>
>> I believe she was probably pregnant, but that is not an attack on her
>> character. I don't believe I have ever attacked her character, and in
>> fact I admired her greatly from the time of the Panorama interview on.
>
>Yes, I agree with that. It is not an attack on her character. Her
>Panorama interview I didn't see until after her death, but I admired
>her when she separated & then divorced from Charles.
>
>Maxie
>
>> --
>> banana
>>
>
>
herodotu...@my-deja.com
"Aleeta" <ajoh...@psesd.org> wrote:
> Maxie,
> You are being ridiculous, this conversation I am
> having is about Diana and that is to whom I am
> referring to. This is not a conspiracy, it is a
> conversation that I am relaying by the complaints
> that I receive from many posters.
>
> AJ
The complaints you receive from many posters? What are you
talking about, Aleeta? You receive complaints from others
about this NG? About specific messages? Good grief.
It wasn't clear what you were talking about, which is why
Geths asked you in the first place who was 'down playing'
Diana. You are asserting that posters to this NG along
with MAF are guilty of the 'down playing' of Diana's
character. What specific posts are you talking about?
I referenced the one you seem to be most bothered by,
the Jim Keith article posted to this NG by Laura.
We all would like a perfect world, with a fairy tale perfect
princess to go with it, but in reality we are just fallible
human beings, with good points and bad points to our
characters.
I don't look at the possibility of Diana being pregnant as
a slur on her whatsoever. I do see the stories by her
so-called "friends" like Moncton et al insisting that she
was merely having a 'fling' with Dodi as quite derogatory
to her character.
That's why I made a point about the Penny Junor book, you
know, the one that asserts among many things that Diana
was the first to be unfaithful to Charles, that she made
threatening phone calls to Camilla ... now that's
derogatory. That's a black book to paint a black picture:
Diana a scheming manipulator, a little actress who set
her sights on winning the Prince of Wales ...
Maxie
> --
> ~ A J's Fun Photos ~
>
> http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
> herodotu...@my-deja.com wrote in message
> >> --
> >> ~ A J's Fun Photos ~
> >>
> >> http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
> >> Gary Stone wrote in message <5MrE3.1061$68.31281@news2-hme0>...
> >> >
> >> >Aleeta <ajoh...@psesd.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:937537905.82470@cacheraq001...
> >> >> Jackie,
> >> >>
> >> >> I certainly hope that you don't leave this group and
> >> >> it really doesn't matter what your beliefs are, only
> >> >> as long as you can express those thoughts.
> >> >>
> >> >> Most of the down playing of Diana's character
> >> >> has come from this very group of conspiracists,
> >> >> along with MAF as the core fabricator of the
> >> >> fractured fairy tales. This in itself drove me to
> >> >> look the other way. I now believe this to be the
> >> >> correct way.
> >> >>
> >> >> No matter how you believe, you have every right
> >> >> to express yourself. Even though I now feel it was
> >> >> an accident, I still care about the reputation of
> >> >> Diana and her two boys. Especially those boys.
> >> >> I too would be enraged if my mother was spoken
> >> >> about in the way anything goes here. I am with
> >> >> you on this one.
> >> >>
> >> >> Aleeta
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> ~ Aleeta,
> >> >What exactly do you mean by saying that "most of the downplaying
of
> >Diana's
> >> >character has come from this very group of conspriacists", could
you
> >please
> >> >be more precise and who in your opinion has been responsible for
this
> >> >character downplay?
> >> >Geths
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >