Queen warned Diana's butler of mysterious 'powers at work'

Run time: 01:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t-f8yqxFjE   Posted on YouTube: January 16, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 16, 2008 By DU Member: lovuian Views on DU: 3673

 
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=318344

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II had warned the late Princess Diana's butler about mysterious 'powers at work', the former butler told an inquest into her death.

Paul Burrell told the London inquest Monday that he had sought a meeting with the Queen to tell her that Diana's mother, Frances Shand Kydd, had shredded some of the Princess's personal documents.

Shand Kydd, according to Burrell, spent several days at Diana's Kensington Palace residence, going through her belongings and shredding dozens of documents. He said he was worried those documents might be of 'historical importance', such as letters from members of the royal family.

His meeting with the Queen took place at Buckingham Palace Dec 19, 1997, less than four months after Diana's death, and lasted for at least an hour and a half.
more...
He told the inquest that a member of the royal family had warned Diana: 'You need to be discreet, even in your own home, because they are listening to you all of the time.'
and he hands the Inquest person the name of the Royal on a piece of paper and the rest of the jurors didn't get to see it
The Inquest is getting interesting wonder who was listening into the Princess's conversations and who the mysterious powers were???

Princess Diana

I would like to know
I guess some don't care

Personal preference
its like I would like to know about Bhutto
guess some don't care

in a traffic accident as result of a drunk driver. I just can't imagine why anyone would have any interest in offing her. And no I don't believe she would have married that moron Dodi.

Run time: 01:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t-f8yqxFjE   Posted on YouTube: January 16, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 16, 2008 By DU Member: IndyOp Views on DU: 3673

 
working to ban landmines - she was seeking a serious purpose in life, I think.

In January 1997, Diana toured Angola while she was serving as an International Red Cross VIP volunteer. Diana toured the de-mining projects being run by the HALO Trust and visited landmine survivors in hospitals. Photos of Diana walking though a minefield wearing a ballistic helmet and flak jacket were beamed around the world. Then later that year Diana visited Bosnia with the Landmine Survivors Network. Her visits and opposition to landmines drew worldwide public attention to the cause and brought nations involved in the production of landmines to sign the Ottawa Treaty in 1997 creating an international ban on the use of anti-personnel landmines. However, to this day some nations have still not signed the treaty.

From BBC...


1997: Princess Diana sparks landmines row
Princess Diana has angered government ministers after calling for an international ban on landmines.

Her comments - made during a visit to Angola to see for herself some of the victims of landmines - are being seen as out of step with government policy.

The Junior Defence Minister, Earl Howe, has described the princess as a "loose cannon", ill-informed on the issue of anti-personnel landmines.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/15/newsid_2530000/2530603.stm

It's nice to see someone on this thread who understands the dynamics and consequences of Di's actions and politics.

From http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10641&st=15:
"It's not difficult to find a motive for assassinating Diana. The shy mouse that the House of Windsor intended to be used as a brood mare and nothing more, had evolved into a potential dragon slayer. She was intent upon preventing Charles from ever becoming king. Moreover, her mastery over the news media enabled her to publicly upstage the Windsors whenever she elected to do so. Diana's engagement to Dodi was unacceptable to the Windors since it meant that the future step father of Prince William and Harry would be a person of color and a practicing Muslim to boot. One can imagine Prince Charles' fury upon learning that his former wife was being romanced by Dodi Al Fayed of all people, for ten years earlier, a polo team captained by Charles had been beaten by a team led by Dodi!

Another powerful motive for murdering Diana was that she had become a loose cannon, politically speaking. Her aggressive campaigning toward the instituting of a ban on the use of land mines and a reduction in armaments sales, was anathema to the major armaments consortiums such as the Carlyle Group, whose stockholders includes the Bush and bin Laden families, Condoleezza Rice and, by proxy purchase, the House of Windsor. Until the advent of WWII, land mines had been used to impede the progress of enemy troops, but the introduction of tanks equipped with rotary flails which detonated land mines, provided a safe passage through minefields, thus diminishing their effectiveness. Their principal widespread use at the present time is to kill or maim children to prevent them from becoming future soldiers who might kill their aggressors. Cluster bombs serve a similar purpose, which is why they frequently contain bomblets disguised as toys.

At the time of the couple's death, production was scheduled to commence on a movie based upon a screenplay written by Gordon Thomas concerning the abolition of land mines. The executive producer was to have been Diana, with Dodi as producer. The movie was scheduled to star Gene Hackman and Brad Pitt.
..."

I didn't know about the movie WHOAH

It died with her. And so did the cause of banning land mines. Now England, one of the main exporters of land mines--if the THE main exporter, can get back to business.

Funny that the media doesn't focus on this aspect of her timely demise. Then again they don't focus much on what matters. They have a different agenda.

At the time of the couple's death, production was scheduled to commence on a movie based upon a screenplay written by Gordon Thomas concerning the abolition of land mines. The executive producer was to have been Diana, with Dodi as producer. The movie was scheduled to star Gene Hackman and Brad Pitt.

Don't think we'll ever be seeing that moview --- !!!

The UK signed it then, and ratified it in 1998. See http://www.icbl.org/treaty/members .

Perhaps the media "doesn't focus on this aspect" because you're wrong about it?

Diana had no power whatsoever to prevent Charles from becoming king. The Constitution and the Acts of Sucession are very clear about this, she had no more power to prevent Charles being crowned than she did to prevent the sun rising. Also, from most accounts, both he and Diana had moved on with their lives and, whilel mildly bitter, didn't really bother much about each other.

The second motive is far more plausable (although I'd like to see some proof of the Windsor's involvement with arms companies).

It was in terms of turning the populace against him.
She went on TV and said he was not fit to be King of England.
She was far more popular than him.
And you don't think that hurt him with the public?

One more thing--has he become King?

He's damaged goods.

allowed in England thats why the one king abdicated

Though I think the Church of England is going to change that rule

The problem was never with his divorce, we have had at least one divorced king before (Henry VIII who was divorced three times) and the C of E DOES allow divorce. The problem was with him wishing to remarry to a woman who was (nominally) a Catholic. Under the Acts of Succession, a Catholic cannot take the throne as either king or queen. That problem was solved by designating Camilla as "Royal Consort" (Prince Phillip has the same title for much the same reason).

The king who abdicated (Edward VIII) did NOT do so because of his divorce since he hadn't actually married at that point. He abdicated because he was in love with an American divorcee called Wallis Simpson and the government opposed the marriage on the grounds that the people would never accept her because she was an American (and they suspected her of being sympathetic to teh Nazis, which was probably untrue).

she had ties to the Nazis and it was Catholic that was the problem

I know Catholic is a big problem because I saw Blair wait to convert after his prime minister days

I always thought it was the divorce thingy

Modern historians think she probably didn't have ties to the Nazis but certainly, the government of Edward's time thought she did and that was enough.

sympathies --- and that's why he was shipped out--?

Actually, much of the monarchy was and still is hideously elitist and racist ---
according to what I've read of Phillip, for one ---

And, I also understand that a lot of "royal" money was going thru Prescott Bush and Allen Dulles/Sullivan & Cromwell and their other front companies to support Hitler ---

Certain people have accused him of Nazi sympathies but they often claim that he was introduced to them by her (which is probably just a variation on the "blame the woman" tendancy and it's likely false in both cases).

Certain parts of the Royal Family certainly are elitist and/or racist (although it depends how you define "elitist"). Phillip is either racist or enjoys annoying people.

As for the supposition that money from the Royal household was being funnelled to Hitler: There has never been one iota of credible evidence for that and a great deal of evidence that (with the possible exception of Edward), they loathed the Nazi regime.

However, Prescott and Dulles were raising money to support Hitler from all over the world ---
from elites and royals ---

Had the Duke of Windsor hung around, he may have become a contributor?

There are more than just rumors about him --- the shoe seemed to be on his foot --

Yes, it's vaguely possible that monies raised from Edward and/or Wallis ended up in the pockets of the Nazis but since the records aren't available, it's impossible to say.

Didn't you know that they are all German through Queen Victoria's husband? Nearly all the royal families of Europe are German. The Kaisers, The Tsars, and so forth.

They changed their names. The House of Windsor (Elizabeth II) was the House of Hanover.
Prince Philip Mountbatten, her husband, also a descendant of Victoria and Albert, was of the Battenberg family, which also changed its name. Both German.

Edward VIII probably resigned because he didn't want to go to war against his cousins, and Wallis provided a convenient excuse.

Edward VIII was asked once why he spoke German, and he replied "Ist mein Mutterspracht."
-- It's my mother tongue.

she had a British Scotish Heritage more than them

Diana's popularity was really alarming them
I would love to know who the mysterious forces were the Queen was talking about

the late Duke of Windsor... his mother was one of the young King's social set before Wallis Simpson bagged him) and Timothy Seeley.

They researched their subjects quite thoroughly. The Duke and Dutchess of Windsor were quite enamored with Hitler. It is fascinating reading. It gives a little insight into the workings of the House of Windsor. (But, perhaps because I'm an egalitarian American, I'll never understand the obsession with having the HRH -- His/Her Royal Highness title... Diana and Sarah both fought to keep the HRH, with little success on Sarah's part. I don't remember if Diana got to keep the title or not. Wallace Simpson campaigned vigorously all of her married life for that title to no avail.)

http://www.amazon.com/King-Fools-John-Parker/dp/555032640X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200541067&sr=1-3

And yet, currently, it's more accepted than rejected --- having come back into style.
Disgusting --- !!!

Diana lost the title HRH when she and Charles divorced but kept the title Princess Of Wales. She was also still considered a member of teh Royal Household, due to being teh mother of the second and third in line to the throne.

because he was discovered directly collaborating with the Nazi's. The Wallace Simpson thing was the dog-and-pony show thrown out for public consumption as the reason for his abdication. It wasn't. He was told if he didn't abdicate, he would be tried for treason and the entire House of Windsor would fall.

You don't know very much about the British Constitution or how the monarchy is established, do you?

No, he hasn't become king because his mother hasn't died yet. When she dies (or abdicates but that's very rare), the crown passes automatically and instantly to Charles. This isn't like an election, it's not about whether the populace supports him or doesn't, it is automatic, instant and built into the Constitution of our country. Nor can Charles refuse to take the crown. He can give it away once he has it (by abdication) but there is no power in heaven or earth (short of his death, the rewriting of the Constitution or the dissolution of the monarchy) which can prevent him becoming king. I'm going to make this clear because I want there to be no misunderstanding: Public opinion makes no difference whatsoever. We have had wildly unpopular kings before, many of them in fact. The public can and often do disapprove of the monarch and/or their family but it makes no difference at all.

because he married a divorced woman???
Isn't that what Charles is doing marrying a divorced woman?
And isn't the King the Church of England's head
the Church is the kicker

The government forced Edward VIII to abdicate because they disliked the woman he wanted to marry because she was an American and they suspected her of being sympathetic to the Nazis (which was probably untrue, as it happens). Yes, she was also a divorcee but that had little to do with it. In theory, Edward could have ignored them and married her anyway but he was bright enough to realise that the government could both make life very difficult for him and, if they were really pissed, rewrite the Constitution. The populace at the time actually rather liked Edward although they were undecided about Wallis Simpson.

Yes, the reigning monarch is nominally head of the Church of England. However, firstly, the church has bugger all power these days and secondly, Charles has made it very clear for many years (long before his divorce) that he doesn't want the bloody title anyway.

Now there's some revisionist history. It wasn't Wallace Simpson who was the Nazi sympathizer and collaborator, it was King Edward VIII! Really, do a Search for King Edward VIII +Nazi and see what you find. The evidence is overwhelming. Now, having said that, Wallace Simpson shared her lover's anti-Semitism and certainly went along with his actions, but it was HE who collaborated with the Nazi's.

If my memory is faulty on the details here, mea culpa. My mistake.

but Royals murdering people has a long history
Its because they feel like they are above the law
In Diana's case the inquest which should have taken place was not done

I think this is about the children
they wanted to control the heirs

and Diana was going to be a problem

Charles is damaged goods and will be passed over for the far more appealing, undamaged, William--son of Diana.

Regarding the arms industry in England, there is a ton of info out there on it.
Here's some, feel free to research more on your own.
Her stance on land mines infuriated the British arms industry:

"But not only was Diana now seen to be attacking the Public State, she was now doing something far, far more dangerous - she was attacking the most evil sector of the Private State - the Arms industry. Diana was speaking out against land-mines and calling for a total worldwide ban on their manufacture and sale. This was at a time when the Private state was doing a pretty good job of smothering centrist and left-of-centre calls within the New Labour party for a ban. Here was Diana, stirring it all up, jet-setting around the world, mingling with more ethical world-leaders, getting very good support. She was even able to get Hillary to make Bill reconsider his position on the issue.

World-wide Diana was quietly making many enemies. Her actions were particularly upsetting to the Arms Barons in Britain, where lower-tech weaponry such as landmines is a big industrial deal. And of course, Arms Exporters are monitored and aided by secret security services, occasionally in 'legitimate intelligence gathering', most often in the protection of Western puppet-dictatorships, which provide markets for killing machines and provide an excuse for Western Armed Forces to stay tooled-up. Diana had been the target of intelligence attacks before at the hands of Britain's bumbling MI5, now she was to be targeted on a much higher level - she was to cross the path of the
world-wide secret government where intelligence agencies, big corporations, Royal Houses, powerful individuals, neo-Chivalraic Orders, and powerful secret societies merge into a blur. The British wing was to act on both worldwide and domestic concerns through the infamous MI6. With Diana's death, Charles and his mother would be set to gain complete control over the Princes, the increasing popularity of Diana over Charles could be curtailed, the British Arms Industry could lance an irritating boil."
http://www.atlantis2012.com/nieuwe-wereld-orde/NWO-Vendetta-Files/Diana/diana-M16.html

Feel free to keep lecturing the actual Englishman on the technicalities of the Constitutional law he actually bloody studied but Charles CANNOT BE PASSED OVER. The Acts of Succession are very, very clear. They can't say "we don't like him, we like Wills better", the crown MUST pass to Charles before it can pass to anyone else. He can give it away, he can be forced to abdicate by the government but there is NO WAY OF AVOIDING GIVING HIM THE CROWN.

I really don't know how I can be any clearer about this. Unless the Constitution is rewritten or Charles dies beforehand, the crown WILL pass to him. He cannot be passed over, regardless of if he's damaged goods, regardless of how the public feels, regardless of how the government feels and regardless of how many Americans think he should be. The government may well force him to abdicate within hours but they cannot stop him becoming the monarch the very second his mother croaks. Is that clear enough now?

As for the rest, I'm not disputing that she'd pissed off the arms industries in a big way, probably enough for them to want her dead. I am disputing (because I have yet to see any credible evidence) that the Windsors have any financial interests in the arms industry.

Oh, and according to the testimony of Diana's friends at the current inquest, Diana had no intention of marrying Dodi and was actually fairly apathetic to the prospect of remarrying at all.

The people can vote and get rid of it
but yes I understand he cannot be passed over

Just that a monarch is only in there if he has support of the people
If the people decide to get rid of a Monarch they can do it

Talk to Marie Antoinette she'll tell ya

OK, in the sense of actually getting torches and pitchforks and marching on Buckingham Palace, the people could get rid of him but that's the only way.

As for abolishing the monarchy, it's more complex than putting it to the vote (although that would be needed). The monarchy is built into our Constitution so removing it would involve a massive rewrite of the Constitution and numerous laws, massive public support and several other changes. Oh, and you'd have to get it through both houses of Parliament (which would be virtually impossible for many reasons) Whether the public would support the idea depends who you ask. Every so often, a survey comes out showing that X percentage of the populace support abolishing teh monarchy, there's an outcry from the rest of the populace and the idea goes away again.

and they were listening?

And why didn't the coroner tell the public who the Royal was?

Any ideas???

Prince Phillip (consort to teh Queen) has always been the one to indulge in this kind of intrigue and he's senior enough to be able to find out (or be told) that she was under surveillance.

As for the coroner, no clue. Coroner's have broad discretion in the French courts, so he wasn't under any obligation to disclose.

What a piece of work he is.

fergie was a rebel

And not classy.
And not a lot of things.

if Charles happens to pass away (of some natural cause or accident due to his lifestyle) wouldn't William become King after Elizabeth II?

If Charles dies first, the crown would pass to William (assuming he's still alive), Harry (if he isn't) or Edward (if both of them are dead).

what (if anything) do you think of "The Diana Chronicles"? I'm someone who has no real knowledge of life across the pond ... but I did enjoy the book. I think it was not too gossipy, and seemed to present both Diana's side and Charles' side pretty evenly and fairly.

To be honest, there are so many books on the Royals released here that unless it's something really special, I usually don't bother with them.

I believe Andrew is the elder of the two.

You're entirely correct. If Charles and both princes pre-deceased QEII, the crown would pass to Andrew.

I plead "senior moment".

and skipping on to William --- ???

I'm quite sure that the throne itself was tossing out this idea ---
they must have had some measure or other to deal with it in mind---

Elizabeth would be better aware than most that she has no say in the matter. The Constitution and the Acts of Succession would need to be heavily rewritten to even allow the possibility. I suppose it's vaguely possible that she could have had some tame MP raise the matter for Parlimentry consideration but that would only be the first step of a very long process which would very likely fail.

It was a topic of conversation at the time ---
and continued on as speculation long afterwards ---

I think it was appropos of the reality that most British saw him as unfit ---
It was my impression that this was word that came down from Queenie ---
though, of course, all are aware of the roadmap -- someone must have had a plan?

I actually don't think that impression is entirely fair.

If Her Majesty really was discussing this (and by tradition, teh Royals don't correct even the most egregious rumours about them, so she may not have been) then I can only assume that there must have been a plan in place to deal with it (although, as said, that would be a very long and difficult process).

That said, it may well have been simply idle speculation which was blown out of proportion.

In fact, I don't think this was simply due only to the current situation with the embarrassment brought on by the marriage disagreements as shocking as they were ---

I think in general, Queenie was letting it be known by hanging on that she didn't either think
Charles fit for King --- BEFORE Diana ---

I imagine if it is something that Queenie wanted down --- or not done --- they would find a way.
Presumably, Queenie would not be alone in her thinking and observations re Charles.

In fact, the press will from time to time renew discussion of this "not wanting" Charles to succeed to the throne.

If all else fails, there's always the option of slipping a long pin in his ear (I'm kidding but similar things have been done in the distant past). Doing it legally though would take a very long time and I'm not sure if it could be done before Elizabeth shuffles off this mortal coil.

None born royal or slave --- ???

It went beyond Charles and his ascension to the throne ---
but I don't think that's going to happen ---
I think it will be William ---

Basically, this whole monarchy thing should be over --- way over!!!

The laws of succession can't be changed without rewriting the Constitution. It doesn't matter how unpopular he is, the crown has to pass to Charles first, however briefly, before it can pass to William (assuming Charles is still alive).

And a good portion of us (probably the majority) like having a monarchy. I appreciate that's difficult for Americans to understand but it#s part of British culture.

an evil ---

If you can be born royal, you can also be born slave ---

Why would the British continue with such an archaic and demeaning concept?

We do not feel that it is archaic and demeaning. You might but the fact that you describe the concept of monarchy as "evil" purely because it's not how your society does things is arrogance personified.

And no, you can't be born a slave because slavery is illegal (and guess what? We banned slavery before the USA did).

is a concept which should be archaic --- !!!

but is certainly demeaning to those who believe "all are born equal" ---

If you can be born royal, you can be born a slave ---

When one worships royalty, one is consigning themselves to a lower tier ---
why do that?

Of course, in America our ROYALS have simply become neo-con corporate-fascists!!!

and, as such, misunderstanding it. We do not worship the Royals. First off, that word has a very specific meaning and the attitude to the Royals doesn't qualify. Secondly, we are not consigning ourselves to a lower tier because we are very well aware that teh Royals are royal purely due to an accident of birth.

I'm sorry if teh concept offends you but we are not American and the sooner the USA stops expecting teh rest of teh world to do things their way, the sooner teh rest of the world stops resenting the US.

I'm really not sure how I can be any clearer about the slavery thing. The two are not teh same thing and slavery has been illegal here since 1807 so no-one can be born a slave. Why you seem fixated on the idea is beyond me but you're talking nonsense.

So you're also confirming that you consider them ROYAL by birth --- !!!
:rofl:

Is that by "god" selection style of birth or simply the accident of birth style?

Evidently you've never heard that reference before:
If you can be born royal, you can be born slave --
you obviously don't get it ---

But, here in America, I would assure you there would be many who would return us to the days of
slavery --- and there are a class of people who are always looking for robots and/or slaves.

As far as I can see re your nation, Blair has been Bush's lap dog ---
and that thinking isn't original to me.

think about it --- if you're not ROYAL, then what are you?


Here are some snynomyns for majestic/royal --- and some antonyms ...

—Synonyms 2. princely, regal, royal, exalted. 4. great, large, palatial; brilliant, superb. 9. inclusive.
—Antonyms 1. insignificant. 2. modest, unassuming. 3. small; mean. 7. minor.

so obviously, they would be Royal by birth. Why that's amusing, I don't know. And it's simply an accident of birth, the theory of divine selection fell out of fashion long ago.

Yes, Blair was Bush's puppet. That's one of the main reasons he was forced to resign (here, there are at least four ways to remove a sitting PM, not counting criminal charges).

No, I don't get the saying. I presume it's old. It's still wrong. I daresay there's a few Britons who would like to bring slavery back but they are very few and generally keep their mouths shut.

As for the question "if you're not ROYAL, then what are you?", why must Americans always gravitate to the extremes? Not being Royal does not make one the opposite of royalty either, that's the excluded middle. The proper term for someone who is not royal is either subject or citizen.

We are happy with the arrangement (mostly). Americans tend to be far more outraged by it than we are.

You confirm that the theory of "divine selection" fell out of fashion long ago ---
but it was the basis for where you are now.

It's more than Blair --- post-WWII Britain required that America take over much of their financial obligation --- you were pretty much sold. And if that didn't do it, the pull of superpowerdom/military net finished you off. Not an immediate process, but a process all in all.
Maybe you'd like some nuclear weapons ---?
Here, you can join the club --
You can even test your new toys at our nuclear weapons testing sites ---



You are taking the saying literally -- try to understand why it still survives.
It is a saying for ALL ages --- past and future --
it is to be understood along with "all are created equal" ---

And do you want to try the definition of "subject" --- ???

Yes --- we should be anti-royal --- if we truly believe that "all men are created equal" ---

But where we are now is not where we were then. I am not pretending to understand, I DON'T understand why this is such a problem to you. We are happy with having a monarchy. You are insisting that we see things your way. Well, sorry old chap, but we don't and we get slightly pissed off when people tell us we should.

We have a monarchy, we (mostly) like having a monarchy. If that offends delicate American sensibilities, tough, it isn't your country.

The basis of something cannot be changed ---
"divine right" was the basis of royalty ---
Declaring oneself "royal" doesn't really work unless you go for something bigger ---
a "god" declaration is needed!!!

Granted, now that you're used to royalty . . . and not needing challenge on a "divine" intervention to create royals, it fell by the wayside --

I'm not insisting that you see things any way ---
I am suggesting that you are trying not to understand what I am saying to you ---

Btw, I'm not a "chap" ---

What happened with your new Constitution --- ?
where are you with that now ---
and does it say "all are created equal" --- ???

The basis of anything can be changed. The basis of marriage was changed (it was originally about property) so why not royalty.

People aren't created equal anyway. Neither of our nations has ever embraced a 100% inheritance tax so some people will always be born with more advantages than we have. When my grandfather died, I got a little cash and a few medals, the aristocracy gets some cash and a title (which is really just a word and meaningless these days). The Royal family gets quite a lot of cash and a little bit of political power. The only difference is scope.

As for teh Constitution. The British Constitution is uncodified. That means it's not a single document but scattered across about a dozen documents and in several languages. Several bodies, such as Charter 88 (which, full disclosure, I am a member of) have been pressing for it's codification for years. As it happens, we may have adopted the EU Constitution in due time which would render the whole thing moot.

No -- you established royalty based on "divine right" ---
that past cannot be changed.

And --- your response to "all are created equal" is . . . "anyway" -- !!!
Evidently, you don't get it either that this is one of the ideals of democracy ---
something to be worked towards.

Of course, I'm talking about the new EU Constitution ---

I leave you now at peace to contemplate your naval ---
don't wonder off that spot!

You'd never know it when you delve into genealogy. There's always this big deal about how many Royals certain Presidents are related to, and people get tickled pink if they do their family tree and find a royal connection. Actually, the joke is on them; you go back far enough if you are of European stock, and you'll find you are related to some king or another. I read somewhere that everyone is at least 50th cousin to everyone else.

and they just don't know it where Britains know

Because your right many presidents are relatives and of English royal families

(who has more kinfolk descendants than the average President)-genealogists have traced his family tree back to Charlemagne. I've done genealogical research for 30 years--and have found, given enough time, that most of them can trace their lineage back there as well. When I was teaching a class in genealogy about 8 years ago, my students were senior citizens, mostly retirees from all over the States. If we found that any of them had New England roots, inevitably we'd find common ancestors. It was really a hoot. And you know that the funny thing is? When you are doing the research, you find the illustrious ancestors are often not as interesting as your regular "old Joe" ancestor.

Ever see The New Statesman? It was a comedy based around a politician called Alan B'Stard. The name is actually quite common, they tend to be the illegitimate offspring of various monarchs (especially the Plantagenets for some reason). Of course, given the Royal habit until quite recently of bonking like rabbits, it's nothing very unusual.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. And I apologize for the "Ugly Americans" who can't seem to appreciate the fact that not every country is - or wants to be like the US.

I'm used to it by now.

and I see the advantage as having Royals as heads of state. Nowadays, they don't get involved in politics, just represent the nation. The politicos are in the House of Commons, and are seen as simply that-politicians. No "cult of personality" like we have now here in the US with the Presidents.

We like having Royalty. It's hugely stable, bring in lots of tourist money and they're useful as unofficial diplomats. Gordon Brown can't tell China to reform their civil rights record without causing an international incident but Charles can and has.

The cult of personality is one thing that I could never understand about US politics, probably because it simply doesn't happen here. Reagan was the worst but Chimpy has it too.

if she is the first-born --

So things can be changed --- and presumably by Queenie if she gets riled up enough --- ??!!!

Not anymore at any rate. Back when that was changed, it was largely down to the word of whoever had enough muscle to make it stick but these days, the procedure is laid down in the Constitution and Acts of Succession, neither of which the monarch has the power to change. The question would have to be raised in Parliament, put before the Privy Council (the Queen's advisers) for their consideration (they can't change anything but can make suggestions), pass both chambers, receive the Royal Assent (purely a formality). Then the appropriate parts of the Constitution and Acts of Succession would have to be rewritten (and the gods alone know how long that would take).

Sorry to break it to you but the monarch has virtually no power anymore. The monarch can dissolve Parliament in certain circumstances (to call an election, if the government falls or when Parliament enters recess); appoint judges, (these days, simply formalising choices made by the Lord Chancellor); veto legislation (in theory anyway, it would cause a Constitutional crisis if she ever actually did it) and act as an unofficial diplomat and tourist attraction. That's about it. Oh, and she also has to be briefed by the PM once a week and can offer advice (she may be Queen by accident of birth but she can call on some very clever advisers and she's been doing this for 60+ years so she may have somethign worthwhile to say) but teh PM is free to ignore what she has to say.

There is also some disagreement on how much of a puppet the Queen may be --
many feel that what you are taught in school isn't the whole story.

Obviously, as well, great wealth provides for great power in the world ---

let's not be naive ---

Many feel the Queen secretly runs teh USA, many feel the world is run by shape-shifting, blood-drinking reptiles. Many people believe all kinds of things.

Yes, great wealth provides for great power in some fashion but the legal arrangement provides the monarch very little power (which doesn't necessarily make her a puppet either, again with going to the extremes).

The last time the laws of succession were significantly changed was 1701, with the Act of Settlement. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701

Even though the change of saying a first-born female succeeds in preference to a later-born son would be fairly uncontroversial to the average person (it wouldn't have an effect on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd in line at present, and no-one thinks it's been a problem having Elizabeth as queen), people say making this change would be very difficult - you have to coordinate 16 countries' legal processes, after getting the governments of each to agree that it's the right thing to do.

Even if one thinks it's the right thing to do (which I do), getting it done legally is a mammoth task.

all by himself.

Charles acted like a prat which didn't win him any points and then Diana's revelations of her married life sank public opinion of him even more.

the public's "view" of him would've been different. I don't blame wives when their husbands have mistresses.

It's impossible to say who cheated first now though. For once, I agree with the general feeling that they should never have married in the first place.

She put a human face to AIDS, not fearing to hug stricken African children, she put her own life on the line to ban landmines. She was just as significant as Bhutto, especially since she cared about the entire world, not just Pakistan. She was getting things done and some cretins had to stop her...

our reality ---

her leadership role in standing against war and the weapons of war ---

reason only. She was being driven by a drunk driver.

the French Surgeon said if the ambulance wouldn't have taken over an hour getting to the hospital she very well could have lived
Thats whats great of having a inquest

She was a live and alert at the accident
It was the long drive to the ER that actually killed her

N/T

Instead of telling other people what they should and shouldn't post and what they should and shouldn't care about. I personally do care about her murder.

its testimony of her personal Butler at a official Inquest which we have not heard or seen some of this evidence
The public is getting a good look at what happened at her death and that her mother tore up shredded evidence
and the Butler reported it to the Queen which she then threatened him to shut up

why would she do that and DID America wiretap the Princess of Britain??? We wiretap everybody else

It's been proven that US "intelligence" was tapping Di at the Plaza hotel on the night of her murder.
US and British "intelligence" are joined at the hip.

I want to know why US/British espionage had her under constant surveillance.
And I have many more questions about her death.

For those who don't share my suspicions and concerns, feel free to move along.

I want the parties responsible for her death to be exposed for the human excrement they are, whether 'royal' or not! Diana was a force of good in this world and someone stole her from us.

Now Britney? I've had enough of her...

continues to take leaders for peace from the world ---
This open and ignored political violence has been going on now for forty years and more --

Aren't there more imprtant things in the world?

Move on there is more important things
Nothing here

:sarcasm:

Now go busy yourself with those things that are more important than the murdered English princess who made powerful enemies by spearheading a global ban on land mines.

:patriot:

I sometimes miss details of this inquest, so I appreciate the update.
This crime matters greatly.
And those that study this crime will understand British politics and power and corruption much better than they did before.

and who is going to be President concern me a bit more. And there is zero evidence that Dina was murdered. But whatever. It was nice that she campigned against landmines but she was still a party girl that fell victim to the grandstanding odf a doofus playboy. Tragic but not worth a lot of nagst.She lived a full and intersting life. It is a shame she died young.I wish people would let her RIP.There have been at least 3 investigations of this.All come to the same conclusions. Sad. Welcome to DU.

who had Diana's ancestor Mary Queen of Scots beheaded

Oh yes the Royal Family has a history of killing its own

But I have studied Di's murder extensively, and there were many motives for it, and her stance against land mines was apparently the last straw. Britain made a ton of money from land mines. War profiteers don't like it when their money machines are shut down. Now the English are getting back into the land mine biz big time.

That could not have happened with Di around because she shamed countries into complying with the land mine ban.

She was the thorn in their sides. She had to be removed.

That was kill or be killed.She was claiming her thrown Elizabeth let her live as long as she could. And even then there is speculation she din't actually sign the warrant.Whatever. That was 1500's.All royals have such a history. How do you think they become royal? And any comparison between the current stodgy German Elizabeth 11 and Elizabeth the First is just silly! Elizabeth the First was a Tudor after all!

To the exclusion of all else.
You're free to stay apprised of multiple news stories at the same time, if you have the intellectual capacity to do so.

And if you're really so so so very very very busy and pressed for time, then why spend your precious limited time on threads you claim not to care about to scold others who aren't in lock step with you?

"Yeah well, the political ramifications of who we choose as our nominee and who is going to be President concern me a bit more."

Why do you even post on this thread if you don't care?! Why do you bother to argue about it? You didn't care about Diana but some of us did. Move along to a campaign thread then.

really really dirty politics behind the mysterious death of the People's Princess.

To put up today's Steve Bell TOON

thats GREAT :rofl:

I hope Mr Al Fayed is finally able to prove that his son was murdered along with Di.
Di was a very special and compassionate woman and social activist.
I miss her.

She deserves an Inquest and the public needs to know facts that were hidden from them

by media and government

She deserves justice.
Those who cared for her deserve the truth.

And one more thing:
Aside from the moderators, no one on this list should be decreeing a subject off limits.

the Soundtrack Elizabeth
I thought it was fitting
Elizabeth always regretted killing the other Queen

Mary Queen of Scots
Son James eventually became KING

as well as Diana's son William will be King

Synchronicity is a interesting concept Everything is connected and there are no coincidences

Than I do.
Thank you for sharing that info.
I certainly didn't realize the music was so appropriate.

her and the family about the death

Did she tell the officials that Burrell came to her telling her that Shand Kydd shredded documents

Shand wasn't the person in charge of Diana's property it was her children

How did she get access???

and one wonders what Shand will say

Diana's children couldn't have had charge of her property. Prince William (the elder of teh two) was sixteen at the time, underage to take control of her property and effects.

Shand was guardian of Diana? I never heard who was executor of her estate but I think her brother was the one
So many twists and turns

It can't have been the princes due to their age. She and Charles were divorced so it wasn't him. From memory, she appointed her brother as her executor so logically, he would have had custody of her effects.

Which, yes, does beg the question of how and why Shand destroyed any documents (assuming she did).

shredding documents --- otherwise, I would wonder if it were a cover story and someone has
taken the documents for safe-keeping ---

Even now, the times may not be safe to expose these documents if they still exist????

and her death was terrible whatever the cause.

She was certainly a decent and well-intentioned human being though and that, in itself, is reason enough to mourn her passing.

Burrell has already written one tell-all book.

Gee, that would rule out a lot of people.

His book traded off it's "tell-all" nature, the implication being that the contents were scandalous. It's therefore in his interest to keep finding scandals. Doesn't mean he's talking crap, of course, but does mean that his word can't be taken as gospel either.

300 things from Diana and the Queen accused him

but later the Queen said Burrell did have the right to the letters and objects

and he was released

I don't know if anyone had Diana killed but there was certainly something bloody weird going on.

Yet he has enough credibility to testify at the official inquest.

and of what Diana feared ---

Granted, we don't know what pressures may be being exerted upon Burrell ---
is it possible to tell the whole truth at this time --- ???

Burrell could be being pressured by any number of people for any number of reasons. On the other hand, that's pure speculation, there's no way of knowing.

it looks like Dodi's father knows quite a bit ---
I would presume that he's tried to speak with just about everyone involved ---
and I've been very impressed with his website and knowledge.

must have known that Diana was a propaganda disaster for them.

If we look at the late 90's that was probably the time that PNAC and associated groups were developing their plans for the "war on terror" and "shock and awe" (with the associated islamophobia). Can you imagine if Diana had survived and gone on to marry or continue dating a muslim..?

The crash was certainly a lucky accident for the "mysterious powers" behind the scenes...