David Guyatt Wrote:I'm more inclined to think those responsible were the "Defence of the Realm" boys rather than the Palace, Pete. But I doubt we'll ever find out via a real police investigation. My guess is despite the EXpress pushing the story it will quietly fade and be forgotten. Too much at stake imo.

Peter Presland Wrote:It may well evidence family dissatisfaction with the official narrative though - in fact I think it probably does. Mohamed al-Fayed can safely be ignored by TPTB - the hatchet job on him, together with his own ham-fistedness is assurance enough of that - but skeletons being rattled by the Althorps and their Argentinian connections? Hmmm that's another matter entirely; not to mention the cognitive dissonance that her two sons must be wrestling with.

Peter Presland Wrote:I agree David's 'Defense of the Realm Boys' attribution but pose the question 'where does that definition end and the Royal Household begin?'

My answer is that there's a seamless continuity. All Special Forces/Intel/Military officers swear allegiance to the Crown. We are regularly harangued about the implications of 'constitutional Monarchy' for allegedly real Royal power, but frankly most of that is for the gullible. 'Royal prerogative' powers are still greater in their scope than those of Parliament itself, up to and including declaring war. They are legally vested in the Prime Minister of the day but anyone who thinks the holder of that office does anything of significance these days other than on the advice of the Privy Council and/or other Deep State constructs, is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Peter Presland Wrote:The relationship between our present day Royal Household and Establishment upper echelons is essentially unchanged from medieval times. I think the anguished question posed by Henry II about Thomas Becket in 1170 "Will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest?" and its consequences is probably a pretty accurate analogy of what happened with Diana Princess of Wales.

Peter Presland Wrote:I agree David's 'Defense of the Realm Boys' attribution but pose the question 'where does that definition end and the Royal Household begin?'

David Guyatt Wrote:

Peter Presland Wrote:I agree David's 'Defense of the Realm Boys' attribution but pose the question 'where does that definition end and the Royal Household begin?'

I don't rule out that, say, the Duke (or more likely a senior functionary but not a blue blood) may have had a Thomas Becket moment. It's possible and we'll never know one way or the other of course. But I do sometimes look at the Royal Household and wonder about them, and think of the film the Last Emperor.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:

David Guyatt Wrote:

Peter Presland Wrote:I agree David's 'Defense of the Realm Boys' attribution but pose the question 'where does that definition end and the Royal Household begin?'

I don't rule out that, say, the Duke (or more likely a senior functionary but not a blue blood) may have had a Thomas Becket moment. It's possible and we'll never know one way or the other of course. But I do sometimes look at the Royal Household and wonder about them, and think of the film the Last Emperor.

Whatever, it seems their 'blue blood' runs 'ice cold'......I don't even think a verbal Thomas Becket moment would have been needed...just a look or long set of them....and the Praetorian Guard knowing that Diana was an 'embarrassment' and a 'hindrance' to certain sang froid en bleu. [as well as the British Arms Establishment with her anti-mine and cluster-bomb campaigns; not to mention a Royal, or former one, touching AIDS victims et al. - making them all look bad while being more popular with the Public than they were.]

Quote:Top secret files on Princess Diana and her closest associates are held by the United States national security agency - and that is official. The agency has told the Guardian that it is holding reports from foreign intelligence - thought to include MI5 and MI6 - under both top secret and secret categories. It revealed their existence after the Guardian filed a request under the US freedom of information act. The reports cannot be released because of "exceptionally grave damage to the national security".
The documents on the dead princess seem to have arisen because of the company she kept rather than through any attempt to target her, and the agency goes out of its way to say that it did not compile any of the spy reports itself.
"The reports contain only references to Princess Diana acquired incidentally from intelligence gathering. It is neither NSA policy or practice to target British subjects in conducting our foreign intelligence mission. However, other countries could communicate about these subjects; therefore, this agency could acquire intelligence concerning British subjects," an agency statement said.
The agency rejected the Guardian's request to release the files on two grounds. As well as warning that "the documents are classified because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security," the agency also says it needs to protect its sources.

Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:This is 1999 information I was not aware of:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/aug/06/monarchy.freedomofinformation

Quote:Top secret files on Princess Diana and her closest associates are held by the United States national security agency - and that is official. The agency has told the Guardian that it is holding reports from foreign intelligence - thought to include MI5 and MI6 - under both top secret and secret categories. It revealed their existence after the Guardian filed a request under the US freedom of information act. The reports cannot be released because of "exceptionally grave damage to the national security".
The documents on the dead princess seem to have arisen because of the company she kept rather than through any attempt to target her, and the agency goes out of its way to say that it did not compile any of the spy reports itself.
"The reports contain only references to Princess Diana acquired incidentally from intelligence gathering. It is neither NSA policy or practice to target British subjects in conducting our foreign intelligence mission. However, other countries could communicate about these subjects; therefore, this agency could acquire intelligence concerning British subjects," an agency statement said.
The agency rejected the Guardian's request to release the files on two grounds. As well as warning that "the documents are classified because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security," the agency also says it needs to protect its sources.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:I'd bet these documents include a 'smoking gun'...and that's why they'll never see the light of day. Truth has been universally outlawed in the 'West'~!

Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:This is 1999 information I was not aware of:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/aug/06/monarchy.freedomofinformation

Quote:It is neither NSA policy or practice to target British subjects in conducting our foreign intelligence mission.

Quote:The agency rejected the Guardian's request to release the files on two grounds. As well as warning that "the documents are classified because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security," ....