Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Prince Charles' wives and auto accidents

  1. #21
    Myra Bronstein Guest

    Default

    "Leg-over"???

    How poetic. :rolleyes:

  2. Default

    Most interewsting, I too had never heard of her. Doubtful she "fell" from the window.

    Re Diana, also keep in mind that she wrote in her private diary, approximately six months before her demise, that she would be killed by her inlaws in a car accident. Her butler and confidant eventually shared this, and I saw that it was in her own hand writing. (It may have been a letter to him for safekeeping and not a diary, forget which). But she was DEFINATELY murdered.

    CD is correct that "why" is what is important. Many possible reasons have been speculated upon. All relevent, and interesting.

    Dawn

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myra Bronstein View Post
    "Leg-over"???

    How poetic. :rolleyes:
    :D

    There was a young lady from Dover,
    Who asked a prince for a leg-over,
    She gasped at his size,
    He gasped at her thighs,
    And in two shakes it was all over.
    Last edited by David Guyatt; 11-07-2008 at 06:57 PM.
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  4. #24

    Default

    I defy anyone not to laugh at the following -- the legendary Brian Johnston cricket commentary.

    Who says cricket isn't fun:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/sport/bestcommentary/

    Click the link "listen to Jonathan Agnew and Brian Johnston"

    Sit back and grin...
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  5. #25
    Myra Bronstein Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Guyatt View Post
    I defy anyone not to laugh at the following -- the legendary Brian Johnston cricket commentary.

    Who says cricket isn't fun:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/sport/bestcommentary/

    Click the link "listen to Jonathan Agnew and Brian Johnston"

    Sit back and grin...
    Oh dear.
    :D
    When an Englishman can't keep his composure during a cricket match, then what hope is there for the rest of us?

  6. #26

    Default John Morgan names Princess Diana’s MI6 assassin

    Quote Originally Posted by Myra Bronstein View Post
    Um, so to summarize:

    6/97-Charles' mistress Camilla Parker Bowles has a serious auto accident.

    8/97-Charles' ex wife Diana dies in the auto "accident" in Paris.

    11/97-Charles' ex mistress Kanga Tryon dies.

    That's quite a time line.
    John Morgan names Princess Diana’s MI6 assassin on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio:

    http://noliesradio.org/archives/93121

    Second hour: John Morgan

    A bombshell new book published this week names the MI6 officer who headed the operation team that carried out the assassination of Princess Diana in Paris in late-August 1997.

    The book entitled How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth is the most complete evidence-based account yet published on the car crash in the Alma Tunnel that took the lives of Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed.

    Written by Australian author John Morgan – who has been researching the deaths for the past nine years – this book exposes Sherard Cowper-Coles, former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, as the head of the assassination operation that orchestrated the car crash. Also revealed is substantial detail on how the murder was carried out – the naming of MI6 agents employed on the job and particulars about their respective roles.

    The book reveals that Princess Diana was effectively murdered by deliberate mistreatment in her ambulance by people who were supposed to be saving her life. The author shows that this was a back-up plan which was automatically triggered after it became clear that Diana had survived the crash.

    Morgan has spent years studying and assessing the huge amount of evidence pertaining to the Paris crash – including over 8,000 pages of inquest transcripts and official police investigative reports. He also analysed and published over 500 documents that were secretly supplied to him in 2010. The explosive material – which included the official post-mortem reports for both Diana and Dodi – came from within the Scotland Yard Paget investigation, but all 500 plus documents had been fraudulently withheld from the inquest jury in London.

    How They Murdered Princess Diana covers the entire story of what occurred, including the massive post-crash cover-up conducted by British authorities. The book exposes the official 2007-8 inquest into the deaths as one of the most corrupt court investigations in England’s judicial history. This is the first time the complete story has been addressed in such chilling detail – a true account using the witnesses own words that will at times leave the reader shocked, aghast and breathless.

    A leading UK QC, Michael Mansfield, who served throughout the six months of the London inquest has stated: “I have no doubt that the volumes written by John Morgan will come to be regarded as the ‘Magnum Opus’ on the crash … that resulted in the unlawful killing of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed and the cover-up that followed.”

    Speaking from his home in Brisbane Morgan – who features in a London play titled Truth Lies Diana starting in Charing Cross Theatre in January 2015 – says that the time is approaching when the parties who carried out the assassination must be brought to justice. He said that “the Paris crash was one of the most highly-coordinated inter-governmental operations ever carried out – and the ensuing cover-up over many years has been just as coordinated and just as sinister”. Morgan continued: “Many in the public now know that an assassination occurred on that night in Paris and are hopeful that there will be some justice and the perpetrators will be called to account, sooner rather than later”
    http://princessdianadeaththeevidence...ess-diana.html

    Product details
    Paperback: 798 pages
    Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (10 Dec 2014)
    Language: English
    ISBN-10: 1505375061
    ISBN-13: 978-1505375060
    "There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"

    Joseph Fouche

  7. #27

    Default

    I always figured the ambulance did it. It took 1 1/2 hours for that ambulance to arrive at the chosen hospital, bypassing two others on the way. Does the author name the ambulance men, because they really are the ones with the bloody hands?
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  8. Default

    Morgan has multiple books out on this subject and by critical reputation seems to be the acknowledged expert on the matter.

    This 2012 book is an overall summary of his thesis, putting his research into a single short narrative.

    http://www.amazon.com/Paris-London-C...d_bxgy_b_img_y

    Annie Machon and David Shayler are thanked in the opening comments. Before David Shayler fell under the spell of (from memory) an intelligence-linked therapist who clearly knew which psychological wires to cross to turn Shayler into an easy target for ridicule, Shayler closed out an interview (years ago) on the Webster Tarpley show with a brief discussion of the Diana case. As the closing credits music played, Tarpley said "David, tell us about the death of Princess Diana", and Shayley noted (a.) he'd heard that Diana was about to come out in support of the Palestinians, and (b.) a dossier that had been brandished by Mohamed Al Fayed as evidence for a conspiracy regarding Diana's death had been deliberately concocted by British intelligence to lead Al Fayed up the garden path and discredit any theories that would accrue from that document.

    Morgan's other books (which seem to total a few thousand pages of research) are all available on Amazon. This review of one of them seems instructive - it's from 'Michael Nyman' (presumably not the musician) on Amazon UK, and reviews a book Morgan wrote in response to an earlier, possibly misleading Diana volume by author Alan Power:

    "I was closely involved between 2007-11 in the making of a now-suppressed documentary film about the Unlawful Killing of Princess Diana. I have read every word of the transcript from the 2007-08 inquest into her death, and I have also read all of John Morgan's books, as well as the book by Alan Power. Therefore, my view of the respective merits of these two authors may be of some interest to readers.

    Morgan's books are invaluable to anyone who wishes to understand what happened to Diana in Paris in August 1997, and what took place in the Royal Courts of Justice in 2007-08, where a corrupt farce of an inquest into her death was conducted. The books are rigorously academic in presentation, with every fact meticulously footnoted and referenced, and they are exhaustively indexed, all of which makes it very easy independently to verify the information (an absolutely essential prerequisite for any serious factual book, in my opinion). During the four years that we were making the documentary, our research team and I found the books (as they came to be written and published, because none of the inquest volumes had yet appeared when we began our own research) to be consistently accurate and trustworthy, and to corroborate our own independent investigations, with only a small handful of tiny errors. As somebody who has also completed a PhD (on an entirely different subject), I recognise in Morgan's work the painstaking attention to detail and accuracy that marks out a true scholar. This does, almost by definition, mean that his six weighty volumes of inquest analysis (plus another book about the 2006 Paget Report, and a large volume of police documents that the coroner withheld from the jury) are not easy to read. They are quite formidable in their sheer density, and the casual reader might feel daunted at embarking on a task of such Proustian dimensions. However, in 2012 Morgan did publish a summary - "Paris-London Connection" - a cut-to-the-chase version of his previous work. That short book is narrative in tone, rather than strictly academic, and I would happily recommend it to any interested reader. It has very few footnotes, but the factual basis for everything that Morgan writes about in that short book can be quickly found via the indexes of his larger series of books.

    I first heard about Alan Power's "The Princess Diana Conspiracy" in the autumn of this year, and because it talked about SAS involvement in Diana's death (at a time when a similar allegation by "Soldier N" had become a news item), I purchased a copy of the Kindle edition. What struck me within the first few pages was that the author did not seem to have a secure grasp on the facts which he was allegedly marshalling in support of his central thesis (namely that Diana had been killed by the British Establishment, and specifically by the SAS). Every page was strewn with incorrect dates and quotes, witness statements (which, during my research, I had read in facsimile copies) had been changed, and there were no footnotes or references, so the casual reader would have no easy way to double-check the truth or falsity of what they were being told. Had I not spent four years researching the facts for a documentary, I might well have been taken in by Power's superficially plausible narrative, but as I read on I was appalled by his inability to get even the basic details correct. He doesn't seem to know what verdict the inquest jury brought in, nor understand the evidence that MI6 gave, nor the circumstances surrounding the divorce between Diana and Charles, nor who wrote the Mishcon Note nor... well, I could go on and on and on, but long before I reached the end (and I forced myself to get there!) I had reached the conclusion that this was an utterly worthless book, written by somebody who either didn't know or didn't care about the facts. He eventually comes to the (in my view) correct conclusion that Diana was deliberately killed by the British Establishment, but the "facts" he cites to support this are mostly fiction. And we're not just talking about a few errors here, we're talking about a book that is entirely and demonstrably constructed on nonsense, and that could easily be shot down in flames by anyone who actually knows the details of this case.

    Why John Morgan has gone to the considerable trouble of publishing an entire book - "Alan Power Exposed" - which does indeed shoot it down in flames is for him to say, not me. However, I doubt if it has anything to do with one author being jealous of the success of another (which seems to be the main contention of the somewhat overheated review posted by Alan Power on this page). Hundreds of books about what did or did not happen to Diana have been published over the past sixteen years, and several of them have sold far better than Power's book (or indeed than Morgan's books) - "The Murder of Princess Diana" by Noel Botham, for example - yet I am unaware of him having ever commented publicly on them. Having now read Morgan's review of Power's book, I see that he not only itemises the hundreds of errors that Power's book contains, but also suggests that Power might have deliberately written such a misleading book as a "vicious plot" (perhaps in conjunction with the intelligence services), to sow confusion amongst those who seek justice for Diana, and to make the whole movement seem like a bunch of crazed conspiracy theorists who cannot differentiate between fact and fiction. I don't know whether that is the case or not, but for Mr Power's sake I hope it is, because in that case he can undoubtedly claim to have had some success in misleading the public. Whereas, if he really carried out the years of research that he claims to have conducted, and then wrote this book in all sincerity, he must be in the running for the title of the most incompetent author who ever set pen to paper (or whatever the electronic equivalent of that phrase is nowadays).

    Readers should, of course, think for themselves, and not take too much notice of any one review, (including this one!). But if they are tempted to read Alan Power's book on Diana, then I would humbly suggest that they also acquire a copy of John Morgan's review, which (because it continually gives references which allow the reader to verify information independently) will enable them to test the worth of the Power book for themselves. I think they will find, as I did, that there is something deeply wrong with Power's book, though whether the cause of that is mere incompetence, or something more malign, I am not in a position to say."

  9. Default

    Like with books on the JFK assassination, this Diana book- the one reviewed- appears to have been written to make conspiracy view look foolish, an old ploy for certain.
    I daresay keeping up with the truth in all of these matters is a full -time avocation. And what is even more obvious is that there clearly has never been anything close to a "free press". "Operation Mockingbird" may have been coined in 1947, but its reality is as old as time itself. Which is why no justice is ever achieved.

    Dawn

    ps Good to see this this thread revived, Diana's murder has always been of interest on this forum.

  10. #30

    Default Review of new play: Truth, Lies, Diana

    Truth, Lies, Diana, review: 'tricksy'
    Dominic Cavendish gives his verdict on the controversial new play about the life and death of Diana, Princess of Wales and her relationship with James Hewitt

    By Dominic Cavendish

    12:12PM GMT 11 Jan 2015

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...itt-harry.html

    After attracting huge amounts of publicity ahead of its opening night – thanks to reports that it contains revelations concerning James Hewitt – Truth, Lies, Diana, a new playing looking afresh at the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, was exposed to the public for the first time on Saturday. Though critics aren’t being invited until the middle of next week, I’m afraid my curiosity got the better of me.

    Has Jon Conway’s attempt to get us all talking again about the events of August 1997 got the news value it has been credited with? Has it got any value in fact?

    I’ll have to say it straightaway: as a drama, it’s pretty patchy. Conway, writer as well as performer here, is playing a fictional alter-ego called Ray who decides to undertake a DIY investigation into Diana’s demise, talking to relevant parties, digging through existing material – in the hope, increasingly subject to paranoia and fear, of staging a play that opens up the subject to public debate.

    The concept often feels too tricksy for its own good, creates a stop-start sense of gears being abruptly shifted and devotes too much of its time and energies to Ray’s art-meets-life worries about his wife’s fidelity and his own fragile state of mind.

    But despite its convoluted quality, there’s no question that this is a little David of a play that the Goliath of the establishment would probably rather didn’t exist. The biggest headline-grabbing revelation of the night, already reported, involves a scene in which Hewitt (quoted verbatim, we’re told) is visited in Marbella, southern Spain. “Are you Prince Harry’s father?” he is asked. Hewitt (actor Fred Perry in fitting blazer with apt braying accent) maintains a dignified silence.

    But a few minutes later he states “I started my relationship with Diana the year before Harry was born.” That’s a direct contradiction of what the former Household Cavalry officer has maintained in the past: in 2002 he was reported as saying: “Harry was already walking by the time my relationship with Diana began.”

    What are we to make of that? As much or as little as we care to – there’s no explicit suggestion that he is Prince Harry’s father, but these few asides will serve to keep the rumour-mill going.

    Conway’s primary interest, though, lies in piecing together sundry salient details about the events leading up to and after the crash. The picture formed gives an unnerving amount of plausibility to those who maintain that MI6 were involved and that there was a cover-up; given that Conway consulted the forensic and obsessive author John Morgan (also shown on stage), whose researched volumes include “The Assassination of Diana”, that’s not surprising.

    But even if the theories have been aired before, and contested too, putting them on stage does give them a whole new lease of life.
    There’s an enjoyable aspect to the night - a whole gallery of recognisable faces are brought to life by the cast of nine, including Mohamed Al-Fayed, Piers Morgan and Paul Burrell, along with some of those who held sway at the inquiry and inquest.

    There’s a symbolic composite figure too of the shadowy “men in grey” who supposedly run things, and even the back of the Queen’s head, confiding warnings that some things are best left alone.

    I suppose underlying it all is the pathos of what happened to Diana, and a sense that all these years later we can’t leave her be. Some will argue that this is a cheaply exploitative show but I think its heart is in the right place, trying to do justice by “the People’s Princess”.
    Until Feb 14. Tickets: 0844 493 0650; charingcrosstheatre.co.uk
    "There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"

    Joseph Fouche

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •