Princess Diana -accident or murder.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:Doesn't matter! That baby would've been half-sibling to a future king.

So what?   What do you suppose would have happened?  

With the hoo-ha we have about Muslims at the moment? Do you really need me to imagine it for you?
Listen, I have no idea if she was killed or pregnant or even serious about Dodi Fayed, I just think having a Royal Muslim would have created some huge problems.

I think I need you to imagine it for me; I can't see how it would change anything.

Handy Andy wrote:
That would mean Diana  had the gestation of an elephant.
They do look like brothers , though.

Handy Andy wrote:Already posted this elsewhere, but I am uneasy to 100% commi to the the accident theory.
There is a lot of contradictory  evidence.
I shan't  post links- there are too many and some are just bunkum, but I did a lot of research on this a while ago and there IS doubt.
Feel free to discuss and evidence either side of the argument- I am not wholly committed to  being convinced one way or the other.
Was it sanctioned by the Government at the behest of the royal family.
Were Mi5/SAS involved.
Was she pregnant by a Muslim.
Was she engaged to Dodi.
Were the loose ends not completely cleared up.

Handy Andy wrote:Hi SM. I am unconvinced either way. I posed the question for debate,of which there has been very intelligent and articulate  contributions from both camps, and no name calling.
On this matter,I have no real evidence and cannot dear a conclusion,other than gut instinct.
That tells me there are questions that need answering and one day they will. But not in my lifetime.
Like the JFK murder,some know the whole truth, most have to settle for the official  line.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:I guess the establishment didn't  want Muslim kids as heirs to the throne.

"heirs to the throne"   ???

HOW MANY relatives to the Royals would have had to be bumped off (including all those distant cousins in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other parts of the globe..), before a possible future  bastard child to Diana might have been in line to ascend to the throne ?

Handy Andy wrote:I have to pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to this thread - no politics,no angriness  and no name calling. How a debate should be.

Handy Andy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

???

http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2015/prince-harry-paternity-scandal-princess-diana-lover-james-hewitt-met-di-18-months-before-harry-was-born/

That would mean Diana  had the gestation of an elephant.
They do look like brothers , though.

Entertainment News wrote:In the past Hewitt has insisted that he didn't meet Princess Diana until two years after Prince Harry was born, so there's no way he could be his father.  However, according to GLOBE, in the shocking new play about Hewitt’s affair with Diana, it Is revealed that Hewitt actually met Diana 18-months before Harry was born—meaning that he truly could be the Prince’s father.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:I have to pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to this thread - no politics,no angriness  and no name calling. How a debate should be.

Handy Andy wrote:Just a thought,Tom. Is this a good thread BECAUSE you haven't contributed?.
I am surprised you didn't  offer your usual response.

eddie wrote: a serial whiner, or even particularly troublesome. He rarely gets involved in personal wars apart from the odd name-altering of others

eddie wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:Just a thought,Tom. Is this a good thread BECAUSE you haven't contributed?.
I am surprised you didn't  offer your usual response.

HA, I'll give you a thought;  Tommy irritates people, but he isn't one of the names that ever crops up as a serial whiner, or even particularly troublesome.  He rarely gets involved in personal wars apart from the odd name-altering of others (and only to those who do it to him - go and notice why don't you?).
He's not an angel but you'd be hard-pressed to find him being abusive.....irritating, certainly.

Handy Andy wrote:

eddie wrote:

HA, I'll give you a thought;  Tommy irritates people, but he isn't one of the names that ever crops up as a serial whiner, or even particularly troublesome.  He rarely gets involved in personal wars apart from the odd name-altering of others (and only to those who do it to him - go and notice why don't you?).
He's not an angel but you'd be hard-pressed to find him being abusive.....irritating, certainly.

Tommy likes a good conspiracy,  I thought he might have contributed to  this one . No politics, no religion and no ethnic debates.
Perhaps that is why he hasn't posted on here

Tommy Monk wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:
Tommy likes a good conspiracy,  I thought he might have contributed to  this one . No politics, no religion and no ethnic debates.
Perhaps that is why he hasn't posted on here

I get criticised for posting on threads... then I get criticised for not posting on threads...

And this topic is all about politics, religion and ethnics...!!!