As I posted before, Diana believed MI5 was persecuting her for years and trying to harm her. In her Nov. 1995 interview she said she believed they leaked her phone call with James Gilbey for the purpose of doing her harm. In the book Diana on the Edge (1996) she is quoted as saying they would one day kill her.
There is no doubt in my mind that the secret service would do whatever it took to "preserve" the monarchy and there is no doubt that the Queen would not have tolerated a marriage between Diana and Dodi Fayed. It is known that the royal family were glad to be rid of Diana. Princess Margaret was quoted as saying so. It is known that Diana wanted more children, and not with Charles. She was divorced. She had not wanted the divorce, but it was forced on her. It is known she still loved Charles and would have taken him back had he apologized for his affair with Bowles, and turned over a new leaf. None of these things are speculation
I don't think murder can ever be proved, so that is why there is no point in talking about it. It was done carefully enough to make it look like several different accidental factors caused it. This is the last time I will write about it because it is too upsetting.
Let's say MI5 didn't do it. I much prefer to think that. However, in that case it is even worse. In that case, Diana's death was directly caused by the Queen, because the Queen alone had the power to leave Diana's status royal after the divorce. Yet she wrote new rules to cover the situation and any future situations like it, so that a divorced person who was HRH through marriage alone would lose the HRH upon divorce. That rule did not exist before, and was written just for Diana. This is fact, not speculation.
Diana would not have been in a car chase like that, without a seat belt on, without a phalanx of policemen around her, in front and back of the car she was in, if she had remained HRH The Princess of Wales. This is fact, not speculation. She would not have died.
Now, isn't it less painful to believe the shadowy MI5 assassinated her and Dodi to prevent their "loose cannon" from doing anything else spontaneous ever again? Otherwise you have nothing but meanspiritness and misunderstanding of her free spiritedness (which the world began to laud so much only after her death) which caused her to live a reckless, non-royal lifestyle.
Anyway, whether it was a direct assassination or directly caused by her treatment at the hands of the monarch, she is dead because she married into that family, therefore her death was in the cards at the wedding and the entire story is so tragic that I don't see how anyone can even enjoy looking at their royal souvenirs anymore. I cannot.
In the matter of collectibles, a separate subject:
In death she is even more of a moneymaker for free enterprise than she was during her life. Stamps are coming out (though delayed currently by Earl Spencer as he felt it was too soon); they will be hoarded and scalped. Whether or not the palace licenses her image, it will be used to cash in on her death.
"Commemorative" magazines are already lining the supermarket shelves; in one of them I counted 42 reversed pictures. A reversed picture is an obvious sign of a publication being carelessly rushed into print to cash in, not to pay tribute. Reversed pictures are not even flattering.
One of the persons who bought a dress of hers at the auction is cutting off the beads and selling them separately as earrings for $1,000 each, in other words, destroying the dress for profit.
Another woman is asking ten times what she paid for the dress, the beautiful red one she wore in Argentina.
A collector who claims he paid $500 for the Diana bride doll wants $5,000 for it. I have the original advertisement for the doll, which cost $185 when it came out, and I considered that too much to pay for a doll in the mid-80's and STILL DO.
The British papers accept that it was an accident and there is no talk of assassination. Only "loonies" are currently talking about that and not in a plausible way (i.e. if the person was a mental patient, that means his ideas are ludicrous. However, that isn't logical. Mental patients also may believe in things that are possible). No one wants to face the facts, no one writes about how she died. In death the TV plays her charitable visits to hospitals over and over but no longer shows the swimsuit frolicking pictures with the son of the billionaire Egyptian owner of Harrod's who was himself involved in a government scandal.
No one talks about how much the British papers despised her and criticized her ever since the Morton book came out in 1992. She read all these papers; no one thought about that. She found some peace in her charitable works and her belief in using her stardom for good purposes, but guess what? For those who don't know because they didn't read about her in the last few years, her charitable works were mocked and scorned. The royal family were shocked when she spent hours at the bedside of her friend who was dying of AIDS. They were shocked when she attended his funeral. AIDS was an unsuitable subject to them, and only recently has it become a suitable subject thanks in part to her willingness to be associated with it as a cause.
Her own ideas were thought to be stupid by the royal family and the British press, and many members of the British government. None of this is speculation; it is all in black and white for those who saved back issues of newspapers.
She was despised in life except by the common people and her friends
and family, and those who despised her are now relieved. Her death will
never be pinned on those who hated her, but I am a voice in the wilderness
saying that I know they killed her, that it was neither Henri Paul nor
the paparazzi who killed her.