for those of you who haven't heard of princess diana, she was a british princess- who came to power via marriage. She gave birth to prince William. She was in a lot of trouble with the goverment, and "accidently" died in a car crash. if you'll like to find out more, there are loads of sites, some saying it was a accident, others saying that the driver was drugged and the death was on purpose.

All i'm going to say is....The goverment can get away with ANYTHING if they have enough money to- A) get someone to do the dirty work for them, B) create a alibi and C) do it in a way which would suggest that it would be impossible to be a murder.

I wouldn't say murder, because I don't think it was premeditated. Also I don't believe the government was behind it. She was chased by photographers, so I'd say it was vehicular manslaughter.

Ah, that theory.....Find it funny why a profession limosine driver who was employed to drive for royalty, would go over the speed limit like that to get her away from the papparazzi?

Or perhaps, that no-body investigated properly to see wheather the man was durgged, which i find very odd, because most of the time some kind of forenzic investigation is carried out in those cases.

Thirdly, we were TOLD by the media and goverment it was a accident, this was "confirmed" almost straight after her death with no solid evidence to back it up, were the goverment trying to hide something?

Also, don't you find it suspicious how this death happened just after she got a divorce and was going to let rip about the affair prince charles was having?
Royals, in my expirence, are meant to look perfect. They are representing our country, and they can never let bad press come of royals (blood royals, that is.).

why a profession limosine driver who was employed to drive for royalty, would go over the speed limit like that to get her away from the papparazzi?
People have run over other people (paparazzi and pedestrians). And Diana is hardly the only one to have had an accident due to them and/or trying to get away from them.

If you want to see conspiracy (and racism, and sexism, or anything, really) you're going to.

they can never let bad press come of royals (blood royals, that is.).
*Cough*KingGeorgeVII,KingEdwardVIII*cough­*

royals who are alive would be my focus on, bri-marie.

"
If you want to see conspiracy (and racism, and sexism, or anything, really) you're going to."
Um...what does racism or sexism have to do with a royal car crash?
It's not that i'm glad or hoping it was a murder- not at all, it's just it happened at a questionable time, no one can deny that. it was just after her divorce and it all seemed very....odd. Plus, it's happened before, the monarchy have a rather long history of bumping people off. True, mostly in the times of medieval to victorian times, but money= power. and you can do crazy things with power.

It happens today just as often as it did in the 1950s.

My point was that if you want to see it, it's there. It doesn't matter if it's a conspiracy, corruption, racism. There is no proof that what happened to Diana was mudered. And yet, people still go "it was murder it was murder!"

I've always thought that... agree with you pandawinx

"There is no proof that what happened to Diana was mudered." But there was no solid proof she WASN'T. True, it is common to create things like that in your head because it sounds more interesting, but at one point i just assumed it was a accident.
Then again, just as if you want to see something it's there, if you don't want to face the truth, people can force themselves to believe anything. Like for example, when a loved one dies, some people don't want to face the fact someone's dead, so they deny it for a short period of time after there death.
And few wanted to think of our goverment as being able to kill, because it's scary to think about.

so in conclusion-
1. Your absolutely right, there was no proof she was murdered...
2. But there is no proof she wasn't.
3. Again, completely correct, if people want to believe something, they will.
4. But some people wanted to think as it as a accident, so they make themselves believe it wasn't. it can go both ways.
5. in responce to your first comment,Like i mentioned, i was talking about the victorians, as in the reign of queen victoria, who died long before the 1950s. (1902 to be exact, making her the longest reigning monarch in britain's history. interesting stuff, huh?)

So, because there isn't proof that she was murdered, and there isn't proof that she wasn't, that means she was murdered. Not quite sure I follow the logic on that one.

I'm perfectly content to accept that fact that governments are abusive and will kill people if they feel the need to. However, I'm not going to just assume every time someone famous dies the government did it not unless there's undeniable proof or enough red flags (which isn't the case here).

5) You have said anything about Queen Victoria or that era. You said that royals couldn't have bad publicity. I pointed out that George VII and Edward VIII both had bad publicity. You made the comment "I was talking about royals who were alive" (which Queen Victoria most certainly isn't...) and I made the comment "It happens just as much today as it did in the 1950's" (when George and Edward ruled). No mention of the Victorians, Queen Victoria, or anything about the early 1900's at all.

"So, because there isn't proof that she was murdered, and there isn't proof that she wasn't, that means she was murdered" for the second time, it can slide both ways and you are being hypocrtical. You say it is bad to consider the possibility it was a murder because there is no proof, but you must assume it was accident, even thought there is no proof it wasn't. It is hard to decode where you stand on "proof" here.

"odd. Plus, it's happened before, the monarchy have a rather long history of bumping people off. True, mostly in the times of medieval to victorian times," this was before your comment on the 1950s

"accident: (ak-si-duhnt) Noun: an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap:"

It was very undesirable and unfortunate that Princess Diana was killed. There is no proof it was intentional.

"murder (mur-der)Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

You cannot say someone was murdered if there is no proof that it was premeditated. There is absolutely no proof that it was premeditated or intentional. Therefore, the only thing it was be is an accident.

Okay then. Except, I never said anything about that to begin with, so I'm not sure why you made a comment about talking about it. I commented on your bad publicity statement, not the government killing people.

though i tend to stick with the conspiracy theories, i have to go with accident on this one. but then again we will never know...

I almost always beleive conspiracy theories

There are ALOT of theories about Princess Di's death. Im a beleiver after reading this. I found this while reading about her on Wiki, for some reason Ive always been interested with her death, seeing as I was born months after it and I was named after her
link