From: fred.henson@sandpaperfilms.com   
      
   Is anyone on here still active? Please let me know if so   
      
   On Tuesday, 16 January 2007 at 20:47:00 UTC, banana wrote:   
   > Breton wrote:   
   > > za...@aol.com wrote:   
   > > > banana wrote:   
   > > > > 1) Princess Diana was not a member of the 'royal' family when she   
   > > > > died.   
   > > >   
   > > >   
   > > > Pardon me, but even though Diana wasn't born royal wouldn't being the   
   > > > mother of a future king automatically bestow the royal status on her?   
   > > > Just curious. Thanks.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > No. Diana acquired Royal status upon her marriage to the Prince of   
   > > Wales (in the UK women take their rank and style from their husbands).   
   > > Therefore, upon her divorce the Royal status no longer applied.   
   > > However, the Queen did announce (and this is mentioned in the Butler   
   > > Sloss decision of last week) that Diana would continue to be considered   
   > > as a member of the RF. Presumable this recognized her position as the   
   > > mother of the Princes.   
   > Princess Diana was removed from membership of the 'royal' family after   
   > she and her husband got divorced (and they got divorced on the orders   
   > of the 'queen' following the 'Panorama' interview).   
   > >From then on she was not HRH and she was not a member of the 'royal'   
   > family. The 'queen' even ordered that her name be removed from the   
   > Church of England's 'Book of Common Prayer'.   
   > (For those who don't already know, members of the Church of England   
   > regularly 'pray' for members of the 'royal' family).   
   > The idea that she was a member of the 'royal' family when she died was   
   > first seriously put out in 2007.   
   > The reasons are   
   > 1) to depict that family as properly having something to do with her   
   > affairs,   
   > and, more particularly 2) to cover up the meaning of coroner John   
   > Burton's disgraceful action in transferring jurisdiction to himself as   
   > the 'queen's' coroner.   
   > I don't doubt that he got his orders from the 'royal' family in 1997.   
   > As I keep saying, different 'rules' apply in the 'UK' where the 'royal'   
   > family are involved. A high enough official can always be found to say   
   > 'fuck the rules on this occasion'.   
   > What should be asked is this: WHY WAS CORONER JOHN BURTON EVEN TALKING   
   > TO THE 'ROYAL' FAMILY IN THE MATTER OF WHAT WAS TO BE DONE WITH THE   
   > BODY OF SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT FAMILY?   
   > On how many other occasions have coroners asked hated ex-in-laws for   
   > info as to what's going to happen to a body? Can anyone even find a   
   > single example?   
   > And please, don't anyone go on about the 'royal' princes. They were   
   > under the age of majority, and they had no say in the matter of where   
   > she would or would not be buried. No role in organising the funeral   
   > whatsoever. People under the age of 18 can't even engage a funeral   
   > director, because the funeral director couldn't guarantee getting paid.   
   > Is anyone else noticing that the 'royal' public relations stunts are   
   > becoming increasingly idiotic?   
   > I mean:   
   > - saying that the issues are too difficult for a jury!   
   > - saying she was in the 'royal' family when she died!   
   > - publishing a letter from her sons saying 'get the inquest over with   
   > quickly'!   
   > - saying that since Surrey hasn't got any big rooms available, the Dodi   
   > Fayed inquest will be transferred to the jurisdiction of the 'queen's'   
   > coroner!   
   > - 'discovering' handwritten notes from John Burton, 10 years after the   
   > event, but which curiously weren't available to the Department of   
   > Constitutional Affairs last summer, saying he thought the body would go   
   > to Windsor   
   > They are bound to trip themselves up even more.   
   > banana   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)