XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british, alt.talk.royalty   
   From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk   
      
   In article <1140021611.063992.232110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,   
   drawnai@hotmail.com writes   
      
   >I don't care.   
   >   
   >There's plenty of evidence in cold war museums indicating that if we'd   
   >wanted to bump her off, we would have, however, from all the books I've   
   >ever read, one only assassinates people in a very violent fashion as a   
   >warning to his comrades, and then you make it obvious, otherwise you do   
   >it as quietly as possible and guarantee the death. The Mercedes crash   
   >didn't guarantee the death.   
      
   Do you know how long it took to get her to the hospital? Even once the   
   ambulance left the tunnel, it took about 45 minutes to drive less than 4   
   miles.   
      
   True, the crash in itself didn't guarantee her death. But it brought the   
   car to a halt in the chosen place. Would you fancy your own chances   
   against a death squad in such circumstances - commissioned by interests   
   that had friendly relations with the host State's authorities?   
      
   >I'm sure, MI6, the CIA, the Mossad, the KGB, etc. etc. all have teams   
   >of psychologists far better than me, and even I know that if you're   
   >going to whack someone who is beautiful, you make them ugly first,   
   >because ugly people get less public sympathy.   
   >   
   >So were I James Bond, which I'm not and never will be, I'd have given   
   >her something that made her disfigured, such as a plutonium inhaler.   
   >The ensuing lung cancer would have cost her her hair, looks,   
   >confidence, and public support.   
      
   Are you serious in suggesting that this counter-factual line of thought   
   makes it less likely that she was whacked?   
      
      
      
   >So the next thing to ask is Cui Bono? The only two people who would   
   >have benefitted by her death were the makers of landmines, and Prince   
   >Charles. Since Charlie was divorced anyway, that's out of the frame.   
   >The only feasible people behind it would be a government with large   
   >defence contracts.   
   >   
   >So there it is, she could've been murdered for her anti war campaigning   
   >but so fucking what? The defence industry keeps millions of people   
   >employed, and it's a dirty world. Not everyone had the millions she   
   >did, so if she was whacked she was fucking asking for it.   
      
   Ah? Your real feelings come out?   
      
   >She should've   
   >stuck to advertising clothes. I don't remember ever voting for her to   
   >push her own personal ninny agenda onto my politicians.   
      
   OK. If you have got an open mind, you've got to read what the newspapers   
   were saying - the ones printed hours before the assassination and which   
   plopped onto doormats hours after it. You may get a surprise. Here are   
   some extracts, including from Andrew Roberts's article in the 'Sunday   
   Times'.   
      
      
   ***BEGIN ARTICLE FROM 'SUNDAY MIRROR***   
      
      
   Queen to ‘To Strip Harrods of Its Royal Crest'   
   London Sunday Mirror   
   31 August 1997   
      
      
    THE Royal Family may withdraw their seal of approval from Harrods as   
   a result of Diana's affair with owner's son Dodi Fayed.   
      
      
    The top people's store - with its long and proud tradition of royal   
   patronage - may be about to lose the Prince of Wales royal crest.   
      
      
    Senior Palace courtiers are ready to advise the Queen that she should   
   refuse to renew the prestigious royal warrants for the Knightsbridge   
   store when they come up for review in February.   
      
      
    It would be a huge blow to the ego of store owner Mohamed Al Fayed -   
   and would infuriate Diana, who was yesterday understood to be still   
   with Dodi aboard his yacht, near the Italian island of Sardinia. But   
   the Royal Family are furious about the frolics of Di, 36, and Dodi,   
   41, which they believe have further undermined the monarchy.   
      
      
    Prince Philips, in particular, has made no secret as to how he feels   
   about his daughter-in-law's latest man, referring to Dodi as an "oily   
   bed-hopper."   
      
      
   At Balmoral next week, the Queen will preside over a meeting of The   
   Way Ahead Group where the Windsors sit down with their senior advisers   
   to discuss policy matters.   
      
      
    MI6 has prepared a special report on the Egyptian-born Fayeds which   
   will be presented at the meeting.   
      
      
    The delicate subject of Harrods and its royal warrants is also   
   expected to be discussed. And the Fayeds can expect little sympathy   
   from Philip.   
      
      
    A friend of the Royals said yesterday: "Prince Philip has let rip   
   several times recently about the Fayeds - at a dinner party, during a   
   country shoot, and while on a visit to close friends in Germany.   
      
      
    "He's been banging on about his contempt for Dodi and how he is   
   undesirable as a future stepfather to William and Harry.   
      
      
    "Diana has been told in no uncertain terms about the consequences   
   should she continue the relationship with the Fayed boy.   
      
      
    "Options must include possible exile, although that would be very   
   difficult as when all is said and done, she is the mother of the   
   future King of England.   
      
      
    "She has also been warned about social ostracism. But Diana's   
   attitude is if that means not having to deal with the royals and their   
   kind, then she would be delighted."   
      
      
    There are some who believe Diana may be past caring and has decided   
   to look towards those who can afford to keep her in the lifestyle to   
   which she became accustomed.   
      
      
    The Fayed family have all the trappings of vast wealth - wherever it   
   originated from.   
      
      
    And Dodi has told Diana what he has told many of his other beautiful   
   girlfriends in the past: "It's my father's store and you can have what   
   you want. Charge it to my account and I'll just sign the bill."   
      
      
    But now the Royal Family may decide it's time to settle up.   
      
      
   ***END ARTICLE FROM 'SUNDAY MIRROR***   
      
      
   ***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM ARTICLE FROM 'SUNDAY TIMES***   
      
      
   Sunday Times   
   [Andrew Roberts]   
   [31 August 1997]   
      
      
   The PR that the Conservatives should be concerned about is not the   
   princess's public relations but her possible future power under   
   proportional representation. If, as Labour hinted in its manifesto,   
   proportional representation is introduced, a Princess's party could win   
   half a million Tory working-class votes, entitling it to a dozen seats   
   in   
   parliament. In George Bernard Shaw's play The Apple Cart, a popular   
   British king threatened to abdicate and stand for political office. The   
   government soon backed down.   
      
      
   Should Princess Diana ever hold the balance of power in a future   
   House of Commons [...] spokesmen might soon discover a new tone of   
   respect for "the mother of our future king."   
      
      
   ***END EXTRACT FROM ARTICLE FROM 'SUNDAY TIMES'***   
      
      
   ***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM ARTICLE FROM 'EXPRESS ON SUNDAY'***   
      
      
   Express on Sunday   
   [Petronella Wyatt]   
   [31 August 1997]   
      
      
   It's a pity Gucci don't make designer face zips, then when Princess   
   Diana was on the verge of opening her ill-informed mouth and causing   
   an international incident (an increasingly frequent occurance these   
   days) she could just zip her trap shut... The Princess, I fear,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)