XPost: alt.talk.royalty, alt.conspiracy, alt.gossip.royalty   
   From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk   
      
   In article <1142189837.379901.23720@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,   
   volcaran  writes   
   >   
   >banana wrote:   
   >> In article <26z1WKABOBFEFwWu@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana > HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes   
   >>   
   >> >This is an important article. The 'Sunday Times' is catching up with   
   >> >what we have been discussing on alt.conspiracy.princess-diana for years.   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >> >  b) for the record (and although irrelevant to the issue of coronial   
   >> >  jurisdiction) 'Princess' Diana was NOT a member of the 'royal' family   
   >> >  when she died.   
   >> >   
   >> >  (Could any journalists reading this please get the above point through   
   >> >  their thick heads?)   
   >   
   >Since you accept her royal status or otherwise is not relevant why is   
   >it an issue?   
      
   For this reason: because to present her as a member of the 'royal'   
   family is to say that she was in the same family as 'Prince' Charles   
   when she died - which she most definitely wasn't. I doubt that there has   
   ever been another case when an ex-husband has had the body of his   
   ex-wife taken out of a foreign country, in which she had died an   
   unnatural death, and kept it in his house in England, with the explicit   
   and open cooperation of the UK/English authorities.   
      
   By obscuring the fact that she wasn't a member of the 'royal' family, or   
   by saying the opposite, the media controllers can present certain   
   assertions, such as that a copy of 'Lord' Stevens's report will be given   
   to 'Prince' Charles, appear as if they were 'normal'.   
      
   >> This last bit wasn't aimed at David Leppard, who does mention that she   
   >> wasn't a member of the 'royal' family when she died. But he hardly gives   
   >> a good picture of the legal circumstances in which an inquest is   
   >> supposed to come under the jurisdiction of the coroner of the 'royal'   
   >> household.   
   >>   
   >> And yet the issue of whether or not such circumstances were actually   
   >> present appears to be one which Mohamed al-Fayed's lawyer Michael   
   >> Mansfield is saying he could mount a successful legal challenge over.   
   >> More power to his elbow.   
      
   >The jurisdiction of coroner when there is an unnatural death abroad is   
   >not determined by the Coroner's Act but by Home Office direction as we   
   >have debated before.   
      
   To the extent that that played a role, if any, it is of course open to   
   judicial review.   
      
   >As far as I can see Fayed has no legitimate claim   
   >to dispute the circumstances of Diana's inquest - he is not a relative.   
   >His son's inquest is under the Surrey Coroner. One wonders why he wants   
   >yet a further delay having been partly responsible for some of the   
   >delay caused in the French proceedings which in turn has delayed the UK   
   >inquests. Maybe he is getting concerned that a claim against his empire   
   >looms large.   
      
   I would have thought he'd accept the convening of a joint inquest,   
   before a jury of 'members of the public', tomorrow. It is inaccurate to   
   blame him for causing delay.   
      
   --   
   banana     "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you   
               give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to   
               Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the   
               rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)