Can we lay this Diana nonsense to rest now?

jessop1

Diogenes ...(in virtually every post on this forum) wrote:

Hey everyone. Put your fingers in your ears scrunch your eyes shut and keep shouting lalalalalalalala. There are no such thing as any conspiracies, all is well with the world. Now go back to sleep. Thats it.....sleeeeeeep.....mua whua whauaaaaaahahahahahaha!

:rolleyes:

billy the squid

for personal attack on another user and disrespecting their point of view, the ban would normally be a week for jessop1. however, seeing as your just four days out of a previous ban, this one is for one calender month.

jessop1

ah for gods sake you're taking it a bit far. twas said in jest!

jessop1

That is the most ridiculous example of over moderation I have ever seen.

UnHolyMoe

Diogenes wrote:

A) Diana wasn't pregnant.

According to Al Fyaid she told him she was.

Any Child of Diana's wouldn't inherit the throne, in pretty much any circumstances.

There is no written constitution in England so anything is possible.

Woa two non sequitur's in one. What's wrong the Zapruder film? What's wrong with the Diana pictures? What possible connection is there between the two

What I am highlighting here is that Zapruder film has been a point on which CT's have based their theories and I believe that the Diana pictures could show us who was around at the time of the crash and what was their purpose there.

Diogenes

UnHolyMoe wrote:

According to Al Fyaid she told him she was.

Again, what Al Fayid claims, and what medical records prove are two different things

There is no written constitution in England so anything is possible.

Er no you started by claiming

then the next in line would be a half brother or sister to the king who would share the same bloodline from their mothers side.

Now you're claiming that the british crown and line of succession is a free for all, first one who gets the crown wins?

See there are laws who govern the line of succession

Succession is governed by several enactments, the most important of which are the Bill of Rights 1689 and Act of Settlement 1701. The rules for succession are not fixed, but may be changed by an Act of Parliament. However, the United Kingdom is in personal union with other Commonwealth Realms; if the UK changes the rules of succession without the consent of the other Realms, the shared monarchy may come to an end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchy#Succession

Agnatic primogeniture or patrilineal primogeniture is inheritance according to seniority of age, as reckoned among descendants and then collateral kin through the male line, by the eldest male child (if there is a male child). One's agnate may be male or female, provided that the kinship is calculated patrilineally, i.e., only through males back to a common ancestor.[1] Therefore, agnatic primogeniture occurs in at least three known variations.

Salic primogeniture absolutely excludes females from the inheritance. A variation on Salic primogeniture allows the sons of women to inherit, but not women themselves.

Semi-Salic succession allows female agnates (or their descendants) to inherit only if all eligible male agnates are extinct. Usually, women do not succeed by application of the same kind of primogeniture as was in effect among males in the family. Rather, the female who is nearest in kinship to the last male of the family inherits, even if another female agnate of the family is senior by primogeniture. Among sisters (or their descendants), the elder are preferred to the younger. In reckoning propinquity, the law defines who among female relatives is "nearest" to the last male.

Male-preference primogeniture allows females to succeed after their brothers (or their dead brothers' descendants), but before uncles and cousins. The term agnatic-cognatic primogeniture is used in the same meaning. This was the most common primogeniture practiced in Western European feudalism, such as the Castilian Siete Partidas. In German dynasties, however, semi-Salicism prevailed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture

What I am highlighting here is that Zapruder film has been a point on which CT's have based their theories and I believe that the Diana pictures could show us who was around at the time of the crash and what was their purpose there.

The Absense of evidence is not evidence.

UnHolyMoe

Diogenes wrote:

Agnatic primogeniture or patrilineal primogeniture is inheritance according to seniority of age, as reckoned among descendants and then collateral kin through the male line, by the eldest male child (if there is a male child). One's agnate may be male or female, provided that the kinship is calculated patrilineally, i.e., only through males back to a common ancestor.[1] Therefore, agnatic primogeniture occurs in at least three known variations.

Salic primogeniture absolutely excludes females from the inheritance. A variation on Salic primogeniture allows the sons of women to inherit, but not women themselves.

Semi-Salic succession allows female agnates (or their descendants) to inherit only if all eligible male agnates are extinct. Usually, women do not succeed by application of the same kind of primogeniture as was in effect among males in the family. Rather, the female who is nearest in kinship to the last male of the family inherits, even if another female agnate of the family is senior by primogeniture. Among sisters (or their descendants), the elder are preferred to the younger. In reckoning propinquity, the law defines who among female relatives is "nearest" to the last male.

Male-preference primogeniture allows females to succeed after their brothers (or their dead brothers' descendants), but before uncles and cousins. The term agnatic-cognatic primogeniture is used in the same meaning. This was the most common primogeniture practiced in Western European feudalism, such as the Castilian Siete Partidas. In German dynasties, however, semi-Salicism prevailed.
.

According to this if Queen Elizabeth is dead, King Charles is dead, Prince Harry is dead and King William has no heirs and he dies then the nearest relative to him becomes King or Queen even if that is half brother.

Diogenes

UnHolyMoe wrote:

According to this if Queen Elizabeth is dead, King Charles is dead, Prince Harry is dead and King William has no heirs and he dies then the nearest relative to him becomes King or Queen even if that is half brother.

No the nearest relative on the male side of his family, and that would be Prince Andrew, Charle's brother. Then Andrew's children. Both girls but both would be accepted as monarch. And it would continue to go through all eligible heirs on the Windsor side before looking elsewhere.

It will continue to search down through all blood relatives of the Windsors before the line will go to the half brother of the King related by marriage.

Here's the line of succession for the British Monarchy

The eldest legitimate son of the incumbent inherits the throne, unless he is a Roman Catholic or has married a Roman Catholic, although the laws preventing "Papists" from acceding to the throne have been neither used nor otherwise tested. The line of succession then follows the descendants of the person in line before going on to consider their siblings. Sons are always considered before daughters, but daughters are included in the succession. See Succession to the British Throne for further details.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying the crown Prince of Prussia would have a claim on the British Throne before, any child of Al Fayid and Diana would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_Succession_to_the_British_Throne
Again you're just clutching at straws

oscarBravo

UnHolyMoe wrote:

According to Al Fyaid she told him she was.

Hi there. I'm going to charitably assume you didn't see my earlier post. Any chance of a reply?

UnHolyMoe

oscarBravo wrote:

Hi there. I'm going to charitably assume you didn't see my earlier post. Any chance of a reply?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987027-5,00.html

An emergency-service doctor has told TIME that an associate at the scene that night said Diana was in a "Class-1 coma," drifting in and out of consciousness and at one point saying she was "six weeks pregnant" while making a rubbing gesture on her belly.

Although it does'nt name source directly, Mailliez was the first emergency doctor on the scene.

There is also senior French investigator who claims that Diana was pregnant.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941609668.html

Medical reports, reportedly seen by the source, showed that Diana was expecting a step-sibling to Princes Harry and William

oscarBravo

UnHolyMoe wrote:

Although it does'nt name source directly, Mailliez was the first emergency doctor on the scene.

Let me see if I've got this right. An unnamed source quotes an unnamed associate. Based on this, you arrive at the conclusion that Mailliez said she told him she was pregnant, and when he later says that he didn't say this, you ask why he's changing his story?

UnHolyMoe

oscarBravo wrote:

Let me see if I've got this right. An unnamed source quotes an unnamed associate. Based on this, you arrive at the conclusion that Mailliez said she told him she was pregnant, and when he later says that he didn't say this, you ask why he's changing his story?

It's hard to get if not near impossible to retieve internet news stories from the 1990's directly from sources such as newspapers and the Time page was the only one I could get that was close to what I was saying (the unmamed associate could have been Mailliez). Their are lots of other sources which claim that Mailliez made this comment but they could be described a been biased so I won't bother linking them. Even if you leave Mailliez out then there are other sources who claim that she was pregnant, such as the French investigator.

oscarBravo

UnHolyMoe wrote:

It's hard to get if not near impossible to retieve internet news stories from the 1990's directly from sources such as newspapers and the Time page was the only one I could get that was close to what I was saying...

...and yet, you seemed very certain that Mailliez actually said that she had claimed to have been pregnant. I couldn't find any source that offered the slightest evidence that he had ever said such a thing, and believe me I looked.

UnHolyMoe wrote:

... (the unmamed associate could have been Mailliez).

It could indeed - if, of course, the unnamed associate existed. I can't find any corroboration for the claim.

UnHolyMoe wrote:

Their are lots of other sources which claim that Mailliez made this comment but they could be described a been biased so I won't bother linking them.

I don't care about bias, I care about credibility.

Look, it's very simple: you asked why someone changed his story, but you can't produce any credible evidence that he ever had a story to change. If you have such evidence, please produce it. If not, you could at least have the grace to admit that you've accused (by insinuation) Mailliez of something that there's no evidence he did.

UnHolyMoe wrote:

Even if you leave Mailliez out...

I'll be happy to leave him out when you comply with one of the options I've presented above.

UnHolyMoe wrote:

...then there are other sources who claim that she was pregnant, such as the French investigator.

To back this claim up you link an Australian website, which quotes an English newspaper, which quotes an unnamed source, who claims to have seen medical reports.

Um, OK.

Have you got anything that remotely resembles evidence?

UnHolyMoe

oscarBravo wrote:

To back this claim up you link an Australian website, which quotes an English newspaper, which quotes an unnamed source, who claims to have seen medical reports.

The Age is an Austrailian broadsheet newspaper and the paper it quotes is the English Independent.

Of course people people are going to change their stories and ask to be quoted unnamed after all a high profile person was murdered.

oscarBravo

That'll be a "no" to the evidence question, then.

UnHolyMoe

oscarBravo wrote:

That'll be a "no" to the evidence question, then.

As I said before the evidence comes from printed newspapers who don't have internet archives and don't name quoted sources and I don't have the resources to find out any other way except from sources who could be claimed as biased.

Diogenes

UnHolyMoe wrote:

It's hard to get if not near impossible to retieve internet news stories from the 1990's directly from sources such as newspapers and the Time page was the only one I could get that was close to what I was saying (the unmamed associate could have been Mailliez). Their are lots of other sources which claim that Mailliez made this comment but they could be described a been biased so I won't bother linking them. Even if you leave Mailliez out then there are other sources who claim that she was pregnant, such as the French investigator.

Theres two points here,

A) Diana was pregnant and her children were part of the line succession. The latter part of this claim has been effectivelu ridiculed. There is no way a child of Diana, could be seen as a credible line of succession. So that theory as to why she was "murdered" is moot.

the Doctor, again with speculative. If the doctor agreed repeataly and the evidence supported this, well you'd have a point, but well no medical evidence supports the claim diana was pregnant. You've got speculation and conjecture, I suppose they are kinds of proof, but not actual evidence...

oscarBravo

UnHolyMoe wrote:

As I said before the evidence comes from printed newspapers who don't have internet archives and don't name quoted sources and I don't have the resources to find out any other way except from sources who could be claimed as biased.

I'd be happy to review a scan of a (credible) printed source.

UnHolyMoe

Diogenes wrote:

Theres two points here,

A) Diana was pregnant and her children were part of the line succession. The latter part of this claim has been effectivelu ridiculed. There is no way a child of Diana, could be seen as a credible line of succession. So that theory as to why she was "murdered" is moot.

The line of succession comes from the incumbent monarch and their is nothing to say that a half brother/sister or muslim can't become king/queen.

UnHolyMoe

oscarBravo wrote:

I'd be happy to review a scan of a (credible) printed source.

Again I don't have the resources to give you this except links which could be considered biased.

oscarBravo

UnHolyMoe wrote:

Again I don't have the resources to give you this except links which could be considered biased.

Obviously you consider them credible, so why not share them?

Diogenes

UnHolyMoe wrote:

The line of succession comes from the incumbent monarch and their is nothing to say that a half brother/sister or muslim can't become king/queen.

yes actually there is. For starts it's taken that the King/Queen is the head of the church of England, so theres an issue right there. Secondly I've proved, conclusively, that the line of succession passes based on blood realtives, and not realitives by marriage, so a half brother/sister, by marriage has no real claim on the throne. If there was some bizarre king ralph type event then possibly. But as pointed out, there is a clear line of succession of hundreds of people, so thats extremely unlikely.

But hey I've already pointed this out. You refuse to believe this. There's a line about leading horses to water, and something about drinking that seems apt here.

UnHolyMoe

Letter written by Diana claiming that Charles was planning to kill her in a car crash has been published.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-12-20T132012Z_01_L20677217_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-DIANA.xml

A PDF of the letter can be seen here:
http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/evidence/docs/INQ0010117.pdf

Eeb

What strikes me as most interesting about this thread and it has little to do with the thread, as an over-zealous moderrator might see it, is the peculiar situation where the person who started the thread asks that people please put this subject to rest. What a weird thing to do.

aidan24326

UnHolyMoe wrote: »

Letter written by Diana claiming that Charles was planning to kill her in a car crash has been published.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-12-20T132012Z_01_L20677217_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-DIANA.xml

A PDF of the letter can be seen here:
http://www.scottbaker-inquests.gov.uk/evidence/docs/INQ0010117.pdf

Had heard of that before. Hard to know what to make of it though, her behaviour was said to be increasingly irrational in the time leading up to her death. Paranoia has been mentioned. Wouldn't put too much stock in it tbh. Possibly the ramblings of a woman under alot of stress and pressure.

Difficult to see how anyone could have engineered that car crash though. More than likely an unfortunate accident. I always thought it odd Fayed insisting there was some sort of conspiracy to have her killed. That said, I've a feeling the royal family weren't sorry to see the back of her, her sons excepted of course.

The Queen's complete lack of emotion in her response was plain for all to see, and Prince Philip didn't get on with her at all.

Mahatma coat

I was a bit young at the time of this, I think I was only about 17 but I remember that the CJH story broke at the same time in Ireland, what other stories were about to break at the time of the Dianna Distraction, what did the govt etc want to deflect attention away from at the time, what was burried on Pg 17 or 18 of the times instead of being fromt page news, thats what I think was the main conspiracy of the Dianna death, it was probably an accident but someone seized on the hysteria to distract the population from something else

anyone got any ideas as to what the something else may have been?

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I was a bit young at the time of this, I think I was only about 17 but I remember that the CJH story broke at the same time in Ireland, what other stories were about to break at the time of the Dianna Distraction, what did the govt etc want to deflect attention away from at the time, what was burried on Pg 17 or 18 of the times instead of being fromt page news, thats what I think was the main conspiracy of the Dianna death, it was probably an accident but someone seized on the hysteria to distract the population from something else

anyone got any ideas as to what the something else may have been?

What British Junior minister was it that said after 911 that is was a good time to bury bad news... and lost her job for it. The point being governments have PR people who will use any opportunity to hide bad news. That isn't a conspiracy it's just spin.

I've said it before in here but if some random punter dies even in strange circumstances there's no talk of a conspiracy. But when someone famous dies even in a way as every day as a car crash it must be a big conspiracy. I'd say everyone in here knows someone, or a friend of a friend even who's been killed in a car crash. Two of my relatives have been killed in car crashes, one was sitting in the back seat and got thrown out of the front window. Maybe it's a conspiracy? :rolleyes:

dresden8

I don't know if it has been posted here before but what gets me is that the CT goes that Diana was convinced that Charles was going to have her killed in a car crash.

Why then would she have herself driven around city streets at 100mph without wearing a seat-belt?

Unless of course she was part of the conspiracy and couldn't bear to see a muslim become king!!!!!!

Kernel

Eeb wrote: »

What strikes me as most interesting about this thread and it has little to do with the thread, as an over-zealous moderrator might see it, is the peculiar situation where the person who started the thread asks that people please put this subject to rest. What a weird thing to do.

I agree. Such a thread belongs in the Irish Skeptics forum, since it's obvious from the title that it does not seek to discuss the 'conspiracy theory'. Nonsense eh? Very open-minded as always Diogenes.

jessop1

Kernel wrote: »

Eeb wrote: »

What strikes me as most interesting about this thread and it has little to do with the thread, as an over-zealous moderrator might see it, is the peculiar situation where the person who started the thread asks that people please put this subject to rest. What a weird thing to do.

I agree. Such a thread belongs in the Irish Skeptics forum, since it's obvious from the title that it does not seek to discuss the 'conspiracy theory'. Nonsense eh? Very open-minded as always Diogenes.

This kind of sums up the whole problem with this forum. Most of the posters here should really be posting over on Irish Skeptics as they dont want to openly discuss conspiracy theories, instead they just want to rubbish them and ridicule anyone who tries to openly discuss them.

Hence my suggestion for a debunker free sub forum. Alas though...