Prince Harry has been ‘intensely focused’ on investigating his mother’s death

While watching The Princess on HBO, I was struck by several things all at once. One of those things: just how thoroughly the royal establishment ran a play on Princess Diana, and how they repeated that same play on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The play was and is “Diana is crazy/fragile, she talks too much, she’s too public, she’s dangerous to everyone around her.” I was struck by how much jealousy there was about Diana’s beauty and charisma and how thoroughly Charles ruined her life. The Princess also did an extraordinary job of showing how happy Diana was in the final year of her life, how she had come into her own, how she was making plans for her future and those plans didn’t involve staying quiet or staying in the UK. I was left with the real feeling of “wow, Diana would have made the Windsors’ lives hell for years and years to come.” Which brings me to this… maybe Harry still has serious questions about his mother’s death in Paris.

Prince Harry has been “intensely focused” on investigating Princess Diana’s final hours for his new book. Official judicial sources in Paris say the Duke of Sussex’s researchers have been seeking information about the car crash that killed his mother 25 years ago.

They are believed to be involved in the ghost-written memoir that Harry is set to release this year, and related TV and podcast projects.

One source, who was involved in the original crash investigation, said: “There have been approaches which suggest Prince Harry is intensely focused on getting more information about his mother’s death. There are plenty of people in France who recall the night of the accident. It’s only normal that Diana’s son should want to learn more about it for his book.”

Royal commentators say the book will focus heavily on his anguish following his mother’s death in August 1997. Harry, 37, blamed the tragedy for mental health problems that he tried to resolve with drink and drugs.

Five years ago — long before he had thought about writing a book — Harry invited friends of his mother to share memories and private photographs of her.

[From The Sun]

Harry was so little, so young. He was just weeks from turning 13 years old when his mother died. I’m sure William told him some things and I’m sure Charles told Harry certain versions of certain stories. But there are absolutely still questions about Diana’s last days and last hours. Even with several high-profile investigations over the past 25 years, there are still unknowns and facts in evidence which cannot be explained. The reports of a huge flash of light. The missing white Fiat. The missing motorcyclists. Was Henri Paul really *that* drunk? What British intelligence agents and assets were on the ground in France? How did Diana predict her own death – even specifying that it would be a car accident – years before it happened?

I find it interesting that Prince Harry wants to know more. And I wouldn’t be so sure that he’s doing this for his memoir. It sounds more like Harry has started to pull at different threads of stories he was told which now make no sense to him. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Harry is apparently investigating his mother’s death at the same time he’s suing the Home Office about security. I strongly suspect that the Windsors have lied all along about Diana’s security situation. Harry might think so too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

110 Responses to “Prince Harry has been ‘intensely focused’ on investigating his mother’s death”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jais says:

    I really don’t know much about the Diana years and haven’t been able to watch the HBO doc yet. But my question is: how was it relayed that Diana refused security? Through the papers, the RF, how? I feel like I remember someone in the comments once saying something about it being said in a letter? Or am I imagining that? I’m just confused about all of it.

    • Jais says:

      Well, I did a little googling and have concluded that there was never a definitive statement from the palace about Diana’s security and everything we know is from sources. Tina Brown recently said that the Martin Bashir interview may have led to Diana refusing security and said after having dinner with her in NY a month before her death, Diana willfully gave up security. However, there was no quote from Diana saying that she gave up security. Only TB describing Diana as willfully giving it up. Sounds like a palace source told TB that Diana refused security and she assigned the adverb “willfully” to Diana.
      Also read that the Bashir interview hastened the divorce, which led to decisions about the divorce and security to be made hastily and not thought over very well. Still, that leaves open the possibility that the RF hastily decided to cut off Diana’s protection in the exact same way as Harry’s. It does not say that Diana hastily gave up security which it could have. Interesting that the wording wants you to assume that but does not say that.
      Another article stated that Diana was given protection when she was with the boys, at a public event, or doing something specifically for the RF. There was no mention of Diana being given royal protection on her own time. This seems to be close to Harry’s current situation.
      It’s possible Diana did refuse protection idk? But I’m finding it hard to find concrete evidence of that beyond sources. Scotland Yard, at the time, wanted to know why there was no protection for the mother of the future king, but again, I couldn’t find anything on the record. A labour MP at the time said we would likely never know. Sooooooo, that’s the gist of my googling research which is in no way definitive or conclusive lol so feel free to dispute or add on.

      • Lurker25 says:

        @jais, if all that’s just from googling you’d be an amazing private investigator!

      • Geneva says:

        I am the same age as Diana so knew her story by heart like most of us women back then. It was my impression after her divorce she lost Royal status and security…just like Harry did when he left. The main thing that plagued people was she would not have had. a French driver for hire (he was part of Dodi Fayed’s entourage) and I think he provided her with a bodyguard. or it was her guard but not a Royal guard. they are just trained very differently. The Royal security probably would have insisted on a different protocol. It was a wild scene as everyone was speculating that he had proposed.

      • Saba says:

        It’s heartbreaking. I have no doubt that Harry’s eyes were opened after seeing how the firm treated him and Meghan. He’s seen firsthand what they are capable of. And he wants answers.

      • Kaha_kamaza says:

        They did take Diana’s security the same they doing it with Harry, closed door and under the table. Charles was on the same board that took Diana’s security. What was never imagined from the Windsors is the Harry was going to investigate why his security has been taken off from him, but just to found out that his father together with the queen’s permission assisted by her private secretaries are all involved in the same scheme that killed his mother. Diana’s death was an accident premeditated constructed from within the Palaces walls.

    • SugarHere says:

      @JAIS: To my understanding, what the palace was offering Diana back in 1996-1997 when she was involved with Dodi Al Fayed felt more like prying and spying on her new life than actual security, which she didn’t need for the Al Fayeds were filfthy rich and could cater for their own security.

      My other point is that I am terrified… Henry looking into his mother’s murder, I mean death 😳🤦🏼‍♂️: is he prepared to hate Prince Philip, Prince Charles, the Queen herself, the British MI6 and the French Intelligence Services?! Oh, boy.

      • Jais says:

        It’s really similar to what Harry is going through. There doesn’t seem to be evidence that she was offered protection during her personal time, however, looking at it through the lens of what they offered Harry, it’s possibly she was offered case by case protection if she told them details of what she was doing. This is what Harry is being offered now but he wants to be provided full coverage when in England, due to the threat level. It’s unlikely that Diana was ever offered full protection after the divorce. At best, this case by case situation was offered to her, which she might have refused in the same way as Harry is doing now. But that refusal would have been to the case by case offer of protection in exchange for details of what she was doing. She probably never refused full RPO coverage in her free time because it was never actually offered by the RF/RAVEC/home office in the first place. Never offering that protection was possibly a punitive reaction to the bashir interview in much same way it was a punitive reaction against Harry and Meghan stepping back as working royals. The RF likely did take away her full RPO coverage regardless of any threat level she may have faced. This is my spitball of ideas right now.

      • Christine says:

        Can you even imagine the shit storm if Harry finds out that they gave his mother punitive security, for only palace approved events?

        Harry and Meghan have each other, they have had each other throughout all of this. Diana was alone, with two small children.

        I feel like this is an origin story for how a vengeance demon is born.

    • Concern Fae says:

      I was following all this fairly closely at the time. As I recall, the security question came fairly soon after the divorce. The report was that she did not want official security, because it would have come from the same set of officers who provided security for the rest of the RF. There also would have been reports back to HQ about where she had been and who she had been with. She did not want this.

      • Mew says:

        Again, that is your assumption. But no where is there evidence that claims Diana refused security. Is it all based on a known liar’s words, Tina Brown? I do not believe she outrightly refused security.

    • Geegee says:

      I don’t believe gor one second that she asked to have her security removed. She knew what the press were like. The royals did it to punish her for talking and it got her killed. They are doing the same thing with Harry and Meghan. Andrew the pedo still has his security.

      • SugarHere says:

        @Geegee: You still think 2 paparazzis on a motorcycle accidentally crashed a BMW in a tunnel and that the fact the top royal family members wanted Diana “gone” by the time she got engaged to a muslim and Arab man, is purely coincidental?! Some people will always be gulled by that same palace rhetoric Will and Harry were fed as kids. Sad.

  2. Julia K says:

    I very much sorry about his safety if it is too publicized that he is poking a very dangerous bear.

    • KFG says:

      I agree. @Kaiser, I think Diana said a car crash because Charles’ other mistress, Kanga, was paralyzed by a car accident when she became a problem for Charles. Her daughter and son claim believe he had something to do with the accident and so did Kanga. She died in hospital, but there are questions about how she died when other than being paralyzed, she was healthy. Kanga made it a point to show up in her wheelchair and confront Chuck in public. She and Diana were friends as they both hated Camilla.

      • February Pisces says:

        I also remember the bodyguard that Diana was keen on who died in a car accident. Charles told Diana about his death whilst they were in a car traveling to an event only seconds before the got out of the car to walk the red carpet. I think Diana even looked into his death and even said she thought he had been ‘bumped off’.

  3. Colby says:

    I highly recommend the podcast “You’re Wrong About” – the early episodes in general but specifically the episode on Diana’s death. They dive into a lot of the questions people have.

    To me, it’s fairly simple: she was being relentlessly hounded by paparazzi, and that caused her and her team to make certain decisions to avoid them. All would have been fine if the driver wasn’t impaired. There is blame to go around but I don’t think there was any master plan to kill her.

    I think when tragic events happen, we as humans have a need to assign so much more meaning to them (this is how conspiracy theories get started), but at the end of the day, sometimes it’s just a common drunk driver that kills the most famous person the world.

    • Colby says:

      The episode is called “Princess Diana Part 5: The Crash”

    • Jais says:

      Regardless of the circumstances around that night, I think Harry wants to find out why Diana refused RPO’s, what was she told that would have made her do so, and whether she really did refuse them as has been reported. He’s looking at what went down when he left the RF and now looking back at what really happened when his mom did.
      I listened to that series a while back but I can’t remember what it said about the RPOs. Thanks for the ep#.

    • Becks1 says:

      i know people on here give that podcast a lot of credence and I thought it was interesting, but they are far from experts. Its basically just the hosts rehashing Morton and Brown’s books and then adding in some details about that last night in Paris.

      Like I said I thought it was interesting, but I think its far from the be all and end all about the night Diana died. (and I’m not a conspiracy theorist about her death.)

      • Colby says:

        Oh for sure they’re not experts by any means…but they present the answers that have been already been given by experts.

        Ex: why did it take so long for the ambulance to get to the hospital? Because of how French paramedics are trained. No conspiracy, just different operating procedures.

      • Lorelei says:

        A couple years ago I read a book called “The Day Diana Died” which gave tons of details about the 24 period when everything went down; I remember recommending it to another Diana-obsessed friend at the time. I just checked and it was written by Christopher Andersen, and IDK if he’s a royalist or if he would have had any particular bias or agenda. But for those interested, it has a lot of the information being discussed in this post.

    • MissMarirose says:

      I agree. Too many people look for conspiracies in everything to try to justify their point of view. But 99.99% of the time, an apple is just an apple. Lobbing out fanciful theories that the apple is really a grenade in disguise is harmful to the way we can collectively perceive the world. Look what’s happening now with the MAGAts. There’s a reason why they lump JFK Jr. into their madness. Once you start down that path, it’s neverending and leads to worsened mental health.

      • Duchcheese says:

        Okay, why aren’t we assigning conspiracy theory status to this podcast? Because at the end of the day, every single on of us is just stating what we “believe” is what went down, based on some already established facts. And no one person’s belief is more valid than the other person’s. Yes, it could be that really there was nothing nefarious about the “Diana’s death” narrative out out by the BRF and their fans etc, but it could also be true that the BRF narrative was a total cover up, and truly Diana never refused protection and she was murdered. And my belief that the Diana refused protection was a total cover up by the BED doesn’t mean I’m a conspiracy theorist.

      • Colby says:

        @duchcheese I think they could have pulled her protection for sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that a drunk driver crashed them into a cement column at a high rate of speed and she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. Or are you saying that the BRF got him drunk (that would be an odd target because he was a security guard, not the chauffeur) made Dodi ask him to drive, and made them leave the hotel without seatbelts on?

        Also “ And no one person’s belief is more valid than the other person’s” is literally an untrue statement, and that mentality is why we are so f*cked as a country right now.

      • Duchcheese says:

        @Colby, as I said, we all are just speculating, no one has any concrete facts and your speculations are no more valid than mine, f-ed up country or otherwise. People are so quick to shout down anyone that expresses any disbelief/suspicion of the “Henri was a drunk driver who crashed a car and Diana died because she was not wearing a seatbelt” narrative. Its indeed baffling to me why any mention of an alternative version needs to be quickly shut down. Its like the BRF version of events is the only version and end of. Again, no one’s speculations are any more valid than mine. It could well be true that there WAS indeed a white car with bright lights that blinded the driver and caused the crush. I mean, its not so far fetched to believe that Diana was murdered, so…….

      • Sunnee says:

        After the crash when people were asking why she didn’t have security, the Firm stated she had refused it. Yet, no evidence if that. Henri Paul’s family claimed that he wasn’t a drinker, and anyone could have doped him . Mohammed Fayed was convinced it was RF, he called PP a Nazi and a criminal, and went to his grave believing it. I’m also not big on conspiracies but there are questions. And the firm is powerful. Off track, but here are examples: that video of TQ calling a black man a gorilla, I saw that clip years ago. It’s no longer available. Now the spin is that a he was referring g to an white American diplomat with extraordinarily long arms. That diplomat, Walter Annemberg was almost 6ft and perfectly proportioned. It’s a cover up for that bit of racism that got out and is o film. When Harry dressed as a Nazi for that “colonial” themed party Will went as a Zulu. W had on faux leopard skin and wore BLACK leggings, I remember it. Now you cant find evidence of it, they simply say he dressed as a leopard. The theme of that party was colonialists, why would he dress as an animal?
        The firm cleans up its messes. It’s newspeak and they can afford to do it.

    • Lionel says:

      @Colby: 100% agree. I’d add that it seems completely natural to me that a boy who lost his mom, now grown into a man with agency and freedom, would want to know more about his mother’s final days/years. And in addition I’m sure fact-checkers from his publisher are hard at work doing due diligence before the release of what’s sure to be a blockbuster memoir. None of this strikes me as evidence that there’s a conspiracy to be uncovered, or even that anyone involved is entertaining that idea.

      • @ Lionel, I don’t think that these inquiries that Harry is looking into the death of his Mum is for of his book. This is most likely Harry wanting to find answers, as well as question what he was told the years following her death. Harry’s desire is to speak with people close to her as well and events pertaining to his Mums life. Harry was brought up being fed a narrative that was probably filled with lies. Harry wants to know of his Mum after her lost her at such a young age.

        As for the car accident, Al- Fayed spent millions of dollars into the details pertaining to the crash that killed his son and Diana. I am certain that he did not leave any stone unturned. His heart was broken by the fact that he lost his son.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Both Sides Now, do you know if Al-Fayed still believes it was a plot by the BRF? I know that for years he refused to believe it was an accident, but I can’t recall the last time he’s spoken up about it.

    • KFG says:

      The problem with that is that the driver’s blood alcohol level was taken several hours after his death when ethanol is released into the bloodstream which would create a really high blood alcohol count. If he used an antihistamine, his BAC after death would be increased as well. Post-motem BAC are considered unreliable now.

      • Colby says:

        Interesting! I had wondered about that. I considered he may have been a high functioning alcoholic who walked around with a higher than average BAC or something. Thanks for the info.

        But this is such a great representation of the whole thing we’re talking about, right? There is an answer to why his BAC was so high, and it’s nothing nefarious. It’s just not well known so it’s easy for people to spin into a bigger conspiracy

      • Duchcheese says:

        People are not just running around spinning this into conspiracy theories, far from it. The version put out by the British govmt and the BRF has been questioned for 25 + years.

      • KFG says:

        @COLBY the Al-Fayeds never believed the driver was drunk, especially since the driver had never been reported to drink. You can look up how in the first hour of death can increase the BAC .2%. Also taking any antihistamine will show up as a high BAC. As they were in France during the summer, it’s not weird that someone would need to take antihistamines for pollen, especially if you’re not used to the area.

      • Colby says:

        He did drink though. He went to a bar before he drove them, the people who worked at the bar that night have been interviewed. So while he may not have had like 8 drinks there, to say he didn’t drink is incorrect.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        There was an article from a friend of the driver. This man stated that Paul had passed his pilot’s physical within 72 hours previously. He also stated that he flew with Paul and also his wife and daughter, which he would not have done if he had been drinking or depressed.

        There was an article that the US Secret Service was listening to Princess Di’s communications and was able to say nothing they heard would help the investigation. Also, supposedly someone (Paul?) was French Intelligence.

        There were reports very early on that two cars in front of the Mercedes was trying to slow it own so that they could get pictures. Does anyone think they would have contributed to the accident.

        I see that someone above already addressed the blood alcohol level and the timing of it contributing to its high content.

        Do I believe everything I read? No. Do I think his friends would know if the driver was depressed and drank–and that he passed his pilot’s physical just a few days before? Yes.

        Who knows what the intelligence agencies are doing. I can’t imagine the Secret Service would be monitoring Princess Di.

        I think the blood alcohol level is highly suspicious. I think the fact that none of the photographers were ever charged as being–at least–partially responsible for her death is thought provoking.

        It’s not that people are seeing conspiracy theories wherever they look. There’s are unanswered questions that makes some wonder if there was a cover up. IF there was a cover up then why?

    • Jewell says:

      Listen to this podcast. Its called Fatal Voyage the Death of Princess Diana. Its about 12 episodes and dissects the whole accident and surrounding events . There were witnesses they refused to interview. A fiat with a hatchet paint job, lots of unreported evidence.

  4. Kit says:

    A family family working in de special forces alleged de day Diana died that she was ‘done away with ‘….. I was quiet young at de time shocked at that final.statement but still never forget it ! Lots of unanswered questions which will never be answered. Very sad.

  5. usavgjoe says:

    Find out the “Truth”, Harry.

  6. Amy Bee says:

    Hmm…this sounds more like the Sun trying to muddy the waters for Harry’s book. I’m not sure any of this is true.

  7. Emmi says:

    I wonder if this is healthy for him. I understand wanting to know every detail but hasn’t it been established that Henri Paul was just way too drunk to drive and especially at that speed. He didn’t have a chauffeur license. He was wholly unqualified to drive that car. I don’t know of course but does Harry really think that mysterious white Fiat can still be found? I wouldn’t put much stock in what eye witnesses say to be honest. Especially when it comes to a car crash.

    If this is even a correct report. Who even knows.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Yeah – his blood alcohol levels were something like 2/3 times over the French legal limit at the time but of course there are those who think it was planted. Lets not forget that witnesses said he taunted the press as he sped away from the hotel – telling them to ‘catch me if you can’. He pretty much gave the game away as didn’t they send out a decoy car first?!?!

    • Colby says:

      Yes. It’s a situation where the answers have been given, but people don’t want to hear them. I’m not putting any blame on Harry when I say that – I can’t imagine the trauma he has lived through in general and surrounding this specifically. But I tend to agree with you that it’s not healthy.

      Paparazzi were chasing a drunk driver and the drunk driver crashed. That’s it.

      • Colby says:

        After some reading some other comments, I’m half talking this back. If I were in his shoes, I would want to investigate my moms death to my satisfaction. I just hope it doesn’t *become* unhealthy for him.

    • Mrs.CP says:

      @Emmi as her son he’ll want to know no matter what!

    • BUBS says:

      As her son, Harry has every right to find out what really happened…especially since he now has the resources to do so. Clearly, he knows much more than the rest of us. I would do same, if I were him!

      • Snuffles says:

        I agree. I could see Harry always wanting to do his own investigation once he was old enough to handle it.

      • Emmi says:

        If this is even true, he can of course do whatever he wants. But to assume that he knows more than we do about that night sounds a little bit conspiracy-adjacent. He probably trusts nothing his family tells him anymore including about his mother, that I can undertand. But this idea that we still “don’t know what really happened” just won’t die, will it? The man was drunk and sped through a very narrow tunnel at 100km/h.

      • Colby says:

        @Emmi – this. I would add that if **any** event was subject to this much scrutiny, there would be seeming inconsistencies.

        Also, I just don’t get how people think that the BRF, who have shown themselves over and over again to be completely inept, were somehow able to plan and execute this murder, somehow also involving French authorities? Please. They can’t even plan and execute a coherent PR strategy.

      • Duchcheese says:

        Why is “to assume Harry knows more than we do” sound as conspiracy theory? Harry is Diana’s 37 year old son, he has lived with the memory of his mother’s death for 25+ years now. He has, for 25+ years, lived IN THE FIRM and in the system into which his mother entered and died. NONe of anyone posting on here has lived Harry’s life. We all are just strangers who know absolutely nothing about Diana, but are all spewing our own beliefs/opinions as if they are the Gospel itself and can’t be disputed in any way shape of form, c’mon!!! Of course Harry KNOWS MUCH MORE than us mere spectators do, and especially, knows more about what happened on that night that any of us do. And to state so is not a conspiracy theory, my goodness.

    • Eurydice says:

      To me, it sounds like part of his therapy and personal journey.

  8. Eating Popcorn says:

    I remember reading a book many years ago, though I don’t recall the name now, about the Mossad and they were actively recruiting the driver at the time of the crash. This was thought to be a contributory factor to his drinking that night.

    • AnneL says:

      Why would being recruited by the Mossad make you drink in such an unsafe manner? It was causing stress? They took him out and got him hammered to butter him up?

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        Um, it is my understanding that rather frequently what intelligence agencies call ‘recruiting’ would be something the rest of the world calls ‘blackmail’ and/or ‘coercion’. Particularly if it’s targeted recruiting of an adult already out of school with no advanced degree and a blue collar job that involves a lot of contact with random people, because they have already got plans in mind.

        And even a normal, non-threatening job offer from an agency like Mossad would be hair-raising, IF it is something that just comes out of the blue. Like, not a student, no major academic or scientific achievements, I haven’t applied for a government job even for my own country, WHY did this other nations’ intelligence/assassination agency decide to send an agent to ME to offer me a job? How long have they been surveilling me? How much of my family and friends group have they been surveilling, and for how long? Do I have a friend that’s a friend with some terrorists or something?

    • Izzy says:

      Really? They’re blaming Mossad now?

  9. Laalaa says:

    Is he now as old as Diana was when she passed away? … that hits hard for some reason.

    • Emmi says:

      He’s older. That must be hard. I remember at 36 thinking “Damn, she was my age when she died.” I never realized just how young she was. It seemed like she had lived 3 lives already.

  10. Rapunzel says:

    I think it’s clear that during Sussexit,
    Harry discovered certain truths about his family (Dad and Bro in particular) which has made him re-evaluate Diana’s life and death. “If you only knew what I know”

    • Amy Bee says:

      @Rapunzel: I have no doubt that the these last few years as well as therapy has led him to question a lot of things about his family. At least in public he was always a team player and was against any documentary about his mother and even the Crown. But I get the sense that he has watched a few since and has a greater understanding of what his mother went through and his family’s role in it.

    • Snuffles says:

      The moment Charles unceremoniously yanked Harry’s security and leaked his location in Canada, would have been the trigger for Harry to start questioning what really happened to Diana and her no longer having royal security. Because I’d Charles could do that to his own SON, he would certainly not hesitate to do it to Diana.

    • Duchcheese says:

      @Rapunzel, I believe Harry had all these things as puzzle pieces but the treatment of his black wife and child just helped him to piece everything together to make more sense to him. He mentined sometime in 2021 how the pararrels between him and his mother put so much in perspective for him: how, just like him but decades ago, his mother a white aristo woman was dating a person of color and how the firm and the BM reacted to that and treated her horribly. The aftermath of Sussexit helped to cement a lot of those things that he had always believed but was too afraid to even consider or think that some of his family members were capable of doing such.
      @Snuffles, personally I believe that Harry has always questioned a lot of things around his mother’s treatment and death and his family’s behavior towards Meghan, Archie and himself plus all the racist comments they’d been getting prior to Sussexit just helped to clear some of what he had always been questioning

    • HeyJude says:

      I agree with you completely. The only reason Harry is looking into this is the retaliatory pulling of security he experienced opened his eyes to the fact the royals really will do anything, even endanger their flesh and blood, to get what they want.

      I also think William’s recent incessant painting of Diana as some kind of unhinged lunatic who caused her own demise has shocked Harry so deeply that he’s reevaluating what might have happened. As if William has been let in on the conspiracy and turned against his mother by the conspirators. That’s indeed something Harry would never be able to live with for his mum’s sake. He’d seek to find out who’s responsible for it all.

  11. VonBarron says:

    So one under-investigated thing is: why did it take 48 (I believe) minutes for her to arrive at the hospital that was 8 minutes away….. I think he should pull threads, for his own peace of mind, to see if there are parallels to his own situation, and if so, that given how it ended the first time of that was the intention for him or his wife. He has every right. I think it’s also important as these people, if involved, are funded by the tax payer.

    Edited to add, I know this sounds conspiracy-like on my part, but I work in forensics. And it has never added up.

    • Tbonesmum says:

      From what I remember the ambulances had all the staff and equipment to treat Diana at the scene. I also recall that they stopped to stabiliser her at least once on the way to hospital. It was the way they operated then. Not sure if it has changed now or not. I agree with you about the time it took . It was too long.

      Totally different to how they do it in Australia, once you are in the ambulance the lights are on and they get you to the hospital as fast as they can.

      • HandforthParish says:

        Yes, that is how you do it in France. They treated her at the scene and apparently it took a while to get her out of the car.
        Whatever the security circumstances the driver was drunk and didn’t need to speed the way he did. You can’t outrun mopeds in Paris!
        That tunnel is so narrow, the idea of speeding through it is terrifying.
        The sad reality is that if she had worn her seatbelt, she wouldn’t have died.

      • Lexistential says:

        @HandforthParish Now I’m wondering if the seatbelt in the car worked.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Diana’s sisters always insisted she was very diligent about buckling up, so it is odd. I’m surprised her bodyguard didn’t remind her to do so, unless the seatbelt was indeed broken. I would think that once she realized they were in for a wild ride with the paparazzi chasing them and everyone traveling at high speeds, Diana would have buckled up with a functioning seatbelt. But not knowing the situation and their thought processes at the time, who knows.

    • Emmi says:

      French authorities and medical staff have explained this many times. She wasn’t stable enough to be moved and they had to be extremely careful once they could. They picked the hostpital best equipped for her injuries.

      • Tessa says:

        Equipment could have been moved to the hospital 10 minutes away heart specialists said she could have been saved had she been taken to a hospital soonef

      • Emmi says:

        Who said that? People who weren’t there and didn’t treat her?

    • Lionel says:

      @ vonbarron: French emergency protocols are different from American ones. (Don’t know about other places in Europe.) French ambulances are better equipped and French EMTs are more highly trained, so they operate more as mobile field hospitals than simply transpo. Their overall philosophy is that since the first hour after a major trauma is critical for survival, better to do as much as they can at the scene rather than to race to a hospital that could be mikes away. Diana would have died from her injuries either way, that’s never been in question. And they were serious enough that the EMTs were following normal protocol by slowing the ambulance speed and stopping as needed to perform procedures, essentially the same thing that would have been done in the ER. This was widely reported at the time, with unaffiliated French health officials confirming that, yes, that’s what they do.

    • Jan says:

      There was a doctor ithe ambulance working on her.

      • Tessa says:

        It was not like being on an operating table to be treated in an ambulance time was of the essence and the ambulance bypassed a hospital 10 minutes away

      • Feeshalori says:

        It never made sense to me, if a hospital was that close, they should have brought her there for emergency surgery in a stable environment.

      • Harper says:

        A high-impact car crash causing two obvious fatalities and the idea of internal bleeding doesn’t occur to the French EMTs? Diana needed a cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon to have any hope of living and neither of those were in the ambulance and it took too long to get her to a hospital. I don’t think the crash was suspect but the after crash treatment was shocking to me. France has since changed its protocol for dealing with unstable blood pressure like Diana and instead of dithering around they go straight to a hospital. Maybe her bad care saved some lives since then.

  12. Bex says:

    I seriously doubt the Sun has any clue what Harry is or isn’t doing in regards to Diana’s death.

  13. BUBS says:

    I lost my mum at 14. I was in boarding school…far away from home…I’m 36 now and it still hurts like hell. Like Diana, my mum was also in an abusive marriage…physically, mentally and emotionally abusive. I still have questions…questions I may never have answers to. I understand what Harry is doing and I understand why he needs to do it. It’s not even just because he’s writing a book…it’s so much more than that. Good luck H…may the spirit of your dearly departed mother continue to guide you well.

    • @ BUBS, I am incredibly sorry that you lost your Mum at such a young age. You certainly can identify why Harry is searching for answers as you have as well. I hope that you come to a place in your life that you have been able to heal as far as you possibly can. Though, I would imagine that no amount of healing will take away your heartbreak. I am sending you hugs to you 🤗🤗
      My deepest condolences to you.

  14. Nicole says:

    Admittedly, I am an American and I was stunned when she died. Diana’s death was just so shocking and tragic. That said, our initial thought (back then) was that the BRF had something to do with it. Over time, my thinking muted to “maybe it truly was JUST an accident”. Fast forward to present day, they DEFINITELY had something to do it. Just call me paraniod.

    • JanetDR says:

      I always wondered if Diana hadn’t been with a middle eastern man – would her story have had a different ending?

      • JanetDR says:

        I always felt that perhaps they didn’t want Dodi (I think that was his name) as a stepfather for the FFK.

  15. TangerineTree says:

    If Diana had refused security, it was because the RF had made it untenable for her to continue using it. We see how tainted the security situation is for the Sussexes and how the government and RF are comfortable revealing how biased they are in full view of the local and international public. How much worse was the situation for Diana decades ago when it was all done in relative secrecy? They could have worked in conjunction to spy, belittle, and threaten her until she feared them more than trusted them. Whatever the situation really was, I highly doubt the RF and whomever they worked with have clean hands regarding her not having a security detail.

    • True. We have seen how Charles quickly, and without warning, in pulling security for his son, DIL, as well as his newborn grandson. Charles has no qualms nor heart to strip them as well as releasing their location for the vultures to descend upon them. Thankfully, Tyler Perry came in to save them!

      A man who is willing to do that to his own son, as well as his sons family, wouldn’t think twice about inflicting the same actions upon his ex-wife. An ex-wife was clearly a threat to his popularity as well as being a constant reminder of how horrible of a husband he was.

  16. Sunday says:

    It’s natural that Harry would want to know more about his mother’s last days and the circumstances of her death, though I don’t believe that it’s for his memoir.

    Given all we know about how much the royal family lies, how they manipulate the press and how international press tends to parrot the “expert” rota, I think it’s extremely naive to take everything that was reported about the crash at face value. We’ve seen the royal propaganda machine create narratives from whole cloth time and time again – why on earth should we just accept that they haven’t tried to manipulate the facts surrounding Diana? This wasn’t Bobby Sue having too many beers and crashing, this was an “investigation” involving one of the richest, most powerful families on Earth.

    I also think it’s wild that some people still think they know more about Diana than Harry does. In the Me You Can’t See, Harry specifically said that the firm won’t stop until his wife is de*d. Do you really think he’s just emotional? IMO he knows more than we will ever know about the specific tactics used against his mother and against his wife, and he is doing whatever he needs to for the safety of Meghan and their children. To say that “it was just a crash” is to completely dismiss what her own son is saying, one of the only people to speak out against the firm in decades if not centuries. Maybe the crash itself isn’t a conspiracy, but to act like it was just happenstance is just willfully ignorant. A rabbit that hopped into a trapper’s snare didn’t just d*e, it was murdered. I believe Harry.

  17. Jay says:

    Sometimes I forget how young Harry was at the time of his mother’s death, but even if his family did a great job explaining what had happened and what it meant to a traumatized boy (they didn’t), it would be very normal for him to want to understand the events more fully now, as an adult, and having just gone through something similar dealing with the media and the lack of protection. The trauma and torment Meghan went through especially may have triggered something for him,or maybe he had a renewed sympathy for his mother having to face the media alone.

    Although I have not experienced anywhere near that level of trauma as Harry has, yet I found that the experience of becoming a parent also made me rethink and reevaluate a lot of my childhood, and maybe that’s part of it, too. Maybe now that he has some distance, and the support and the tools to help him process that he didn’t have as a teen, now’s the time to seek information.

    I also suspect that, like many of us, finding out how political RAVEC was in his case has made him ask questions about his mother. DID she actually refuse security? Did she have reason to believe that her protection officers would actually be loyal to her? We know that someone in the royal family threw Harry and Meghan to the wolves, pulling their security, stranding them in a different country and then exposing their exact location as the borders started to close, one by one. What family does that? They could have had no assurances that Harry and Meghan would be fine – they actively took steps to make them vulnerable. Only by the grace of Tyler Perry (and maybe David Foster) are they safe in California. If I were Harry, I’d ask questions, too.

    • Nic919 says:

      One thing that the recent documentary reminded us of was the high levels of gaslighting done to Diana by the BRF and the media at the time.

      William calling her paranoid is a huge betrayal. He was a child as much as Harry when she died. He had just turned 15 and Harry was going to be 13 in a few weeks. Neither were emotionally mature enough to fully deal with what happened without help, especially as the Windsors are emotionally stunted and did not have the skills or desire to help them properly deal with grief.

      • SuzieQ says:

        Yeah, calling his mother paranoid was despicable.
        I’m absolutely not saying Diana’s death was more than a tragic accident but it always makes me wonder why people are shocked by any suggestion that the RF might have had something to do with it. Murder is in their DNA.
        This is a family whose very lifestyle was built on the view that everyone but them is disposable.
        Again, I’m not endorsing conspiracy theories. Just pointing out that the RF is capable of anything in the cause of self-preservation.

    • Feeshalori says:

      Yep, there’s a whole new can of worms being open due to these unconscionable actions by the RF and RAVEC, and now Harry’s going fishing. I don’t blame him in the least for wanting to get some straight answers about his mom. William, IMO, would want everything swept under the rock to preserve the status quo.

  18. Nic919 says:

    I don’t think there will ever be a direct link to the BRF in terms of the accident. However, the BRF are practitioners of stochastic terrorism just like trump and they set up situations where potentially dangerous events can occur.

    At the time experts said that RPOs would never have run her security the way it happened that night, which of course includes the intoxicated driver. And the question Harry should focus on (yes I know he won’t listen to me) is did his mother really refuse RPO after the divorce and what she provided with the full picture of what happens when there is different security? I don’t think k we have a solid answer on that one.

    I don’t think the French medical team did anything wrong, and I don’t think Dodi AlFayed’s team were looking to injure or kill him. But there are other events that helped lead up to this situation where this type of incident could occur. Which includes the relentless chasing by the paparazzi. It’s not like they were driving speed limit themselves, hence why the car ended up speeding.

    What I especially don’t like is how Charles went and set up another stochastic terrorism scenario by rapidly cutting off Harry’s security. If not for Tyler Perry and David Foster and the locals outside or Victoria, who knows what kind of threats could have been successful.

    We have seen that in some cases threats can last decades… just recently with Salman Rushdie.

    So I do understand why Harry wants more answers. He doesn’t have an interest in hiding what happens when the BRF doesn’t want to deal with a mouthy woman anymore.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Nic I agree a direct link will never be found (probably), but people are going to continue to speculate forever. Which is obviously a different type of damage, but it’s still not great that so many people worldwide think so little of the BRF that they absolutely believe they would have actually killed the heir’s mother, and in such a violent way.

      I mean, there are still new books about JFK’s assassination coming out every year, each promising “the truth.” It will probably be the same with Diana.

    • Tessa says:

      I think the “Rules” in France really doomed Diana. In the US it’s Scoop and Run. She could have been airlifted or taken to the nearest hospital, 5 minutes from the accident site. Sometimes rules need to be broken. Diana could not be healed in an ambulance she needed to be on the operating table STAT. Dr. Barnard, the renowned heart specialist said she could have been saved.

  19. tamsin says:

    @Nic919 Very interesting post. I had not heard of the word stochastic before. That is indeed what the BM tabloids traffic in. The attack on the FBI office is the most recent example of this. By marrying Harry, Meghan became a victim of this type of terrorism by the tabloids, ably abetted by the royal machine.

  20. Therese says:

    now I’m worried for Harry’s safety.

  21. Mary says:

    I agree with many of the posters here in that Harry may realize now just how rosy, and possibly misleading, a picture of their behavior his family painted. It would have been very easy as well for Harry’s family to convince Harry to not believe anything he reads, given Harry’s distrust of the media.

    Also, given how close Harry still is to his old Nanny Tiggy and his Spencer aunts I’m wondering how much he really knows about some of their behaviour. For example, does he know that Tiggy outright lambasted Diana in the press? Does he know that she slammed Diana’s mothering abilities? Does he know that his aunt and grandmother screwed over Diana’s godchildren and did not implement Diana’s wishes in her will and letter of intent? And, of course, does he know how horribly his own family treated his mother?

    I hope that he is looking into all of it.

  22. Julia K says:

    The members of the royal family are just not smart or clever enough or well connected enough to pull off such a complicated and intricate series of events made to look like coincidence. There are so many things that defy pre planning; she didn’t use her seat belt, the last minute choice of driver was impaired, they were headed for his apartment which was (his choice) last minute change of plans, they switched cars which was not planned, they were to dine in the hotel restaurant which was too crowded so they went upstairs to a hotel suite for a late dinner,further delaying their departure ( and necessitated the change of driver and car) and on and on. Accident. Drunk and careless driver. No seatbelts( which were found to be functioning). No conspiracy.

    • Tessa says:

      Diana always buckled up her sisters said so maybe the seatbelts functioned but the belt may not have stretched to fit around her waist i do not think did Diana was not reckless and refused to wear seatbelts
      Rees Jones has amnesia and cannot remember why he let Paul take the wheel. Nor checked the seat belts

      • Tessa says:

        Diana would have worn those seat belts had they been functioning it was an old car deployed at the last minute and she always buckled up at other times

    • Tessa says:

      The seatbelts may have snapped and buckled but did not stretch out enough to fit around her waist.she always buckled up i would wonder more about the draconian rules of the French medical system that had an ambulance to bypass a hospital 1o minutes away she could not get the treatment necessary to save her life with her post accident care

  23. Tessa says:

    All the paparazzi were gathered around the hotel waiting for Diana and Dodi to leave. Where were the police or Hotel Ritz security?

  24. Tessa says:

    It was commented on a lot at the time of Diana’s death about how William and Harry the morning of their mother’s death were told to dress and they were taken to the nearby Church. Photographers taking their picture and the worst part NO mention of their deceased mother in the prayers. Apparently HM and Charles did not think it “necessary.”

  25. Well Wisher says:

    Just recently looking for local coverage of the Jubilee, I noticed a small item about when Prince Harry started to actually do royal duties, he would go to a particular hospice to visit aids patients. The very hospice that his mother went to and actually touched an aids patient.

    He went several times to said hospice and would speak to anyone who had actually spoke to his mother. The difference was the tone in which the story was reported.

    Everyone described in the short piece was seen as such. Their actions and words were not accusatory nor alarming.
    One can clearly see that Prince Harry was searching …
    It could have been that he wanted to know how she was perceived by these particular individuals.
    Whatever the reason, one sensed that this was personal and very important to him, in this short documentary he was treated with the broad range of his humanity, a factor severely lacking from the reporting from the uk sun newspaper.
    Prince Harry seem results oriented, not a mere finger pointer.
    I share the observation from Keanu Reeves that when a loved one dies, the survivors lose and miss that special love they experienced with the departed.
    Harry lost his mother and her unique love at a tender age, he has now another type of unique love with his wife and children. Prince Harry has had the unfortunate experience to at least remember the pain of losing the first love, his mother, understanding that each love is irreplaceable; but probably grappling with questions.
    Maybe he feels psychologically safe and strong enough to seek answers.

    It can be described as “adulting”.

  26. daughterofspencer says:

    I am more of a diana’s fan more than harry and meghan. I’ve done a lot of reading on her so I’ll tell you this. Diana genuinely hated security. She used to go out on a long walk without telling her ppo since the early days, and used to go for a drive whenever she had just argue with Charles without PPO. These were mostly said in her biographies including Morton’s.

    But the one that convinced me the most was Ken Wharfe’s book (diana; closely guarded secret). In that book, he spoke of how Diana longed to be “normal”, and was always uncomfortable with the presence of security following her around. But in contrast with popular beliefs that it was Bashir that convinced Diana to get rid of her security, Diana stopped having Scotland Yard PPO in 1993 (before she met Bashir).

    This was because Diana resented that her PPO will always have to report to Charles’ PPO. Being separated from her husband, she was increasingly wanted to “break free”. Not to mention Charles’ camp was increasing leaking stories to the press. What made Ken to resign was the “leap of lech” incident.

    In Lech, she evaded the night’s bodyguard by jumping into a snowbank from her twenty-foot-high balcony. (Some believed that she was meeting Hoare, some believed that she was meeting a journalist (probably RK)).

    She had also said in Bashir interview that she didn’t see how having a PPO would make her life with paparazzi any easier. And she also told her friend; Roberto Devorik that she didnt need them. She was of course, wrong. And Harry is right for avoiding to making the same mistake. But i genuinely believed that Diana really didnt want scoatland yard to follow her around. However she did hire princess anne’s ex retired bodyguard as bodyguard and also driver. She only used protection when she needed them such as going to events etc.

    I do hope Harry win his case though. Dodi’s inexperience security did contributed to their death. It is only right for harry to fight to have the best security for his own family.

    • Tessa says:

      Diana wanted Wharfe out. Wharfe saw the writing on the wall and quit before Diana could fire him. As a royal (she was still a working royal after the separation), prior to the divorce, she was fully entitled to royal security and would need to have security with her. It was after the divorce that it became complicated. Diana still had the HRH prior to the divorce and was considered a senior working royal even after the separation. She would do royal work (without Charles accompanying her). Charles (through his friends) had been leaking stories as early as the mid to late eighties, when his friends like Soames would go to the media. I am not so sure of Wharfe as a source, he is the one that is “sure” Harry will return to the UK.

      • daughterofspencer says:

        Well Wharfe’s opinion had always been a bit fickle and unreliable to me. For example, he thought that Diana changed gym for publicity when in reality Diana was only following her favorite fitness trainer that changed her working place. But his recount of events are usually matching other staffs so I trust him in that department.

  27. Tessa says:

    Dodi did not listen to his father who told him to stay at the Ritz overnight. If his father had been there, Dodi would not have “rebelled” and listened to him IMO.

  28. A f Ken says:

    I don’t think any investigating Harry is doing is because it’ll end up as a bulk or even significant part of the book. I think it’s more because he promised in the press release that it would be wholly truthful and therefore unlike most biographical books, they’ve got to be on point with the fact checking and legal because there will be people waiting to jump on any little thing to either undermine him or make him seem crazy. He knows he was really young when his mother died and that most of his knowledge about what happened would be filtered through the newspapers. If he has the opportunity to speak to investigators and people actually involved, they might prove to be better sources than relying on the papers who have editorialised around Diana’s death for decades.

  29. My opinion says:

    Harry has learned just how dangerous the firm is and what happens when security is cut off and tabloids tipped off. The Firm fired at him, his wife and his baby. Hell yes he wants to go back and learn the truth, not necessarily the crash as much as the security and how it was handled. There are definitely questions about her death, and I don’t think they are conspiracy theories, but valid questions.