Sue Reid: Prince Harry really did research his mother’s 1997 death

For Prince Harry, having his security and his wife’s security removed in 2020 was one of the most significant moments of his life. He understood that the institution was throwing him to the wolves and leaving his family to die. That moment probably triggered something in him about his mother’s death in Paris in 1997. We’ve been told – and Harry has been told – for 25 years that Diana turned away her royal protection, and that Diana’s death was the result of a drunk driver and inadequate private security from the al-Fayed family. But what if… none of that was true? I think that’s one of the things Harry has been questioning since his protection was removed in 2020. Around the 25th anniversary of Diana’s death, there was a rash of stories about everything happening around the night in Paris, including one al-Fayed bodyguard who still claims that Diana was being monitored all summer by British intelligence. There are also still questions about the official story of Diana rejecting her royal protection.

So, will any of those conversations be included in Prince Harry’s Spare? Well, we’ll find out soon enough. One woman, Sue Reid, claims she was interviewed by “researchers” working on Harry’s memoir. Reid wrote a piece for the Mail about the many questions she still has about Diana’s death and what happened in that tunnel.

Former bodyguard Lee Sansum still says Diana had fears she would assassinated: Sansum has recalled how Diana talked to him about fears for her safety after the murder in July 1997 of her friend, the fashion designer Gianni Versace. Although the Italian was killed in a random attack, his death was initially suspected to have been a professional assassination. ‘She confided in me her own fears that she might one day be assassinated, too,’ said Sansum in interviews to promote his new biography, Protecting Diana. ‘She said something like: ‘Do you think they’ll do that to me?’ She was shaking and it was clear from her tone that she really thought they might, whoever ‘they’ might be.’

Sansum believes there were non-paparazzi trailing Diana into the tunnel: Tellingly, the ex-bodyguard outlined his own suspicions that something strange happened in the tunnel. He said: ‘A witness driving a car that was travelling in front of the Mercedes in Paris told Diana’s inquest he saw a high-powered motorbike overtake the car just seconds before the crash. Another witness travelling in the opposite direction saw a second motorbike swerve to avoid smoke and Mercedes wreckage, then carry on out of the tunnel without stopping. The bikes’ riders were never found, and that is no coincidence.’

Henry Paul’s blood-alcohol level: One of my most haunting experiences was interviewing the parents of Henri Paul, the Ritz’s 41-year-old chauffeur, who was, within hours of Diana’s death, being described in French security-service briefings to Paris newspapers as having been ‘drunk as a pig’ that night. The couple, who live in Brittany, told me, with tears in their eyes, that their son was not a heavy drinker: they said he enjoyed only an occasional bottle of beer or a Ricard, a liquorice-flavoured aperitif. They added that, during a meeting at the British Embassy in Paris with Scotland Yard in 2006, they were assured their son was not drunk.

Henri Paul & the carbon monoxide: Forensic reports presented to the inquest later showed that Henri Paul had three times the French limit of alcohol in his blood samples. But, curiously, the same samples also showed a high level of carbon monoxide, the deadly gas found in car exhaust fumes. Could the samples, as some conspiracy theorists suggest, have been swapped with those of a suicide victim? The judge at the inquest said this anomaly was impossible to unravel. Professor Atholl Johnston, a British clinical pharmacologist, said at the inquest in open hearings that no explanation for the carbon monoxide concentrations had been found. ‘It was not a ‘measuring glitch’,’ said Johnston. ‘The most likely possibility is that it isn’t Henri Paul’s blood.’

Is Harry trying to unravel this? Perhaps Prince Harry’s memoir will help to unravel this mystery, as well as all the others surrounding his mother’s death — a death which so many witnesses have suggested was not the ‘tragic accident’ it has been claimed to be. The question many still ask is: could Henri Paul and the paparazzi following the car have been made scapegoats that night to cover up a more sinister plan by the British Establishment to stop Diana’s ‘inappropriate’ romance? My investigations have shown that paparazzi photographers who supposedly hounded Diana to her death were not even in the tunnel at the time of the crash.

[From The Daily Mail]

There’s a lot more, and Reid speaks of one eyewitness who claims that two motorcycles did a complicated maneuver which included flashing a bright light in Henri Paul’s eyes. I remember that from the time – there were widespread reports of a blinding flash just before the crash, reports which have never been explained either way. Anyway, it’s enough to make my blood run cold, I can only imagine how hard it’s been for Harry to try to learn more about what happened to his mother and what the Windsors and the British establishment really did to her. And to see the eerily similar things happen to himself and his wife too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN, Cover Images.

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

116 Responses to “Sue Reid: Prince Harry really did research his mother’s 1997 death”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Emily_C says:

    Of course the British media would like to deny all responsibility, but imo, there was collusion between then and the BRF. Even if there wasn’t, the media set up circumstances that would allow Charles to kill Diana. If you set fire to a house, and someone takes a flamethrower to a person in that house, you’re still an arsonist.

    • Geegee says:

      Charles needed diana dead so he could marry Camilla. It wasn’t enough to divorce her. Not to the anglican church in the 90s.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ I’m not so sure that Chuck was directly involved. It was a hit though, involving government M16 and hired fixers — plus an orchestrated cover-up (based on well-researched info in an investigative documentary, available on YouTube). One government spy, who moonlighted as a pap photographer, was later found burned to death in a white vehicle which resembled description of a white vehicle seen in the tunnel before the crash. Henri Paul’s toxicology samples were known to have serious discrepancies and unexplained tampering. Why did it take an hour to get Diana to the hospital which was only ten minutes away from the tunnel?

      • Sam says:

        It’s so obvious! Just the written note from Diana that she believes Charles wants to kill her in a car accident says it all. It’s so incredibly horrific and disgusting that you can get away with murder! With murder of one of the most famous people at that time! What a world this is!

      • goofpuff says:

        Charles doesn’t care about Camilla. He’s had many mistresses and she’s just the most well known. Camilla is a useful PR tool to him. He needed Diana dead because he has always bean jealous of her success much like how he is jealous of Harry and Meghan.

      • Emily_C says:

        @goofpuff — I don’t think Charles cares about Camilla like most people care about people. I think Charles sees Camilla as his emotional support prop. He’ll protect her as an extension of himself, and he did what it took to keep her there.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Hmmm, no. That’s not how a well-orchestrated, high-level hit happens. Diana was viewed as a loose cannon, and as a serious threat to the monarchy. By himself, Charles is and was way too weak and indecisive. That doesn’t rule out point persons within the monarchy being aware of deniable government orchestration. There was, of course, the post-accident cover-up and collusion to blame Henri Paul and pap photogs for Diana’s death. It has also been revealed that the Mercedes’ seatbelts were not working properly.

      • aftershocks says:

        It might also be worth recognizing that it was the people around Chuck who were ultimately responsible for having the Sussexes’ security pulled on Vancouver Island. Of course, Chuck was fully aware of it and he did nothing to stop it. In the Oprah interview, Meghan said that she had pleaded with Charles’ staffers to ask him not to take away her husband’s security patrol.

      • Sugarhere says:

        @Geegee: Charles’ motives ranged from being able to marry Camilla, the one true love of his life, to preventing a white English aristocrat from marrying an Arab and Muslim man, and giving the heir to the throne a colored half sibling. There are shockingly many layers to this blunt assassination.

        I am just aggravated by the naives who still claim out of the blue Charles is innocent. France is the size of Texas, meaning you cannot not spot secret operative motorcyclists involved in a crash, unless orders were given not to look for anyone. That’s exactly what the French investigators did: nothing.

        Henry has done so much over the last two years to act truer to himself, to protect his family, to understand that the paps who allegedly caused Diana’s death are to this day the ideal whipping boys and useful scapegoats. So I would love it for his peace of mind and sanity if Prince Harry put his mother’s hit to rest for a few years / until Chucky’s death. Deep down, he already knows. Diana’s death is not one of those lurid conspiracy theories, it is an institutional conspiracy of the JFK magnitude.

      • Tessa says:

        Sugarhere I don’t believe Camilla was the great true love of his life if so he would not have married anyone else an not have been involved with many women. The great love story imo is spin from Charles camp.

      • Tessa says:

        When Diana died Charles was the divorced husband of Diana not her widower. Camilla was a divorcee. Edward marrying a divorcee had to be done after he abdicated. If Charles had been widower he would not have been allowed to go public with Camilla. In fact he held a lavish birthday party for her. Diana would have been an h r h when she died and would have had a royal funeral. The issue was a popular ex wife and one who would overshadow Charles. In fact Camilla birthday party headlines were not to be. Diana sitting on the yacht vacationing was the headline. Charles had the rules bent for him so he got to marry a divorcee.

    • JerseyCow says:

      And the man Diana was in love with after Charles, Barry Mannakee, was killed in a motorcycle accident. It can start to look like an MO.

      • Jaded says:

        That’s a puzzling one. The driver, a young girl who had only recently passed her driving test, stated she saw dazzling lights in front of her so she couldn’t see the motorbike making a right turn in front of her. At the last second she tried to avoid it but it smashed into her car and Mannakee was thrown into her side window, instantly breaking his neck (he was a passenger, not driving the bike). Interestingly enough, Baron Brocket, also known as Charlie Brocket, an English peer, business owner and television presenter from the United Kingdom, was jailed for insurance fraud in 1996. A fellow-prisoner who was a former police officer told him he’d seen forensic evidence in a secret file that showed the Suzuki bike had been deliberately tampered with. So many secrets…

  2. SKE says:

    This gives me chills. I have wondered this whole time why Megan and Harry have been so aggressive in putting their story out there across so many platforms and now….I’m thinking they want their side of things to be well documented in case something like this happens to them. You can’t say they haven’t warned us.

    • Lux says:

      Yes. I was a bit taken aback by how much footage they had and supplied to Netflix but this all makes sense now. It was mentioned in the documentary that a friend had suggested they filmed this process and that friend is right. Filming the paparazzi drones and helicopters overhead, documenting their thoughts in real time on video…this all leads to leaving a concrete trail of evidence that is more permanent than a diary and more tangible than emails and text. Considering letters that Diana had written and kept in a safe mysteriously disappeared later, H&M are doing the right thing. Hope they continue to create a mountain of evidence so that that family doesn’t get away with anything ever again.

  3. ncboudicca says:

    You know, whenever I see old photos and video of Diana, the word “incandescent” always pops into my mind, because that’s how much she glowed from the inside-out. It’s funny that we always associate that word with her eldest son’s rages now.

    Anyway…I’m not really a conspiracy theorist about Diana’s death, but it’s true some things just don’t add up here.

  4. MoBiMom says:

    Back when Diana died, I remember these rumors and thought it was impossible to believe that she was actually killed. After seeing what has happened with Harry and Meghan (and an additional 25 years of Windsor-related bullsh*t) I no longer find any of it hard to believe. It’s just disgusting.

    • Tacky says:

      The Windsors have shown themselves to be thoroughly incompetent. I very much doubt they could orchestrate a complicated asassination.

      • Snuffles says:

        But they could hire someone that could.

      • NotTheOne says:

        Of course they wouldn’t orchestrate it, just make their desires known. If we’ve learned one thing in the time of Trump, there are people willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. Democracy here barely survived.

      • Queen Meghan's Hand says:

        But that’s not how hits work. The client just hires the hitman, the hitman drafts and executes the plan with client approval.

      • aftershocks says:

        British government operatives were directly involved, i.e., following orders. Also, remember the strange words Paul Burrell said the Queen uttered to him during a meeting he had with her before or after he was suddenly released from incarceration, and the theft charges against him were dropped: “We are not in control of everything…”

      • CommentingBunny says:

        “Will no one rid me of this troublesome ex-wife?”

        They wouldn’t have to do it themselves. They wouldn’t even necessarily need to hire someone. They could make their wishes known to someone (or entity) who would take it as their command.

      • MipMip says:

        The Windsors wouldn’t have actually done anything except maybe Phillip or Charles gave someone the nod of approval. The rest was orchestrated by the security services. There have been people on record in Paris who saw watchers in the tunnel that night. But much like the flash and the bikers, somehow that never made it into the official records.

        It wasn’t just the BRF who had issues with her. Her work in Angola upset a lot of people, and not just the Brits. The US and France had long-held interests there.

        Don’t get me started on R*sa M*nckton, friend of *pstein.

      • Jaded says:

        Dodi Fayed was a totally unsuitable partner for Diana and someone with a pretty seedy past. He spent his early adulthood in the sex and drugs and rock-n-roll world of Studio 54 and other celebrity hangouts. He did a LOT of coke, ketamine, vodka, and went through women like toys, but still remained an introverted, insecure man whose father treated him with equal amounts of love and disdain. Despite making a couple of hit movies (Chariots of Fire and F/X), he relied heavily on others to produce them and was barely on set. In other words, he was a poor little rich boy playing at being successful, who was on a massive monthly allowance from daddy but still racked up huge debts and stiffed many of his creditors — his fecklessness and adolescent behavior exemplified “arrested development”. I think Diana was looking to replace Haznat Khan, and Dodi’s puppy-like adoration of her filled a void, but she certainly wasn’t in love with him.

        In any event, I can see how Diana sowed the seeds of her own demise. Dodi was entirely unsuitable even for a “friend with benefits” relationship, and much would have come out about his less-than clean past had the relationship continued. I can honestly see a scenario of Charles, TQ and Philip having discussions about what to do, and that Diana was tarnishing the image of the BRF with her association with the Al Fayeds. A word dropped into the right ear could have brought about her untimely end and subsequent coverup.

      • Tessa says:

        Jaded I doubt Diana would have married d o d I. I also don’t think khan and Diana were over they may well have reconciled. D o d I was not all bad. His ex wife spoke very well of him.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    You have to question why the DM is paying Sue Reid to write this story now. No one knows what Harry has said in the book and I think the DM is trying to muddy the waters by putting this piece out.

    • MipMip says:

      I have read a lot about the… inaccuracies around her death. Reid’s information is consistent with a lot of other writers and researchers who have looked into it. Unlike a lot of DM pieces, this is surprisingly accurate.

      So why is the DM running this? The British Establishment, including the media, often know much more than they let on (ie the many affairs of the Windsor men). I read once that British intelligence opinion is split 50/50 on whether her death was an accident or murder. There’s knowledge out there but nobody has gone to print over it. Maybe the DM is pushing this narrative in the hopes that Harry does write about it in Spare so they can really start pulling at that thread. It’s been 25 years, the DM needs clicks, the Sussex’s said “bye” and Charles is king. 🤔

  6. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Her death wasn’t an accident. And the flashing light likely was paparazzi on a motorbike trying to get a money shot. That, or MI-6.

  7. Veda says:

    I feel so sad for Harry. At the same time, I want Harry to be safe for the sake of his wife and children. Digging up the causes of his mother’s death too much might put him in danger.

    • Flower says:

      I think H&M already know they’re in danger hence why they’re doing the interviews.

      It feels eerily like Diana.

      I will always have the chills from the Oprah interview when they mimicked Archie saying ‘drive safe’.

      They’re extremely traumatised and fearful. We saw that look in Meghan’s eyes at the funeral walkabout. They’d both be remiss to not acknowledge the truth of their situation.

  8. Becks1 says:

    I just feel like there are so many things that don’t add up about her death. Do I think MI6 killed her at the royal family’s request? Eh, not really. But I’m open to being persuaded. I do think the royal family was fine with her being in circumstances that led to her death. and I do question whether she rejected her security or whether it was pulled.

    • MoBiMom says:

      This makes a lot of sense… withdraw her security and then just let things play out leaving Windsor hands clean. Classic BRF approach.

      • Snuffles says:

        Yup, plausible deniability is their MO for everything. They never directly get their hands dirty, they just instruct the courtiers to do it. And if enough of a fuss is made, then the courtier takes the fall and the royal proclaims they had no idea.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      It’s in both the press and Al Fayed’s family’s interest to keep feeding these theories that she was offed by Phillip or Charles to deflect from their own culpability. It was their (the Al Fayed family) security team, driver and effed up car (that had been totalled and wasn’t really road worthy which they knew). We’ll never know for sure if Paul was drunk or if he’d been blinded by flashes or if something went wrong with the car itself.

      Personally, I think it was a series of bad decisions that led up to that moment. Dodi’s erratic behaviour that night would have made it impossible for anyone to plan an assassination.

      I think MI6 were following them but it wasn’t because of Diana – the intelligence services had been ‘looking into’ the Al Fayed family for years. The father is an extremely dodgy individual with very suspect connections.

      • Flower says:

        The toxicology report for Henri Paul never made sense. He was a seasoned alcoholic, but that being the case his blood alcohol levels would have made it impossible for him to even stand let alone coherently walk through the lobby and operate a car as we saw him do.

        I’ve always believed that he was the low hanging fruit for blame.

        The reality is a number of things killed Diana – her security being taken away. The RF have repeated the lie that she gave it up, which has been debunked many times.

        Diana not wearing a seat-belt – something which shocked her sisters as according to them she ALWAYS wore her seatbelt.

        Diana not being taken to the nearest hospital in the 16th where the crash happened but instead to the Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital in the 13th, where the RF could control the PR (despite ex-communicating her and taking away her security). Anyone who knows Paris will know that distance is insane, especially without a Helicopter.

        And last but by no means least the Paparazzi’s relentless chase of Diana because at the time the right picture of Diana could fetch 6 figures which meant a Paparazzi could live very well off that one picture every year.

        And when you put it all together as someone said above the Royals weren’t mad about it because Diana had become a thorn in their side with her ‘shady’ Arab lover grabbing headlines. There was definitely a quid pro quo between the Royals and Al Fayeds after Diana and Dodi died. A lot of dodgy press about Muhammed Al-Fayed links to arms trading ect just seemed to ‘melt away’. Al-Fayed had the means, money, resources and anger to know what really happened, especially as he partially lived in Paris at the time. He knows.

      • C says:

        In my opinion it’s the other way around. The BRF and their tabloid shills have turned the conversation into “she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt” (The rear seatbelts weren’t working, Etoile Limousines leased it to the Ritz and Mohamed Al-Fayed had no idea…and the owner of the leasing company wants to put the car in a museum now) and “she was getting into the car with a drunk and her corrupt Middle Eastern boyfriend!!” to distract from the very real holes in this story.

        They will print with a straight face stories about Mohamed Al-Fayed accepting dirty money from the same Saudis that give to Prince Charles, to try to paint the whole family as these evil brown upstarts. The narrative that they spin purposely uses antiquated tropes: the white woman who made a tragic bad choice to go out with a nonwhite man and suffered a terrible end because of her corruption.

        Dodi’s behavior wasn’t erratic, he just decided to change their plans, and they were pursued. The Fayeds may have been shady, but no more so than the Royals.

      • Emmlo says:

        I agree with you!

        Diana’s closest friends have reinforced that she believed any royal security detail would report her movements and words back to BP and Charles. She may have been correct but I still think RPOs would have saved her life.

        The paps contributed to the frenzy but it was Dodi and the Fayed team’s bad decisions that put her in danger. Just stay at the Ritz imperial suite that night and none of it would have happened.

      • C says:

        Saying that they should have just stayed put that night is victim-blaming. We are always saying Harry and Meghan should not have to live their life to suit abusers. The paps in this situation were no different. The culpability is not on Dodi or Diana here for wanting to go out. She was ALWAYS in danger, not more so that night. The fact that she could not trust her previous security team is the issue. People absolutely are not talking about this enough.

      • aftershocks says:

        @Flower: “Diana not wearing a seat-belt – something which shocked her sisters as according to them she ALWAYS wore her seatbelt.”

        ^^ According to investigative reports, there’s evidence that the seatbelts in the refurbished Mercedes were not working properly.

      • aftershocks says:

        @Digital Unicorn: “Dodi’s erratic behaviour that night would have made it impossible for anyone to plan an assassination.”

        ^^ Huh? High-level hit jobs would always have contingency plans in place. If an assassination plan, made to look like an accident, was in the works, it didn’t have to take place that evening. Surveillance monitoring is involved specifically in order to take advantage of opportunities to execute high-level plans. Dodi’s erratic tendencies would have already been taken into account. His behavior on that occasion or any other occasion would not make a hit plan impossible. Apparently, his chaotic behavior and poor decision-making played into the plan being able to be executed that evening.

        Yes, it’s hard to accept that such cruelty is possible. But it is. JFK; Malcolm X; Bobby Kennedy; Dorothy Kilgallen; Medgar Evers; Martin Luther King. The list goes on and on, throughout history.

      • Becks1 says:

        @aftershocks an assassination like MLK, JFK, etc is VERY different from what we are talking about here. First, as a threshold matter, we know they were assassinated. As much as some people on this post would like to make it so, simply commenting over and over again “she was assassinated” doesn’t make it so.

        I’m not saying she WASN’T. I’m saying no one on this post has said anything that is 100% proof or convincing besides seatbelts, Charles’s motives, and now apparently MLK.

  9. Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

    I personally don’t get involved or even casually entertain Diana conspiracies. I never liked doing that and probably never will. So I won’t give an opinion on the whole white light stuff and other things.

    All I’ll say is that if he wants to investigate it/learn more then it’s in his right especially as her son.

    • smcollins says:

      I’m pretty much in the same camp. The way she died was so tragic and, yes, avoidable so of course questions were going to be raised, but that doesn’t mean some big conspiracy was actually behind it. Harry’s search for answers makes sense as Diana’s son and being so young when she was ripped from his life, but the public speculation and conspiracy theories just feel inappropriate to me.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Sure, it’s hard to comfortably accept. The enormous cruelty is difficult to contemplate. But, there’s enough evidence showing that there was purposeful intention, as well as a cover-up afterward. Blaming Diana for her own death is easier for many people to accept. Most of us don’t want to think of the horrible realities that investigative evidence reveals.

        Calling well-orchestrated hit jobs conspiracies is also easier for the average person to swallow. Using the ‘conspiracy’ terminology makes it all seem debatable, and easier to label those who believe the dire reality, as “conspiracy theory nutters.”

      • C says:

        I think we need to reexamine the discussion about how it’s inappropriate and wrong. Her death with Dodi has become the lurid stuff of a lot of racism and embellishment in British culture, and she has been gaslit and misrepresented since the day she died. Camilla is now sitting on the throne because of the PR they’ve been able to accomplish in making sure people didn’t remember Diana’s voice and exactly what she said. Harry isn’t just fighting his family about Meghan.

    • Concern Fae says:

      This. I took a course on conspiracy theories in college. One of the things we did was look at actual conspiracies. They involve a small number of people with very close ties. As you investigate, you are able to eliminate possibilities. Just looking at the thread, you can see that the possibilities increase rather than decrease as people look more closely. This is a sign that you are seeing real world chaos, not a conspiracy. When a plane crashes, at least seven things have to had gone wrong.

      That said, we are reaching the point where people involved are going to be retired and getting old, so we may be hearing some more about what happened behind the scenes as Diana exited the royal family.

      • aftershocks says:

        @Concern Fae, that must have been an interesting college course. Still, real-life happenings, such as successfully executed assassinations, are not necessarily debatable ‘conspiracies.’ Especially not when there is direct power-structure involvement.

      • Becks1 says:

        @aftershocks what you and others are describing though IS a conspiracy. You are saying that someone wanted Diana dead, so she died and several governments and governmental organizations and individuals etc wanted to cover it up, so they did. how is that NOT a conspiracy? And Diana’s death is still debatable since we do not have definitive proof that it was NOT an accident.

  10. C says:

    I always say this: if you had asked me before Harry and Meghan if the family had had a hand in Diana’s death I would have said no, it’s a conspiracy theory. Them yanking their security and helping leak their locations made me question that.
    There are a LOT of unanswered questions, for me.

    The car they used was recovered from a junkyard and had faulty seatbelts in the back – it was redone and leased to the Ritz as a brand new car, even though even before the crash it had been tested and was unsafe at high speeds. It’s now in the hands of the French government.

    The insistence that Henri-Paul was intoxicated, even though French toxicologists have stated his blood samples were so full of Co2 and other things he wouldn’t have been able to even stand up much less drive. He passed a flying certification days before the crash with no substances. Diana’s bodyguard Kes Wingfield stated his driving was fine.

    There was a British “reporter” among the paparazzi that night who stated he was there for the Mirror. The Mirror later reported they had had no such person in Paris that night. And tips of British paparazzos being told to avoid the area because of a possible warning from MI6.

    Add to this – Diana stated more than once she was afraid Charles would arrange to have an accident with her car. And it happened!! The age-old story – the woman is paranoid and delusional…until she dies.

    If they were involved, I don’t think it was to kill her. Possibly to scare her, into being quiet. It backfired.

    • Tara says:

      It has been communicated more than once, that the monarch has to consider a much wider perspective and act based upon this to the benefits of the crown. History is full of stories, where people were murdered to benefit the crown / the heir. Well… this makes me much more think about the true circumstances than anything else.

      • Flower says:

        Which is why people think Prince William was murdered due to his lifestyle and choice of partner.

        At one point they even sent Princess Margaret (who was know for her own wild life style) to visit him in Japan and knock some sense into him.

        Another tragic crash.

      • lanne says:

        You men Prince William of Gloucester, right?

      • Feeshalori says:

        That’s who l took it to be, though l had to think about that a second. The prince who died in an airplane accident, and his younger brother Richard became DOG.

    • WiththeAmericann says:

      Honestly, I had never before even thought it possible but now, in retrospect, everything they’ve done makes a lot more sense if they took Diana’s security away and that somehow contributed to her death.

      Add in the next step. we know security was pulled from M and H, and then their location was leaked by his father, the ex husband who couldn’t get remarried unless Diana was dead, to the press.

    • aftershocks says:

      @C: “If they were involved, I don’t think it was to kill her. Possibly to scare her, into being quiet. It backfired.”

      You make a lot of excellent points @C. Regarding your above observation, I have also contemplated this possibility. In any case, once a set of intentional plans are put into place, the situation can not be easily controlled nor the plans effectively aborted.

  11. Snuffles says:

    If I was Harry, I would also revisit what happened to Diana after Charles yanked his security on short notice. It’s clear Charles did it to terrify Harry into complying and coming back. Enter Tyler Perry the super hero. I bet that knocked Charles for a loop.

    At the bare minimum, Harry could conclude that The Firm intentionally created circumstances that could result in something tragic happening. Whether they wanted Diana to die or simply didn’t care if she died because she committed the cardinal sins of leaving the fold, not remaining silent and dating a POC (more than one).

    • L4Frimaire says:

      I wonder if that accounts for some of the irrational anger towards Meghan. She was writing letters about Harry’s security, she was the one that made the call to Tyler Perry. I remember while Meghan was a working royal, the press always was always complaining about her Hollywood connections, her relationship with her business manager or former PR firm. Makes one think they didn’t like her having resources outside the family, along with constant complaints she was trying to change the monarchy after each engagement. There is something just so intense beyond just a family dispute, how relentless it is. I can see how after the last few years, people are thinking there is something more sinister behind Diana’s death.

      • Snuffles says:

        They didn’t like her having resources outside of the family for multiple reasons. They tried to cock block all of her initiatives, but she just went around them and used her own resources. Her having her own connections and resources outside of the system made it possible for her and Harry to set up a new life outside of the system. They didn’t like her being foreign (and not from a Commonwealth country) because it made it possible for Harry to relocate to a location beyond their sphere of control.

        I’m sure all those thoughts ran through their heads the moment they met Meghan and saw how serious Harry was about her. Because they knew damn well Harry had been looking for a way out for over a decade.

      • lanne says:

        They wanted her trapped and completely dependent on them–hence taking her passport. They absolutely hated that she had a friend group and support network.

        I also think the Sussexes did the huge photo dump of themselves and their kids in the documentary for security reasons as well. They know that pictures of their kids could be worth millions. Dumping all those pictures devalues them, which lessens the likelihood that someone would take dangerous risks (running lights, chasing cars) to get pictures of them and their children.

        They aren’t putting out pictures because they’re hypocrites who crave publicity. They are deliberately devaluing pictures of their kids that the British media would take at risk to their, or their kids lives.

    • Louisa says:

      Lanne – what was the reason they gave her for taking her passport? There are no circumstances I would ever give up my passport. That’s giving up your freedom. It just sounds so sinister and I had no idea she had to do that.

      • lanne says:

        If you were marrying into a family that likely carries diplomatic passports, giving up your own passport, especially when you are applying for citizenship of new country, could be a good-faith request to expedite the transition process. It makes sense for them to tell her–we need your passport so we can issue you a diplomatic one as a member of the royal family. It’s only sinister in retrospect. I think the plan was to force Meghan out one way or another, and they’d toss her American passport after her. I’ll bet the event was even choreographed and planned by those goons.

        Meghan said they took her passport in the Oprah interview. The palace denied it–unsurprisingly. It would be a he said she said, right? There was all that energy about the X number of lies she told–a way to try to discredit everything she said.

  12. Crowned Huntress says:

    Yeah, I doubt it was an accident. There are too many unanswered questions. Like why she would get into a car with a visibly drunk driver? Fearfully of paparazzi or not this was a well traveled woman with two sons to return to.

    Why did it take so long to get her to a hospital less than 2 miles away?

    Why was the crime scene of a royal Princess was cleaned up so quickly?

    And that’s just what I can think of off the top of my head. Whatever Harry found was enough for him to make sure it never happened again.

    • C says:

      Yes, if Paul had been visibly impaired as he must have been if these samples were accurate and true, Diana would not have gotten into a car with him.

      Can’t speak for the crime scene, but as far as the hospital thing – I believe this was just a tragic coincidence and was because of the French medical approach to stabilize the patient before getting them to the hospital. Hence why they spent so much time treating her in the tunnel and why they drove so slowly.

      • Tessa says:

        The team in the ambulance could not save Diana especially since she was bleeding to death. Heart specialists commented that Diana could have been saved if she had gotten to an operating table asap. The ambulance passed by an American hospital a short distance away. The French system may work for some patients but failed to save diana.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Re: the hospital issue. I suggest you look into how the French health system works as their ambulances are pretty much mini hospitals and its standard practice in France to stabilise a patient before taking them to a hospital that it best suited to their needs. The closest hospital would not have been able to treat her injuries and she would have had to have been transferred from there to the other hospital anyway. The French medics did all the could to save her – lets not criticise them.

      Re: the crime scene cleanup. Regardless of who she was, (i understand) that the tunnel is one of the life lines of traffic in Paris. To have it closed for any length of time would have brought the city traffic to a standstill.

      • Tessa says:

        Doctors could have been transferred to the local hospital to treat Diana no need for her to be moved. The patient not adhering to a method should have been the first priority she was bleeding to death.

      • Underhill says:

        Her internal injuries were severe. I read a few different accounts of vascular surgeons, cardiac surgeons saying she might have survived if she had surgery immediately but the emphasis was on “might”; her odds were still quite low given her severe internal injuries.

  13. Colby says:

    The BRF/government contributed to her death by removing her security, but that’s where it ends IMO.

    Other than that, someone (drunk or not) went way to fast into a tunnel, lost control, and crashed. Tragic but simple.

    • Geegee says:

      The BRF know what they were doing when they pulled her security. They knew then and now. That is why pervy Andrew still has his. How can Charles do that to his own son and Grandson. The man is a soulless monster.

  14. Steph says:

    I don’t think Harry thinks the British Establishment killed Diana. The British Establishment is the firm, right? I don’t think he would want anything to do with the family in any way shape or form if he believed that. There would be no amount of accountability that would allow him to reconcile with that. Unless of course he believes the BE is a separate entity.

    • MipMip says:

      The BE is more than the firm: it’s the media, politicians, bankers, intelligence and powerful aristos. And none of those groups are mutually exclusive. They bleed into each other on purpose. It’s what keeps them all in power.

  15. Cessily says:

    I have never believed it was an accident. Princess Diana herself said they would kill her, and most likely make it look like a car accident. This was Charles and Camilla’s end to the targeted campaign against her and the only way for them to be married and him to retain eligibility to be crowned King. They got away with it once, and then they ran the same playbook on his son and his family. These people are literally “untouchable” and as long as they can spin the media narrative that protects them they will never stop. They are not good people, just look at the history of the Monarchy it speaks for itself.

    • Truthbetold says:

      💯 this! I feel the same way, I never thought it was just an accident but premeditated murder. They wanted her gone for so many reasons.
      Harry had every right to want out. He was not going to let what happened to his mother happpen to his wife.

  16. Afken says:

    This veers into conspiracy and while I do think Harry and moehringer looked into the death, I don’t think they did it with the idea in mind of “so was it really an accident”. Moehringer would not put his credibility on the line like that, it doesn’t matter that his name is not on the cover. In my opinion, I think this research will be used to show the sheer craziness of the aftermath of her death and what a massive figure she was that an inquiry had to be launched into conspiracies around her death and that to this day people believe she was killed. It would be interesting to see a reflection on what that was like for teenage Harry to have your mother be this JFK-esque figure with the accused being your own family. But yeah, I don’t think it will delve into the theories themselves.

  17. Mrs. Smith says:

    That Sue Reid article made my blood run cold as well. I always wanted to believe the official reason for the accident because it was the easiest to wrap my mind around. I loved Diana and her work, so I brushed off conspiracy theories for the most part. I believed it was the fault of the paps who blinded Henri with a camera flash and caused the crash. But after reading this article (and knowing the details of H&M’s story), that Reid source (allegedly from MI6) who said the goal was just to scare Diana, I believe it. What lends real credence to this assassination theory is the letter Diana wrote and gave to her private attorney, which was then locked in a safe for years by police. I believe H&M are “overexposing” themselves and their story in order to protect their family just in case something happens. After someone nearly murdered Archie in his nursery in Africa, H&M have got to be living in some degree of fear at all times.

    • lanne says:

      The reporters knew about it, and still needled Meghan when she said she wasn’t okay. I think they were trying to give her a nervous breakdown, or wanted her to unalive herself.

      The royals are a dirty, dirty family. I’m glad that Meghan and Harry escaped them. I know they have done very careful estate planning to keep the royal family away from their children. Them talking so much now is absolutely a safety precaution for them, and their kids. They will never put themselves at the mercy of the royal family ever again.

      • Flower says:

        ^^ This.

        I suspect that they’ve already designated custodians for their children should anything happen to them on the Spencer side.

        I think there are A LOT of negotiations going on in the background and H&M are using the media in their up-hill struggle to make it known that they NEVER want William and Kate anywhere near their children.

        Charles is too old and self absorbed. It would be overwhelming for Doria to do it alone because of the media frenzy that would ensue, so I am going to go with the Spencers and Doria working together in a worst case scenario.

        I think they’re very brave to fight for their lives like this on their own terms. I love that they refused to submit to a life time of misery amongst those vipers.

        William is just acting out centuries of self-entitlement and his antics are well known. But I will never forgive Kate for her treatment of Meghan. I hope Karma visits her soon.

  18. Mimi says:

    Harry saying if you knew what I knew…

  19. Queen Meghan's Hand says:

    Princess Diana was assassinated. I don’t know why so many people refuse to accept this.
    This is the British Royal Family. They are from a long line of violent, cruel, sometimes outright evil people. The monarchy is maintained through violence. The monarchy is at the heart of the British socio-economic order. An actively working divorced Princess Diana was a threat to the monarchy.
    Now, was Charles in the tunnel? No. Did Charles have meetings like Viola Davis in Widows with the people who would be in the tunnel? Unlikely. But Charles was involved in this as was his mother and people who work for the institution.

    • JanetDR says:

      I always figured Philip ordered it or M16 did it on their own.

    • Tara says:

      Don’t know why, but your comment made me realize the circumstances, that the boys were on holidays, surrounded by their family at the time of the accident. How often did that happen per year? Never thought about that before.

    • aftershocks says:

      Eh @JanetDr, I don’t think Philip had the power to order anything. He himself had to accept that he’d married for status and financial security. Once Elizabeth had to become Queen in the early years of their marriage, he felt the full brunt of the consequences. He likely went through a process of grief and anger, feeling emasculated and bereft (he could not pass on his surname to his children; he was forced to give up serving in the navy at too young an age). He came to grips with it slowly, as he and Elizabeth eventually reconciled their marital rift.

      Ultimately, Philip remained dutiful and supportive, but he also adamantly and discreetly found other outlets. He understood the inner workings of the monarchy, so he tried to warn Diana about the negative consequences of rebellion. It’s been documented that Philip and Diana had a good, affectionate relationship.

      • JanetDR says:

        I appreciate your input @AfterShocks. But he wasn’t nobody and he had connections. I think that Diana’s dating of person of color was a big factor. Nothing I’ve seen out the the “Firm” makes me think that less today!

      • Tessa says:

        Ultimately Philips loyalty was to Charles. There was no real affectionate relationship with Diana and philip

  20. Brassy Rebel says:

    I doubt that any of the Windsors were trying to assassinate Diana. That said, the line from Henry II comes to mind. “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest!?” Both the intelligence and security services may have reached the conclusion that they would be doing the royals (especially Charles) a solid by ridding them of Diana, a thorn in their side. And it has taken me a very long time to reach this conclusion. I’m always skeptical of conspiracy theories.

  21. ShazBot says:

    I always thought tragic accident, but man…the last 5 years have made me wonder. And then I read Diana: Her True Story, and yeah…the timing of her dying, exactly when her relationship and her independent work was blossoming and about to make her an international star bigger than she already was? Verrrry suspect timing.

    It wouldn’t surprise me at this point, but we will also never know the truth.

    Similar to how that bodyguard she was very close to died in a motorcycle accident – as the passenger, and the driver lived.

  22. SueBarbri33 says:

    I never believed the conspiracy theories about Diana’s death in 1997. But, in my opinion, Charles’ behavior over the past 25 years has convinced me that something funky happened. Even adjusting for the jealousy and the lack of love in the marriage and the frenzy around their divorce and all of that…she was still his ex-wife and the mother of his two children. He never made a show of missing her, never pretended to be shocked, never seemed to recall the good times or even retrospectively realize that she had good points. I don’t know. He’s an oddball and I realize he might not have emotions the way we understand them, but I also think it’s weird that they didn’t even bother to pretend he’d been thrown by her passing. He just…went right back home to Camilla. It just doesn’t sit right with me. Never has and never will. I don’t know what I expected him to do, but it just seems strange to me.

    • aftershocks says:

      @SuBarbri33: “He never made a show of missing her, never pretended to be shocked…”

      Charles actually was very emotional in the aftermath of Diana’s death. How much of it may have been performative for public image purposes, I can’t say. The Queen did not want to send an official plane to pick up Diana’s body. Charles insisted upon sending an official plane and he also accompanied Diana’s sisters in helping to transport her body back to Britain.

      As well, the Queen was against having a royal funeral. She thought that the Spencers should hold a private family funeral. Again, Charles (and likely the prime minister) insisted upon an official, royal funeral. There was a great deal of arguing that went on behind-the-scenes, as often happens among families when a family member dies suddenly and tragically. I suppose some of the scenes depicted in Peter Morgan’s film, The Queen, have a measure of authenticity.

      • Tessa says:

        Charles was scared for himself and public reaction. He rejected Diana years before. He was doing this on behalf of their sons who were not of age. Less than a year later his Camilla campaign restarted. Penny wrote a book Charles victim or villain which slammed Diana and she said c cooperated with her.

  23. Julia K says:

    Years after Diana died, I heard an opinion from a person I didn’t know well ,so I can’t verify how true this may be. His opinion was that Diana was collateral damage. It was Dodi who was the target. Scare him, injure him possibly, to warn Mohamed and teach him a lesson. It appears he (Mohamed) was doing business with shady people. The massive wreckage and 3 deaths was not part of the plan.

    • lanne says:

      The royals do business with shady people. Dodi was a non-entity. If any al-fayed was at risk, it would be Mohammed. Going after Dodi would be as pointless as going after Fredo in the Godfather when the target was either Michael or even Vito Corleone. Dodi was basically the al-Fayed Fredo. Totally worthless and a business liability.

  24. Denise says:

    I think Harry is showing us that RF are absolutely cold enough and calculated enough to be able to do this.

    I’m not saying they killed Diana. But I’m saying that now I absolutely believe they are capable of doing something like that.

    • lanne says:

      In the novel Dune, their are epigrams from Princess Irulan before each chapter. Some are excepts from a book called “In my father’s house.” Her father was the emperor of the known universe. She writes that her mother and sisters regularly spied on her father and she was sure her father spied on her. She even thinks her father was responsible for assassination attempts against her and her sisters and mom. Her response is that royal families are not normal families, and there are bigger ambitions that compromise the family relationship. I think Harry has a similar realization. His father and brother regularly brief against him. He probably realizes they could do him harm if it was in their interest.

      Royal families aren’t normal, no matter the “we’re so normal” bs the Wailses feed us. Relationships are conditional and transactional. Harry has shined the light on this truth so that it can’t be denied anymore.

  25. Lala11_7 says:

    In episode 1 when H&M get in that chauffeur driven car…while worrying about the Pap that’s on the motorcycle…MEGHAN WAS TERRIFIED…and now you see why☹️

  26. HeyKay says:

    I’ve long thought The Firm was involved in Dianas death somehow.
    I’m not going to rehash it all but, I will say again, I would not trade places with anyone in the BRF.
    The luxury, the wealth, it all comes at too high a price.

  27. Erin says:

    Absolute chills reading this! I never knew any of this.

    • Eenie Googles says:

      No one is staging a car crash when the woman just spent a week on a boat. The logistics of it having to gon*just right* and then still not be sure that the injuries would be fatal? No professional killer would go for something this insane.

      • Mary S says:

        They only had to succeed once. If the car in the tunnel attempt failed, they would have just tried again. I don’t know why you think the possibility that the plan would fail is reason to believe there was no plan at all.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Mary S because too many things had to go “just so” for this to work. It would have been much less messy for the royal family if she had drowned off the boat or something, or died in her sleep from a heart attack. The latter may have been less believable considering her age and health, but this involves too many pieces.

        Now obviously some assassinations require a second or third chance, but in my not-so-expert opinion (I’m assuming no one on this board is an assassin), you would go for the easier option first, and then only go to something like a car crash in a public tunnel when that fails. I would think even a plane crash would have caused less suspicion.

      • Jaded says:

        This could very well have been done as a warning shot across the bow, not necessarily to snuff out Diana’s life but to warn her that her behaviour with the Al Fayed family was not acceptable. It succeeded too well unfortunately.

  28. Anya says:

    I’ve always thought it wasn’t an assassination only because if they wanted her dead there were much easier and less likely to fail ways to do it; the podcast You’re Wrong About did a great series about Diana and the final episode debunks a lot of the conspiracy theories.

  29. usavgjoe says:

    I believe what Dodi’s Father Mr. Al Fayed, said about the situation — the RF had a hand in their deaths.

    • SadieMae says:

      I can’t go for the “royal assassination” thing, but I could totally believe that Dodi was the target – it seems like his dad had some dirty business dealings, and I can definitely see the dad screwing over someone very powerful and very nasty – and them retaliating in this way.

      To me the father’s insistence that it was a royal hit job actually backs up the theory that it was Dodi who was the target. If so, would his father be willing to admit that possibility, or even to stay silent and have people possibly infer it? So he comes out swinging against the RF/British establishment/etc. to try to divert uncomfortable scrutiny from himself, his remaining family, his business interests. That makes a lot more sense to me.

  30. Mslove says:

    If the cameras in the tunnel were working like they should have been, we would know what happened. The fact that they weren’t makes the accident seem very shady.

  31. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    They’ve always been guilty of Diana’s death. I fumed in 97 just as I did when H and M started going through their shit. Hell, they’re guilty of the ongoing oppression and death of millions across countries and continents. Anyone thinks one little phone call couldn’t be made?

  32. QuiteContrary says:

    I am where a lot of you are. I don’t like to traffic in conspiracy theories. But given what transpired with M&H’s security — and the fire in Archie’s nursery in South Africa — I guess I wouldn’t put anything past the royal family.

    It does seem dangerous to be more charismatic and compelling than Charles.

    And William seems willing to undermine his own mother’s credibility by calling her “paranoid.” Why would he do this?

  33. Jaded says:

    The confusion over Henri Paul’s blood alcohol levels remains a key point in all of this. One blood test showed Prozac and tiapride (used to prevent aggression and treat alcoholism) and that combining them with alcohol would cause dizziness and shaking. Another blood test taken from 3 different areas of his body showed almost exact levels of alcohol, which is another red flag as normally, the blood alcohol levels would fluctuate according to where they were taken from the body. The physician said it was a 1 in 10,000 chance that the 3 tests would be so close. Then there’s the issue of why his carbon monoxide levels were so high in yet another test. Experts at Diana’s inquest stated that level would have left Paul suffering severe headaches, but no explanation for the concentrations has been found. The presiding Judge stated “The most likely explanation is that it isn’t Henri Paul’s blood.” Some people are convinced the blood sample could have been switched with someone who committed suicide in a running car.

    • Flower says:

      “Some people are convinced the blood sample could have been switched with someone who committed suicide in a running car.”

      ^^ This makes sense as it would tend to explain the existence of the anti-depressant and mood stabilizer found in one of the blood samples. Also the point about all three samples having the same blood alchol is interesting as arterial blood would tend to have a higher concentration as compared to the extremities where I suspect one of the other samples would have been taken from. Also H-P’s Doctor surely could verify if he were ever prescribed those drugs or had been a state of mind where he might procure them elsewhere for privacy reasons linked to his job as the Head of Security and also a trusted advisor confidant to the Al-Fayed family.

      The narrative that he was just the chauffeur always irked me as it conveniently negated his intelligence or importance as a human being, which is insulting given his previous career as a fighter pilot and current position as a trusted advisor and head of security for the Al-Fayed’s. I think this negating was done to make it easier to blame him.

      Also thanks to those who explained the French system of stabilising the patient before getting to Hospital. I lived there for two years and thankfully never had the misfortune to use an ambulance. However, I still think Diana was taken to that particular Hospital for diplomatic reasons as it’s the same one where Chirac and other high profile people have died so that the messaging could be controlled by the BRF and MI6.

      I don’t think the RF ordered a hit on Diana but they essentially did the next best thing in creating the perfect conditions for such an event to unfold. We saw the same playbook in operation with repeatedly leaking H&M’s locations and then eventually stripping their security.

      So from a moral standpoint they are culpable and this would explain D’s brothers anger at the time of the funeral where he explicitly makes reference to ‘her blood family’. Granted he’s a lying grifter who wouldn’t allow Diana any sanctuary, however he believed at the time the BRF were culpable.. Funny how 20 years on he has also switched sides like his nephew. I believe that in the lead up to D’s death, Charles used contacts to spy on her and reveal her location to the Paparazzi who harassed and briefed on her relentlessly. That is text-book Charles to get other people to do his dirty work.

      Then when the crash happened someone had to take the blame and the press Barons did not want any vicarious liability via their journalists or paparazzi so they activated their side of the invisible contract and role played minor anger and blame in public but with no real accountability. Does no one think it strange that not one of those paparazzi was even briefly held accountable in any way ?

      The BRF literally call themselves ‘The Firm’ and for me that always reminds me of the John Grisham Novel where Tom Cruise’s character is literally on the run for his life with his wife after exposing the massive scam that the Firm is. The parallels could not be clearer.

  34. Liz Version 700k says:

    It says a lot about how terrible Charles is as a father that someone who never believed the conspiracy theories about Diana’s horrible death is now completely open to the possibility that he had something to do with her horrible crash. His behavior is the evidence I needed to see. Tell me you are a failure as a King and Father and yikes husband without telling me…

    • Nlopez says:

      💯👏🏾👏🏾

      • Catherine says:

        I always hoped Harry would reach outside of the gaslighting Windsor bubble with regard to his mother’s death. There has always been too much eyewitness testimony from ordinary citizens – who have no reason to lie – that was not accounted for by the standard theory. Remember Occam’s razor. One thing is for sure; if not for the two of them Diana Spencer would be alive today. They ruined her life.

  35. Cathy says:

    I’ve never believed that Henri Paul was as drunk as they said he was. Surely Diana and Dodi would have been able to smell the alcohol on him if he was that drunk? It’s too easy to blame a dead man. This is why a captain always goes down with his ship, so he can be blamed later.

    I do believe there were people behind the scenes who wanted to stop Diana. Not the Royal family. She was going after land mines and I think it was the people who were/are making money from arms and especially land mines who wanted Diana stopped. Or at the very least frightened enough to stop?

    Blaming the Royal family is an easy convenient story but look a little deeper…

  36. ElleE says:

    “the fashion designer Gianni Versace. Although the Italian was killed in a random attack, his death was initially suspected to have been a professional assassination.“

    Nope. Andrew Cunahan had already killed a few men in Massachusetts during pride month, and then let it be known He was heading to Florida to kill a celebrity. The government of each state tracked them all the way down there, but they were too late, it was before 7 am & Cunahan was waiting for him to be alone.

    “Professional assassin” are they 14 years old passing this off as class research?

  37. Hummingbird says:

    A chilling thought. What if H had been asking too many questions about his mother’s death? Perhaps he was getting too close to the truth and this whole orchestrated campaign against him and M is really about that.
    The lesser of two evils would be to be accused of ignoring ( or not speaking out against) the racism element, than being accused of being complicit in an assassination.
    If Meghan was white they’d have found something else to villify her with in order to bring H into line.

  38. Mary Pester says:

    Now the world (other than the toxic royal UK sheep (, can see why Harry took Megan out of there. Look at the parallels, they said Diana was paranoid and suffering mental health issues, Now look at what the British rags are saying about harry, The Same Things. They asked how dark Archie’s skin would be, look at Dodi!! They refused Megan’s request for help with her mental anguish and suicidal thoughts!!! I wonder why. The whole bloody thing would have been a re run of the death of Dianes, with Megan, Harry and the children in one fell swoop. As a retired police officer I can tell you, NOTHING added up in the stories they were putting out about Henri Paul. They said he was drunk and on drugs, tell me how, a man who was drunk, could walk across a foyer, spot his lace was undone, bend down, tie it up and carry on walking without falling over, have none of them ever seen a sobriety test! And how the hell, would a man high on drugs even realise his lace was undone?? Then we get to the carbon monoxide supposedly in his lungs, they said it came from the air bag, how? When the coroner said with his injuries he would have died on impact. Finally, how did the British ambassador arrive at the hospital BEFORE Diana, how did he even know he would be needed. Harry could see what was comming, that’s why he has photographed everything. He learned the hard way just what his family and the security services are capable of