ChaoticMusings

Vam · Musing at the Chaos

Meghan's Moon Bump or is it?

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

She was a young girl with no life experience, she hadn't even had a proper boyfriend before she was swept into that horrendous life, with a man she loved, who loved another woman. It's not really surprising she was emotionally immature. Her childhood even before she met Charles had been one of abandonment.

After she had delivered two sons, she was more or less cast adrift, no wonder she went off the rails a bit.
I do believe she had found love for a short time with Hasnat Khan, and I don't believe for ONE SECOND that the royal family would have allowed a marriage to a Muslim.
However, I don't believe that was the reason she was murdered, because Khan would not have married her anyway, and Dodi Fayad was not a serious contender.
She always seemed a bit besotted with her friend's Jemima Goldsmiths husband, the then cricketer later PM of Pakistan, Imran Khan. She certainly seemed to go for a type.

Odd to think that Diana had lived that life, given birth to the future king and his brother ... and died, and she was still younger than Meghan was when she married Harry.

Date: Jun 20 6:45 PM, 2025

Syl wrote:
She was a young girl with no life experience, she hadn't even had a proper boyfriend before she was swept into that horrendous life, with a man she loved, who loved another woman. It's not really surprising she was emotionally immature. Her childhood even before she met Charles had been one of abandonment.

After she had delivered two sons, she was more or less cast adrift, no wonder she went off the rails a bit.
I do believe she had found love for a short time with Hasnat Khan, and I don't believe for ONE SECOND that the royal family would have allowed a marriage to a Muslim.
However, I don't believe that was the reason she was murdered, because Khan would not have married her anyway, and Dodi Fayad was not a serious contender.
She always seemed a bit besotted with her friend's Jemima Goldsmiths husband, the then cricketer later PM of Pakistan, Imran Khan. She certainly seemed to go for a type.

Odd to think that Diana had lived that life, given birth to the future king and his brother ... and died, and she was still younger than Meghan was when she married Harry.

But how could they have stopped her Syl?

Digger · Admin

Syl wrote:
She was a young girl with no life experience, she hadn't even had a proper boyfriend before she was swept into that horrendous life, with a man she loved, who loved another woman. It's not really surprising she was emotionally immature. Her childhood even before she met Charles had been one of abandonment.

After she had delivered two sons, she was more or less cast adrift, no wonder she went off the rails a bit.
I do believe she had found love for a short time with Hasnat Khan, and I don't believe for ONE SECOND that the royal family would have allowed a marriage to a Muslim.
However, I don't believe that was the reason she was murdered, because Khan would not have married her anyway, and Dodi Fayad was not a serious contender.
She always seemed a bit besotted with her friend's Jemima Goldsmiths husband, the then cricketer later PM of Pakistan, Imran Khan. She certainly seemed to go for a type.

Odd to think that Diana had lived that life, given birth to the future king and his brother ... and died, and she was still younger than Meghan was when she married Harry.

Diana had left the RF by then and lost her titles. So give us one good reason why they would forbid her to marry a muslim?

Date: Jun 20 8:39 PM, 2025

Syl wrote:
I don't believe for ONE SECOND that the royal family would have allowed a marriage to a Muslim.
However, I don't believe that was the reason she was murdered, because Khan would not have married her anyway, and Dodi Fayad was not a serious contender.

The thing is both you and Magica are firmly of the view that she was deliberately killed, but neither of you have said who you think did it and why.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

I think she held a lot of power. She was also getting involved in politics.
InAngola, though she was there in a humanitarian role, others saw it as her interfering in world politics.During her visit, when she walked across a minefield, her image generated huge publicity...which was the intention.. On that visit she was called a 'loose cannon', by a government minister, which visibly upset her...all caught on camera.

Governments assassinate people....it's not a new thing.

Magica · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
I think she held a lot of power. She was also getting involved in politics.
InAngola, though she was there in a humanitarian role, others saw it as her interfering in world politics.During her visit, when she walked across a minefield, her image generated huge publicity...which was the intention.. On that visit she was called a 'loose cannon', by a government minister, which visibly upset her...all caught on camera.

Governments assassinate people....it's not a new thing.

I agree Syl.

I also think it was the government like MI5, or some such department.

I don't think the royal family had anything to do with her death.

Digger · Admin

Syl wrote:
I think she held a lot of power. She was also getting involved in politics.
InAngola, though she was there in a humanitarian role, others saw it as her interfering in world politics.During her visit, when she walked across a minefield, her image generated huge publicity...which was the intention.. On that visit she was called a 'loose cannon', by a government minister, which visibly upset her...all caught on camera.

Governments assassinate people....it's not a new thing.

How many people has the UK government assassinated?

Digger · Admin

The thing about assassinations is that any death could be attributed to one. You can slip on a banana skin and someone will claim that banana skin was put there by a MI6 agent. Perhaps in years to come new evidence will emerge but there is absolutely no evidence right now that Diana was murdered.

Magica · Go Outside

Digger wrote:
The thing about assassinations is that any death could be attributed to one. You can slip on a banana skin and someone will claim that banana skin was put there by a MI6 agent. Perhaps in years to come new evidence will emerge but there is absolutely no evidence right now that Diana was murdered.

There is no evidence she wasn't. The driver wasn't drunk.imo. Before the crash a flash of light blinded him.

They wanted her out the way, I truly believe this.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Digger wrote:
Syl wrote:
I think she held a lot of power. She was also getting involved in politics.
InAngola, though she was there in a humanitarian role, others saw it as her interfering in world politics.During her visit, when she walked across a minefield, her image generated huge publicity...which was the intention.. On that visit she was called a 'loose cannon', by a government minister, which visibly upset her...all caught on camera.

Governments assassinate people....it's not a new thing.
How many people has the UK government assassinated?

Oh, just a minute, I will look it up in the handbook of the secret world of government assassinations.

Do you believe Dr David Kelly committed suicide?

Date: Jun 21 12:25 PM, 2025

Magica wrote:
Digger wrote:
The thing about assassinations is that any death could be attributed to one. You can slip on a banana skin and someone will claim that banana skin was put there by a MI6 agent. Perhaps in years to come new evidence will emerge but there is absolutely no evidence right now that Diana was murdered.
There is no evidence she wasn't. The driver wasn't drunk.imo. Before the crash a flash of light blinded him.
They wanted her out the way, I truly believe this.

There is no evidence she wasn't.

But the investigations and inquest found otherwise.

The driver wasn't drunk.imo

But the driver's blood alcohol level was found to be well above the legal limit

Before the crash a flash of light blinded him

But if he was dead, how could he have revealed that?

Magica · Go Outside

Anonymous wrote:
Magica wrote:
Digger wrote:
The thing about assassinations is that any death could be attributed to one. You can slip on a banana skin and someone will claim that banana skin was put there by a MI6 agent. Perhaps in years to come new evidence will emerge but there is absolutely no evidence right now that Diana was murdered.
There is no evidence she wasn't. The driver wasn't drunk.imo. Before the crash a flash of light blinded him.
They wanted her out the way, I truly believe this.
There is no evidence she wasn't.
But the investigations and inquest found otherwise.
The driver wasn't drunk.imo
But the driver's blood alcohol level was found to be well above the legal limit
Before the crash a flash of light blinded him
But if he was dead, how could he have revealed that?

There was a picture of it, obviously a cameraman.

He wasn't drunk, everyone who was there said that. The blood could have been tampered with.

I don't trust the investigation.

My opinion.

Date: Jun 22 8:25 AM, 2025

Syl wrote:
The above post by Digger just highlights... the actual car that killed three people, one being the most famous woman in the world, was never proven to be found.

Just going back to this point - you say the Fiat was the actual car that killed the victims, but the actual car that killed them (if we're going to blame a vehicle for it) was the one they were in. The head of the French investigating team has said that it was the Mercedes that hit the other car, not the other way round. And when you think about it, surely that's the more likely scenario, given that it was the Mercedes that was speeding at the time.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Anonymous wrote:

Syl wrote:
The above post by Digger just highlights... the actual car that killed three people, one being the most famous woman in the world, was never proven to be found.
Just going back to this point - you say the Fiat was the actual car that killed the victims, but the actual car that killed them (if we're going to blame a vehicle for it) was the one they were in. The head of the French investigating team has said that it was the Mercedes that hit the other car, not the other way round. And when you think about it, surely that's the more likely scenario, given that it was the Mercedes that was speeding at the time.

My point still stands...the fiat was never found.

And if you were the driver of that fiat, and some speeding nutter clipped your car, no doubt damaging it and possibly you in the process, why would you just drive off?

And then why, knowing the car that had clipped you was all over the worlds news, would you then not come forwards, saving two police forces and countless investigations over many years an absolute fortune?

Date: Jun 22 12:45 PM, 2025

Syl wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Syl wrote:
The above post by Digger just highlights... the actual car that killed three people, one being the most famous woman in the world, was never proven to be found.
Just going back to this point - you say the Fiat was the actual car that killed the victims, but the actual car that killed them (if we're going to blame a vehicle for it) was the one they were in. The head of the French investigating team has said that it was the Mercedes that hit the other car, not the other way round. And when you think about it, surely that's the more likely scenario, given that it was the Mercedes that was speeding at the time.
My point still stands...the fiat was never found.
And if you were the driver of that fiat, and some speeding nutter clipped your car, no doubt damaging it and possibly you in the process, why would you just drive off?
And then why, knowing the car that had clipped you was all over the worlds news, would you then not come forwards, saving two police forces and countless investigations over many years an absolute fortune?

I can think of half a dozen reasons why someone involved in a collision would drive off and not hang around even if they didn't cause the accident, to be honest it doesn't need much thought to see why someone might. And if you woke up next day and read who had died, that's even more reason to keep shtum. After all, would you want the world's press and a whole bunch of conspiracy theorists splashing your details all over and accusing you of being a hired assassin!

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

The whole point is...if the fiat driver had come forwards, there would have been no talk of hired assassins in the first place.

Date: Jun 22 3:54 PM, 2025

Oh dear. Sir David Attenborough has told Markle “don’t use by name”. She apparently implied that he was endorsing her, adding some credibility to her brand.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Anonymous wrote:
Oh dear. Sir David Attenborough has told Markle “don’t use by name”. She apparently implied that he was endorsing her, adding some credibility to her brand.

I can well believe that. He has been good friends with the royal family for decades, and especially with the late Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

No doubt he has seen the way she has treated them, and has acted accordingly.

Date: Jun 22 4:40 PM, 2025

Syl wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Oh dear. Sir David Attenborough has told Markle “don’t use by name”. She apparently implied that he was endorsing her, adding some credibility to her brand.
I can well believe that. He has been good friends with the royal family for decades, and especially with the late Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.
No doubt he has seen the way she has treated them, and has acted accordingly.

iirc Kate said that Sir David is/was her favourite celeb to meet - she and George appear to be big fans of his work, as am I. I’ve bought a fair few DVDs of his (yeah I’m a dinosaur, still buy the occasional ones).

His documentaries have to be the best there is…the camera work and his narration is sublime, imho.

To have spent your life re conservation etc and then to have a grifter riding on your coattails…