There are few things more haunting than Princess Diana’s Panorama interview, which happened a mere two years before her passing in 1997. In that interview, it’s always said that you could see it in her eyes: the fear, anxiety and deep sadness caused by her relationship with whom she ominously called ‘the establishment’.
By ‘the establishment’, she means the British Royal family, who are well beyond your typical nightmare in-laws. In her jaw-dropping interview, she makes a series of allegations which caused definite harm to their reputation, including their perception of her as a ‘problem’ that needed to be ‘solved’, their interception of correspondence and opportunities directed at her and, most memorably, her confirmation of long-standing rumours relating to Prince Charles’ infidelity, with her softly explaining that ‘there were three people in this marriage, so it was rather crowded.’
Although it had been long suspected that the inner-workings of the Windsor dynasty weren’t always at they seemed, this was the first time it was confirmed – and by someone that the family greatly considered to be a threat, no doubt. From hugging victims with HIV un-gloved to continuing with charitable and Royal engagements even after her divorce, it was clear that this ‘princess of people’s hearts’ refused to be sidelined or disappear from relevance in the way the family would’ve preferred.
With this bubbling suspicion coupled with various rumours and scrutiny about her moving on and being in another relationship (a bit of a double standard given her husband was involved with Camilla from the outset, but that’s an issue for another article), some would say that her death was inevitable. Diana, at least, thought so. In a letter that was disclosed by butler Paul Burrell after her death (she had given it to him for safekeeping), she said this: ‘This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. […] is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry’.
Eerily so, it cannot be ignored that the circumstances of her death are pretty much parallel. With these similarities, it becomes increasingly plausible that foul play was involved. There are several different theories and evidence that point towards this conclusion, so let’s dissect this together…
Why did it take so long to get to the hospital?
The first call to the emergency services was switchboarded at 12:36am. Diana was then recorded as arriving at the hospital at 2:06am – an hour and a half later. A lot of people believe this was deliberate sabotage by a number of medical professionals – who were possibly in cahoots with Royal Family, the French Government or French and British security services such as MI6.
It’s also suspect that that they chose to not take her to the nearest available hospital at the scene of the crash, and instead chose a different one that was further away.
However, according to an inquest, the ambulance driver reported that they were instructed to drive slowly in order to save the Princess’ life. It’s also reported that as per French procedure, staff spent forty minutes at the scene treating and attempting to stabilise Diana before transporting her.
But did these two crucial decisions – to treat at the scene and to not immediately take her to hospital – ultimately cost the Princess her life? And if so, was this outcome premeditated?
Was Diana killed because she was pregnant?
It is strongly believed that Diana was pregnant by lover Dodi Fayed (who also died in the crash); in fact, one of the most high-profile believers of this theory is Fayed’s father himself, Mohamed Al-Fayed. Some theorise that MI5 and/or MI6 decided to kill the Princess in case she converted to Islam (Dodi’s faith).
Apparently, this was seen as a threat and motive for her killing because, if her children ended up being converted by Diana as a result, this could have huge implications for the Church and State in the future. Adding to this theory, Al-Fayed has also said in the past that the Royal Family were involved in her death because they ‘could not accept that an Egyptian Muslim could eventually be the stepfather of the future King of England’.
However, tests on her blood show that she was not pregnant at the time of her death – but who’s to say those test results weren’t falsified?
Who killed Princess Diana?
We’ve already talked a little about MI5 (national security) and MI6 (international security) being behind Diana’s death, but there is more than one suggestion about the extent of which they were involved. Some think that rogue ‘cells’ of this organisation deemed her a threat to the throne and, by extension, the stability of the state. This then compelled them to take her out themselves without any other involvement.
More disconcertingly, others suggest that MI6 were acting under the establishment’s instructions in killing Diana, with it being an official and sanctioned assassination attempt. The direct involvement of the MI5 and MI6 is theorised in a variety of ways, but most chiefly the role of the driver of Diana and Dodi’s limo, Henri Paul, is treated with suspicion.
Although he was described as being a reckless alcoholic who was drunk at the time of driving the vehicle, eyewitness accounts and CCTV from the hotel show him appearing sober and nowhere near the level of drunk his post-mortem alcohol-blood levels suggest. Furthermore, although Head of Security at The Ritz is a fairly prestigious job to hold, its salary didn’t seem to match up to the kind of wealth and income he actually had. This has led to many – including friends of his – suggesting that he acted as a ‘sleeper agent’ for organisations such as MI6.
In response to all of these theories, the Metropolitan Police launched an inquiry into her death called Operation Paget, which examined 175 popular theories into the fatal accident. Although it was concluded that these conspiracy claims had no stable grounding to them, questions like the ones above still remain – and it’s easy to see why. One thing’s for sure… the story surrounding Diana’s death is far from over.