ORIGINAL BLOG POST PUBLISHED IN FINNISH ON JANUARY 14, 2023

READING TIME: 15 MINUTES

Over the years I have blogged about the death of Princess Diana and how it was probably a murder conspiracy orchestrated by the British Royal Family – especially Prince Charles and his lackeys – to make the Princess’s death look like an accident. Diana herself believed that her husband intended to murder her and even correctly predicted that the plan was to frame her death as a car accident as she wrote to her servant Paul Burrell in October 1993 and two years later to her lawyer Lord Mischon. Diana’s letters and fears were in the public eye years later after her death in 2003. Around the same time, revelations also began to leak to the press about how Diana had planned to release seven video tapes that she recorded at Kensington Palace months before her death. In these tapes, she allegedly revealed many dirty secrets regarding the royal family and especially her husband that would have threatened to bring down the entire monarchy – or at least prevented her husband’s ascend on the throne. Award-winning investigative journalist Gordon Thomas wrote about this in October 2003 in a report which I have quoted in my book.

The death of the popular princess fuelled public suspicion and distrust of the monarchy, and was such a shock to the British people which saw the royal family as at least indirectly – if not directly – responsible for Diana’s death, that an official inquest into the cause of her death was held in 2007. It should be noted that the subject of the inquiry was not whether Britain’s foreign enemies, such as China or Russia, were responsible for the death of the Princess, but whether the royal family itself, together with the country’s political establishment, were guilty of conspiracy to murder Diana. This was precisely the accusation of Mohammed Al-Fayd, Dodi’s father who died in Diana’s car, and his lawyers in this inquest organised by the British government. But how can we expect an impartial inquest in a country where the entire state machine – politicians, intelligence agencies, judges, and even the press – is bound by numerous noble chivalries to serve and protect the monarchy and the royal family from any foreign or domestic threat? Isn’t that a bit like Putin holding an inquiry into whether Russia is guilty of war crimes in Ukraine?

Many people live under the illusion that Britain is a much freer and more democratic country than, say, Russia. There is only the illusion of democracy in Britain and the whole establishment is harnessed to serve the monarchy. Any threat to the monarchy is seen as treason, which in the old days was punishable by being hanged, drawn and quartered or nowadays by life imprisonment. An impartial inquest into the deaths could only have been held in an international tribunal in order to avoid any conflicts of interest. If, in a British royal court, the monarch or her heir were found guilty of murder, or that the numerous politicians that serve the monarchy conspired to either carry it out, or was involved in cover up that murder, that would be a royal scandal of such magnitude that it would bring down the entire monarchy and would threaten the very existence of the ancient kingdom. The British people may forgive the adulteries of members of the royal family and other moral indiscretions, but they would not turn a blind eye to the murder. It is therefore much easier to silence awkward questions by labelling those who raise them as “conspiracy theorists”. But such label is not an argument against the existence of a conspiracy.

So much has been written about the conspiracy surrounding Diana’s death on the internet and in numerous books, and even the headlines of the British mainstream press – after all attemps to cover-up its existence – poking holes in the official narrative and supporting the claims of the so called “conspiracy theorists”, that I have often wondered whether Princes William and Harry ever suspected that their father might have something to do with their mother’s death. Princes William and Harry were only 15 and 13 years old when their mother died, so it is clear that they could not have had any role in her murder. However, it is entirely possible that William and Harry have also led to believe that Diana’s death was an accident, while Charles was playing the grieving widower to his sons, even though he himself would have ordered the mother of his two sons to be killed. Anyone who has watched documentaries about hardened serial killers knows that these people are often able to fool even their closest family members and hide their true nature from them.

For Diana herself, the dark nature of her husband only began to be revealed over time. In 1988, Charles and Diana tried to warm up their cold and frozen relationship by going on a skiing holiday in Switzerland. It was a bad idea, though, as they happened to get caught in an avalanche and found themselves even colder state and were almost frozen to death. One of the party, Major Hugh Lindsay, the Queen’s rider, died in the accident. The following story can be found in Christopher Andersen’s recent book The King: The Life of Charles III:

Major Lindsay, however, had been killed instantly. Once his body was dug out of the snow, it was discovered that his skull had been crushed by the sheer force of the avalanche. Within hours Charles called Lindsay’s widow, Sarah, who was six months pregnant, and described to her what had happened. Diana said later her “blood ran cold” at Charles’s lack of emotion. promised Sarah that she would never—“could never”—return to Klosters, and she kept her promise. Charles, however, returned to the Swiss resort the very next year, “as if,” Diana marveled, “nothing had happened.”

Andersen, Christopher. The King: The Life of Charles III (p. 154). Gallery Books. Kindle Edition.

This story underlines the callousness and lack of empathy, characteristic by a psychopaths or sociopaths, which Diana began to witness more and more in her husband (as shown also by Charles’ indifferent reactions to Diana’s several suicide attempts). Prince Harry’s newly published memoir, Spare, also seem to reinforce this idea, when he recounts how his father told him the news of his mother’s death.

Pa? He was standing at the edge of the bed, looking down. His white dressing-gown made him seem like a ghost in a play. Yes, darling boy. He gave a half-smile, averted his gaze. The room wasn’t dark any more. Wasn’t light either. Strange in-between shade, almost brownish, almost like the water in the ancient tub. He looked at me in a funny way, a way he’d never looked at me before. With … fear? What is it, Pa? He sat down on the edge of the bed. He put a hand on my knee. Darling boy, Mummy’s been in a car crash. I remember thinking: Crash … OK. But she’s all right? Yes? I vividly remember that thought flashing through my mind. And I remember waiting patiently for Pa to confirm that indeed Mummy was all right. And I remember him not doing that. There was then a shift internally. I began silently pleading with Pa, or God, or both: No, no, no.

Pa looked down into the folds of the old quilts and blankets and sheets. There were complications. Mummy was quite badly injured and taken to hospital, darling boy. He always called me “darling boy”, but he was saying it quite a lot now. His voice was soft. He was in shock, it seemed. Oh. Hospital? Yes. With a head injury. Did he mention paparazzi? Did he say she’d been chased? I don’t think so. I can’t swear to it, but probably not. The paps were such a problem for Mummy, for everyone, it didn’t need to be said. I thought again: Injured … but she’s OK. She’s been taken to hospital, they’ll fix her head, and we’ll go and see her. Today. Tonight at the latest. They tried, darling boy. I’m afraid she didn’t make it. These phrases remain in my mind like darts in a board. He did say it that way, I know that much for sure. She didn’t make it. And then everything seemed to come to a stop. That’s not right. Not seemed. Nothing at all seemed.

Everything distinctly, certainly, irrevocably, came to a stop. None of what I said to him then remains in my memory. It’s possible that I didn’t say anything. What I do remember with startling clarity is that I didn’t cry. Not one tear. Pa didn’t hug me. He wasn’t great at showing emotions under normal circumstances, how could he be expected to show them in such a crisis? But his hand did fall once more on my knee and he said: It’s going to be OK. That was quite a lot for him. Fatherly, hopeful, kind. And so very untrue. He stood and left. I don’t recall how I knew that he’d already been in the other room, that he’d already told Willy, but I knew. I lay there, or sat there. I didn’t get up. I didn’t bathe, didn’t pee. Didn’t get dressed. Didn’t call out to Willy or Mabel. After decades of working to reconstruct that morning I’ve come to one inescapable conclusion: I must’ve remained in that room, saying nothing, seeing no one, until nine a.m. sharp, when the piper began to play outside.

Harry, The Duke of Sussex, Prince. Spare (p. 18-19). Transworld. Kindle Edition.

It is indeed chilling to think that someone could be so callous as to look their own children in the eye and tell them of their mother’s death, which they themselves arranged. But this very insensitive way of informing his 13-year-old son of his mother’s death shows that Charles is incapable of compassion, even for his own children. But can even a psychopath/sociopath pretend for years to be a loving and caring father to his own children without revealing his true dark nature to them? I asked this from my new “friend”, the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT, “who” gave me the followinng answer:

Psychopaths and sociopaths can show emotion, but it is often artificial and only to get what they want. For example, they may pretend to love their family to get something they want. However, real love is difficult for them because they do not have the ability to feel and experience emotions in the same way as ordinary people… psychopaths and sociopaths can also deceive their own family members. They often have good manipulation skills and know how to use them to their advantage. For example, they can appear to be loving and caring family members, when in reality they are just using their family to get their own way. They also have the ability to hide their true thoughts and feelings, so it can be difficult for family members to see their true nature.

Prince Harry recently told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that for years after his mother’s death he refused to believe she was dead and believed it was all “part of a plan” to disappear from the public spotlight, and that she would eventually return to his children to be with her and William. It’s very sad, but this is how the human mind tries to deal with the trauma of a young age – by denying that it never happened, and by wishful thinking that it will all come back. But if the press in Britain and elsewhere had published the news immediately after Diana’s death that the Princess feared being murdered by her husband in a staged car crash, then perhaps Harry and the British people would have understood from the start that it was ‘part of a plan’, not the Princess’s plan, but her husband’s plan.

Despite William and Harry’s resentment towards the paparazzi and the yellow press – who had been blamed by the mainstream media for Diana’s death – they did not believe the official story of their mother’s death, that was driven by the British establishment. In his book, Harry recounts how his father often advised him not to read the news: “He read everything else, from Shakespeare to White Papers on climate change, but never the news. (He did watch the BBC, but he’d often end up throwing the controller at the TV.)” I never thought I would say this, but at this point I would advise everyone to follow Charles’ fine example and do exactly the same. Personally, I’ll throw the remote at the TV if CNN happens to accidentally turn on. Maybe Charles throws it for a different reason than I do, but applause for that anyway. On page 132, Harry briefly shares his and William’s thoughts on the 2007 Diana death investigation and its final report:

Afterwards, we talked about the crash, for the first time ever. We talked about the recent inquest. A joke, we both agreed. The final written report was an insult. Fanciful, riddled with basic factual errors and gaping logical holes. It raised more questions than it answered. After all these years, we said, and all that money – how? Above all, the summary conclusion, that Mummy’s driver was drunk and thereby the sole cause of the crash, was convenient and absurd. Even if the man had been drinking, even if he was shit-faced, he wouldn’t have had any trouble navigating that short tunnel. Unless paps had chased and blinded him. Why were those paps not more roundly blamed? Why were they not in gaol? Who sent them? And why were they not in gaol? Why indeed – unless corruption and cover-ups were the order of the day? We were united on all these points, and also on next steps. We’d issue a statement, jointly call for the inquiry to be reopened. Maybe hold a press conference. We were talked out of it by the powers that be.

Harry, The Duke of Sussex, Prince. Spare (pp. 132-133). Transworld. Kindle Edition.

Prince Harry therefore admits that corruption and cover-ups by those in power have sought to hide the truth about his mother’s death from both him and Willam, and from the public at large. But at the same time, this statement gives the impression that Harry is still unable to connect the dots and continues to blame the paparazzi for his mother’s death, as the media did back in 1997. However, Harry has just told CNN’s Anderson Cooper:

[The official story] had so many holes and so many holes that just didn’t add up and didn’t make sense. I still don’t know the whole truth of it and I don’t think my brother does either. I don’t think the world knows. Do I need to know any more than I already do? No. I don’t know if it would change things much.”

Conclusion

This last sentence is a rather extraordinary statement. Would it make any difference if Harry knew that his father, along with the entire British establishment, was guilty of murdering his mother and covering it up? Quite a lot – especially if he decides to talk about it publicly. Anyone who has followed my writings knows that I have not been Harry and Meghan’s biggest fan. For years, I have criticised the woke ideology they promote and their hypocritical preaching about climate change and racism. I’m not even interested in watching their latest Netflix series. Meghan and Harry’s so called “Megxit” (resigning from the ‘firm’ and moving to the US, which according to them was more like an eviction or deportation) was, in my opinion, a smoke screen to get the media to focus on this perennial royal soap opera instead of doing real investigative journalism on, say, Diana’s death, Charles and Andrew’s paedophilia connections, and other illegalities.

I have been dealing with this Harry’s falling out with the Royal Family mainly in the context that it was a sort of continuation of the 90’s “War of Waleses” between Charles and Diana. The only upside is that it has given Harry a slightly freer hand to reveal the secrets of the Royal Family to the public. Without Megxit, we would not have found out, for example, that William and Harry themselves did not believe the official government narrative about Diana’s death. The downside is that Meghan and Harry have managed to make themselves royal outcasts and traitors – partly perhaps through their own fault and partly by being vilified by the British mainstream media – for whom few now have any sympathy o either side of the political spectrum (perhaps a little more on the left). So hardly anyone takes their words seriously any more. This can be seen, for example, in the way Harry himself is now branded an “irresponsible conspiracy theorist” for simply telling the truth about how the official government narrative about his mother’s death never convinced him.

Premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 2011 and banned in the UK, Keith Allen’s documentary Unlawful Killing is true story about Diana’s murder. I don’t subscribe to the documentary’s claim about the motive for Diana’s murder, or that it was orchestrated by the late Prince Philip instead of Prince Charles, but otherwise quite a worthwhile documentary about the cover-up surrounding Diana’s death, and the totally biased British legal system and the mainstream media.

My own video from three years ago on the same subject, with a snippet of Allen’s documentary at the end.