European court throws out conspiracy theory
With Mohamed al Fayed taking the witness stand today at the Diana inquest, the European Court of Human Rights has thrown out his allegations about the deaths of Princess Diana and his son, Dodi. The judges in Strasbourg found no evidence of foul play, and will hand down a verdict that the cause of death was a simple road traffic accident. They said Al Fayed’s case was “manifestly ill-founded” and ruled it “inadmissible”.
This is the third major investigation into the crash, and each has reached the same conclusion. Given the overwhelming weight of evidence presented, it would be perverse if the inquest did not also reach a similar verdict in five weeks when, thankfully, this three-ring circus finally comes to an end.
So how will the man who has generated all this activity perform today? The consensus is that he may fight his corner quite well. When he took the witness stand in 1999 at Neil Hamilton’s libel action over claims that the former Conservative MP took cash and gifts from Al Fayed in exchange for asking questions in the House of Commons, the Harrod’s boss was said to have performed “brilliantly”.
However, the direction of travel of this inquest is so much against him that he may struggle with some of the most aggressive questioning yet as old scores are settled and his wild accusations regurgitated.
He will take the stand for two days. It would be gruelling for any 75-year-old, but he will reap a whirlwind of his own making.
Update: At the inquest, Mohamed al Fayed has called the Royal Family the “Dracula family” and Prince Philip a Nazi who should be sent back to Germany. He also implicated hundreds of people in the alleged “consipiracy” by accusing French police, security services and investigators, as well as the Metropolitan Police, the Royal Family and MI6. That would make it the biggest conspiracy in history.
Paul Burrell has been caught on tape by The Sun newspaper claiming he lied under oath at the inquest and threw in a lot of “red herrings”. Perjury is a very serious offence and the Coroner has called for a copy of the video.
Why is it that most of Diana’s friends appear to be complete nutcases?
Honestly, I have always thought something sinister had been in the works. However, I don’t know if it was actually carried out, or if destiny stepped in and took care of it.
I do wish they would let Diana Rest In Peace. For the sake of her boys, who already know more than they anyone should ever know about their parents, and who obviously love their grandparents and are part of their lives, it should all lay to rest.
By Madelaine on February 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
The Frankenstein reference is curious. Queen Mary herself said that there was a Rumanian connection in the Royal Family. It was mentioned once and she smiled and said “The joke is that some of us are from there (i.e.Rumania)” but I do not think the name Frankenstein ever was part of any family name related directly to Prince Philip. Princess Marie of Edinburgh, who became Queen Marie of Rumania, was the daughter of Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh (son of Queen Victoria). Prince Alfred was the brother of Princess Alice, Duchess of Hesse, who was Great Grandmother to Prince Philip. As for the German connection in the Royal Family, that is well-documented and goes back to the House of Hanover, of which Queen Victoria was the last sovereign in that line, and her husband, the Prince Consort, Albert of Saxe Coburg Gotha, a man of shining memory. If Mr. Al Fayed is saying, as I believe he is, that Prince Philip and Charles did not want Princess Diana marrying a Muslim because of ethnic or religious prejudice, and Fayed finds that heinous, he must be careful not to display an ethnic prejudice against Germans and Rumanians. Otherwise, we have a pot calling the kettle black. After all, no one can help where their families originated. The character is in the man, not the land from which he sprung.
By Gigi on February 18th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
There was a story doing the rounds a few years ago, Gigi, that Prince Charles was descended from Vlad the Impaler, the original Count Dracula, but this was a faint connection across different branches of European Royalty. Just as Prince Philip is always called upon to provide genetic material in respect of the last Tsar and his family — being descended from both sides — there’s a huge gene pool linking them all.
Al Fayed is just being as insulting as he can. There is no evidence that either Charles or Philip objected to Dodi’s Muslim religion, just the fact that he was a louche, cocaine addicted playboy who treated his American fiancee appallingly, sleeping with her at night, while he dallied by day with Diana.
By John on February 18th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Good for the coroner to pursue Burrell. What a snake!
I did not expect Lord Justice Scott Baker to pursue the claims with the thoroughness he has.
By kit on February 18th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Nor did I, Kit. He’s been a revelation. Obviously it all had to come out before the poisoned boil could be lanced.
By John on February 18th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I also am pleased that the Lord Justice is demanding the tape and is going to pursue Burrell. The problem is that Burrell’s testimony–all of it–is now hopelessly compromised. If he lied under oath the first time, and it appears that he did, then how is he to be compelled to tell the truth now, and how can any of his testimony be credited? Further, even given the fact that Mr. Al Fayed is a grieving father who has lost a son, his remarks are irresponsible. Having German lineage does not make one a Nazi. As for Charles possibly being descended from Vlad the Impaler, that is only germane to the issue at hand if Charles has impaled someone, which I am certain he has not.
By Gigi on February 18th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
John, do you text link here by using the format:
[url="type url here"]“text”[/url]?
By kit on February 18th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
You know, I really feel sorry for Mohamed al Fayed because this is a man who won’t come to the terms that it was a drunk driver that drove them to their deaths. He is pointing his finger at everybody but himself. He just have to realize that Diana needed special care because she was once a future Queen and mother of future Kings and she was just an important person.. She just wasn’t provided with the proper protection and he help put Henri Paul in the driver’s seat. I really do think he beat’s himself up for it but won’t come to a understanding that it was just an accident. All of these crazy stories that Diana was pregnant with Dodi’s baby, they was planning to get engaged, and move to the Duke & Duchess of Windsor former home. And also the story that Prince Philip had something to do with it and Diana’s friends was in on it, is all false. I just look at him and listen to him and I see a man who don’t know what to do with himself. I think he needs help. I also think William & Harry know this as well.
By Claudius on February 18th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
At what point do Al Fayed’s ravings cross the line into libelous territory? I doubt the Royal Family will dignify these latest claims with a response (by his reckoning, who among us is NOT involved in the conspiracy?), but isn’t it libelous to falsely accuse a man of being a murderous Nazi?
I have heard that conspiracy theorists are prevalent in Egyptian culture, but Al Fayed has come way off the rails.
By Dan on February 18th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I am tempted to agree with you, Claudius. The Daily Mail online is reporting that Mr. Al Fayed is now claiming that former Prime Minister Tony Blair ‘gave the order’ for Princess Diana to be killed. This is getting surreal. Is he saying that there was a conspiracy involving Prince Philip, Charles and Tony Blair? That is very hard to believe, even should he present proof, which evidently he does not have. Innuendo and theories do not constitute evidence of a conspiracy to commit a murder. The Lord Justice needs to get to the bottom of this, and somehow, Burrell may indeed be the answer, despite his credibility problems. John, what could the Queen have told Burrell during the three hour conversation that is so sensative that Burrell is willing to go to jail to keep it a secret? He used to work for the Queen, so is his perjured testimony the product of lifelong loyalty to the Queen he once served?
By Gigi on February 18th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I couldn’t begin to fully comment on the rambling ranting displayed by Mr al Fayed at the inquest today, althugh I wish I had the time and the gift to do so. I read the transcrpts alternating between bursts of laughter and recoils of horror. I’d say he was extremely close-minded if I thought he had one.
By Janet on February 18th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Paul Burrell, “Diana’s rock,” has been pulverized!
By Arthur on February 18th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I look at Al Fayed and i see a father who cannot come to terms with the death of his son. Although I do believe that there is a possibility that something untoward could have happened to contribute to Dianas and Dodis death I don’t think there will ever be proof to back that up. No parent should ever have to deal with the death of their child & I hope one day his pain will ease. I don’t think this inquest is helping anyone & Diana needs to be left to rest in peace and her sons to get on with their lives.
By jackie mccoy on February 19th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Not so very long ago almost everyone believed that Diana had been murdered by sinister forces. Here at Royal Anecdotes we never believed that and were almost alone in denying what was a very good story.
It’s so good to see the tide of opinion rushing now in the opposite direction. It certainly justifies Scott Baker’s meticulous and sometimes embarrassingly-detailed investigation. None of the other inquiries had that effect. This one has. Jolly well done to him.
By John on February 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Kit, use a href= etc. If I spell it out the software will convert it.
By John on February 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Dan, Al Fayed has already grotesquely libelled Prince Philip over a ten year period. I doubt there will be any legal comeback though.
Didn’t the man ever consider that if Philip was so ruthless, he could easily have engineered Fayed’s own demise with such an array of forces to call on.
He also said that Philip runs the country behind the scenes; that the Queen and the Prime Minister are just puppets dancing to the Great Nazi’s tune. If ever a man was deluded it’s this one.
His ranting treatment of the BBC’s Newsnight reporter outside the court gave us a glimpse of his psychology. “If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy” — where have I heard that before ?
By John on February 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Gigi, I think the “three hour conversation” with the Queen is another of Burrell’s fictions. The Queen is far too savvy to lay herself open to a garrulous servant at such length.
Burrell admitted in court that the Queen didn’t use the quoted words about “dark forces of which we know nothing”. Now he’s puffing this up to make him seem important, just as he did with Diana, who used the phrase “my rock” about most of her staff.
By John on February 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am
What astounded me, John, was his claim that he had a private three-hour audience with the Queen. I cannot imagine Queen Elizabeth II having that lengthy an audience with a servant or anyone except possibly a visiting Head of State, she is far too busy. As for Mr. Al Fayed, his opinion that Prince Philip runs the country with the Queen as a puppet is so ludicrous that it floors me. No one who knows anything about Queen Elizabeth II could ever believe that she would surrender her perogative to anyone. Of course Prince Philip’s advice is highly valued by her, as it should be, but she is the sovereign and no one rules in her stead, behind the throne or anywhere else.
The inquest, while costly and lengthy, has been very valuable because it will, I believe, put to rest the nagging doubts many, including myself, have had regarding what caused the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed. This resolution is critical, for Britain and for the world, especially in these days of cynicism and intrigue. I am sorry that Mr. Al Fayed has not gotten the closure he needed because, as a grieving parent who has lost a child, of any age, Mr. Al Fayed is as much a victim of the fatal crash as Dodi and Princess Diana. Mr. Al Fayed’s son and Princess Diana are dead, too young, too soon, and they should not be. Naturally, he seeks a legal remedy, but in this case, there appears to be none. It is a tragedy on just about every level. Compassion does not grow well in the stony soil of the courts of public opinion, but in this case, I hope compassion and tolerance will take root.
By Gigi on February 19th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Gigi, it was his car (one only), travelling from his hotel, to his house, on his orders, with his driver, and his bodyguard (one only), and his security.
The man is in denial that his carelessness led to these deaths. To blame innocent people for your own costly errors is beneath contempt.
By John on February 19th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Those factors are probably the very things that make Mr. Al Fayed so desperate to place blame elsewhere. It would be enough to drive any parent over the edge to know that his child’s death was caused by a the parent himself. He possibly knows this deep in his heart but cannot bring himself to accept it. Or, perhaps, he does not know it. Grief can establish stone walls within the mourner.
By Gigi on February 19th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Also, in reference to your comment about the Nazi issue, that is another ludicrous statement of Mr. Al Fayed. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was not, is not now and never will be a Nazi nor is he a Nazi sympathizer. The charge is so absurd that it is probably unnecessary to dispute it, but I dispute it nonetheless, for the record.
By Gigi on February 19th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I agree, Gigi. He can’t be held responsible for one or two of his relatives. The same is true of Princess Michael.
By John on February 19th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
There’s a good article by Allison Pearson in today’s Daily Mail on the real cause of the deaths. See it HERE.
By John on February 20th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I have a question for some of you. But let me give you the back story, I’ve been reading another website reguarding the royal family, but it became to much about hating KM and all about bashing her and how she’s not good enough. Personally I feel that if they work out great, if not thats fine to. But my question is, Is there a certain criteria that must be met, for a women marrying into the royal family, to become a Queen consort?
By Sara on February 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Sara, if she didn’t have a certain indefinable “class” and personal dignity, I think she would soon sink in public esteem, as others have done. That would damage the Royal Family, so they have strategies to cope with that.
It’s inconceivable that William would marry someone without the approval of the Queen, even though, at 25, he doesn’t need it. These things are subject to arcane rules and conventions to which few of us are privy.
Kate seems to have passed the test though, but only time will tell. William’s apparent reluctance to commit may be just male obtuseness, but it may reflect deeper currents in the Royal conversation.
I believe it will happen, but I can’t say for certain.
By John on February 20th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Thank You for such a quick reply!! I assumed that after such a long time if she wasn’t compatible something would have already been done to curve his intrests elsewhere. Also I want it noted, that it is nice to finally find a site without some crazy rantings.
By Sara on February 20th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I could be completely wrong about this, but I think there is a good chance that the Royal Family is trying not to make the mistake that was made with Prince Andrew and Sarah, Duchess of York. They married and then were separated for long periods of their marriage by the Duke of York’s military service, which damaged their relationship. If Prince William and Kate were to marry before his military training and active service was completed, the same thing might occur, with equally painful consequences. This may be the reason for the delay. I think that if the Royal Family had any doubts about the suitability of Kate to be Queen Consort, something significant would have been done to quash the romance prior to this. This is just my opinion, of course. If Kate Middleton is not Queen Consort material, I wonder where such a paragon is to be found. Furthermore, Prince William will not, I am certain, agree to marry for any reason but a deep and abiding love.
By Gigi on February 20th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I would have to agree with Gigi.
By Amity on February 21st, 2008 at 3:19 am
Coroner Issues Warning to Critics
He won’t be swayed by anyone. Impressive.
By kit on February 21st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
That’s certainly true, Kit. We’ll have to watch what we write also.
By John on February 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
He was very right to issue that warning and the Times was very wrong to call for a premature end to the inquest. Two people are dead who should not be dead and the inquest must be completed in a thorough and professional manner for the jury to render a fair and impartial verdict. For justice to succeed, we must all play our parts and cooperate with legal procedure.
By Gigi on February 21st, 2008 at 5:26 pm