Di Hard
An inquest into Diana's death breathes life into the conspiracy theories
The Inquests
What Royal coroner Michael Burgess is looking for
Fayed
Is his a search for truth or vengeance?

What do you believe was the cause of Princess Diana's death?

A conspiracy to have her killed
A car accident


Farewell Diana [Sept. 15, 1997]
Royalty and the Press [Feb. 28, 1983]
The Prince's Charmer [Apr. 20, 1981]

Coroner: Diana was not pregnant
Diana 'plot': Paper names Charles
British inquests into deaths of Diana, Dodi open
Police to probe Diana death claims

What do you believe was the cause of Princess Diana's death?

A conspiracy to have her killed
A car accident


E-mail your letter to the editor




Fayed shows off an unscientific poll after a hearing in Edinburgh in December 2003
DAVID CHESKIN/PA
EVIDENT: Fayed shows off an unscientific poll after a hearing in Edinburgh in December 2003



Posted Sunday, January 11, 2004; 15.48GMT

The paparazzi did it. Since the Mercedes was being followed by several photographers on motor scooters, some have surmised that one or more tried to get too close to Diana's car — and sent it careening out of control. The trouble is, Henri Paul had left the pursuing photographers far behind by driving at 160 km/h. The French investigators castigated the paparazzi, even arrested some for a time, but ultimately decided they did not cause the crash.

Most objective analysts finger Paul for the crash, pointing out that he was in no condition to drive when Fayed Senior ordered him to do so. But the conspiracists will pounce on last week's report about the lack of DNA tests. Already, there have been allegations that the French postmortem tests showed Paul's blood had a very high level of carbon monoxide. But this appears to have been achieved by conspiracists adding the results of two different samples of his blood — one from his heart, the other from his groin — instead of taking an average between the two readings. Closer examination of the blood test shows that taking account of the fact that he had been smoking all evening, the carbon monoxide level was not abnormally high.

In short, none of the theories stacks up. Why, then, do they survive — and keep on getting new twists? One reason is that the original conspiracy theorist was Diana herself. She claimed someone had tried to take a "potshot" at her in London's Hyde Park, and darkly warned during the time of her divorce that she would one day be killed on Charles' orders in a helicopter crash. And last year, her former butler Burrell revealed the contents of her letter speculating that Charles would have her killed in a car accident. The Prince's name was blacked out, apparently for legal reasons, in Burrell's book, but the Daily Mirror revealed it last week. Diana's distraught letter didn't say why Charles would want to kill the mother of his two young sons — or think he could get away with it.

It's not hard to convince some of Charles' subjects that he was dastardly in his treatment of Diana. As the British know from long experience, the Windsor family is as secretive as it is dysfunctional. So many stories about them — brazen adultery, stingy treatment of servants — have proved to be true. In 1936, the then placid London papers were the last to report that King Edward VIII was planning to abdicate for his American mistress Wallis Simpson. They have never been so tardy or respectful since, ignoring no sliver of a rumor, however sleazy and unlikely, lest it be true. They supply their readers with a steady diet of soap-opera tales, the information coming mainly from royal staff eager to cash in. And by golly it's interesting stuff: Charles throws plates when angry, the Queen cares more for her pet corgis than people.

Diana may not have understood how to cope with the royal family, but she knew her soap operas and she knew her media. She would have enjoyed the fact that she can still give her former husband hell, and that she remains a global icon, the beautiful princess who triumphed over the ghastly family and eventually slipped the surly bonds of earth.

So now the royals have yet another problem. Michael Burgess's decision to hand the conspiracy theories over to the police means that the straightforward explanation for the accident can never win. Even if the theories are fully discounted and dispatched, that will only be seen as incontrovertible proof of a cover-up.

Stephen Bates, senior correspondent at the Guardian newspaper, writes about royalty

With reporting by Michael Brunton and Helen Gibson/London, Amany Radwan/Cairo and Nelly Sindayen/Manila


Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4




Table of Contents
Subscribe to TIME

ADVERTISEMENT

On New Year's Eve, the Miseries of Minsk
As Russia hikes up the cost of gas for Belarus, the mood turns gloomy
Mogadishu at 60 Miles an Hour
Arms merchants are once again doing brisk business after a rapid change of power in this tough town, but so far the peace has held
The Year of The Nuke
A rundown of the world's nuclear powerhouses, and what to expect in the coming months
QUICK LINKS: Haunting Diana | Truth or Vengeance | Burgess' Mission | Back to TIMEeurope.com Home
FROM THE JANUARY 19, 2004 ISSUE OF TIME MAGAZINE; POSTED SUNDAY, JANUARY 11, 2004.

BANNER PHOTO BY DAVID CHESKIN/PA

 © 2004 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Subscribe | Customer Service | FAQ | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Us
World Watch e-mail | Try AOL UK for 120 hours FREE | Try FOUR free issues of TIME