Today I learned, 25 years after the fact, that Princess Diana wasn't killed by swarms of irresponsible paparazzi in that Paris tunnel. The paparazzi were there, of course, but apparently they weren't doing anything way out of the ordinary. Diana died because her chauffeur for the evening was intoxicated; had prescription drugs in his system; and lost control of the car while driving at twice the speed limit.
I gather that this is common knowledge, but somehow I've managed never to hear it. I just vaguely thought the crash was due to the paps even though their share of the fault, according to multiple investigations, was probably pretty small.
I wonder how many people are going to chime in to tell me that I'm totally wrong and all of the official inquests were completely corrupt? Let's find out.
Oh for Heaven's sake, she was killed by the British royals because she was having an affair with a colored chappie. Just not done, old boy.
I’m currently generating over $35,100 a month thanks to one small internet job, therefore I really like your work! I am aware that with a beginning cdx05 capital of $28,800, you are cdx02 presently making a sizeable quantity of money online.
Just Check ———>>> https://propaymentweb01.blogspot.com/
all the details, including MI-5's involvement, are explained in detail here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Irvuafg5GM (satire)
I had heard it was something to the effect of the paramedics spent too much time with her at the scene rather than stabilizing her just enough to get to the nearest hospital.
That's the well considered protocol in France. Some people disagree with it, but from what I've read, there's no significant difference in survival rates overall.
Je suis d'accord.
There are a lot of reasons and the paparazzi chasing them was definitely one. I doubt the crash would have been nearly as severe if the driver hadn’t been speeding in order to get away from them even with those substances in his blood. However another major factor was she wan’t wearing her seat belt. From what I read her injuries would likely have been fairly minor had she been wearing one.
That IS one of the great tragedies in all of it. The only person in the car to survive the accident was the body guard who WAS wearing his seat belt.
There is usually a physician and nurse staffing an ambulance alongside the paramedics. And so more advanced care happens immediately à la scène. Most likely her injuries were mortal in any case. The surgery needed to repair her vessel that caused her death is extremely invasive (cracked chest, possibly a lobectomy of the lung) and in any case would have been missed unless rapid continuous scans were made in an OR. The real lesson to take away is WEAR YOUR SEATBELT.
The only person in the car who was wearing a seatbelt (her bodyguard) survived.
He wasn't wearing a seatbelt either, but he was protected by an airbag.
And was only struck by the slight Diana.
What a random post. I suggest cutting back on the docuseries genre on Netflix.
Who?
GOOD
Yes, this was always my understanding. The paparazzi were following the car, but that was obviously quite common.
The driver, Henri Paul, was drunk (and on other meds) and drove the car into a pillar in the tunnel at twice the speed limit.
Nobody had seatbelts on.
Yeah - I didn't follow it closely and thought it was common knowledge that the chauffeur was driving like a maniac, was under the influence and nobody was wearing seatbelts. I thought the paparazzi were partially blamed because they were also driving like maniacs trying to follow the vehicle, thus contributing to the high speed chase.
I guess that's one take, but the flipside is: would the driver have been driving at such fast speeds if the paparazzi weren't chasing his car? In a parallel universe, one in which Diana wasn't being followed by paparazzi everywhere for years prior to her death, perhaps (1) Diana wouldn't have chosen to go anywhere that night, (2) Diana's driver wouldn't have been in such a rush, (3) Diana's driver wouldn't have chosen to go into that tunnel to get away, (4) any number of other variations of that evening that resulted in her not dying.
After all, lots of women around the world are having affairs and riding around in cars driven by people under the influence of something, but most of them don't die in a fiery crash... so something about the presence of paparazzi may have had *some effect* on why this particular cheating woman's intoxicated driver crashed his car.
If Paul's intent was to try to out run photragphers on moterbikes, then he made some real bad decisions.
Perhaps he thought an S-Class Mercedies would go through the four lane tunnel when a moterbike could not. Perhaps he thought a large sedan could out run a motercycle on the streets of Paris.
I expect things are what they seem; He was drunk and screwed up.
Prince Charles cheated on Diana from the very beginning & let her know it. So, even though she did cheat on him after years of such treatment by "royalty," I would refrain from referring to her as a "cheating woman."
While I do not care about the "royals " except to the extent that they continue to enjoy the fruits of others' colonialism & seemingly feel little modesty in claiming those benefits, the treatment of so-called commoners is often revolting.
I looked up the relevant dates, as follows: Diana & Charles divorced in 1981. Diana was killed in 1997, so that is an additonal reason to not call her a "cheating woman ".
Married in 1981, divorced in 1996 after several years estrangement. .i don't know or care about royals, but calling a divorced woman "cheating" is inaccurate (at minimum).
Sorry - I wrote down too many dates & picked up the wrong one.
Following all of that ugly British press is even less my interest than the entitled inheritors themselves, but it is impossible to see some without searching.
And yes, I nearly made a comment specifically about the use of that adjective as a pejorative for a woman who is no longer married- none of that has affected the highest-ranking English royals who have been in adulterous relationships. Even without looking for such information or having access to all of the television reporting & "recreated" dramas, I've seen that much.
But then (sigh) we certainly have our own problems who act as entitled as those royals.
Totally agree with your point.
Yes, the driver had been drinking, but he had been dismissed for the day and went home, where, like any good Frenchman, he had wine with dinner.
It was Dodi Fayed who insisted that he come back in after he had been dismissed for the day. Yes, the driver should have been refused, but anyone who has ever worked for rich, powerful people knows haw hard it is to say no to them.
And why was Paul driving so fast. Not on his own accord but because Dodi Fayed was egging him on - "Lose those people, dammit"
Dodi Fayed was the villain of the piece, not the poor driver. He was a victim just like Diana.
What the paparazzi were doing was rude and inconsiderate. What Di’s driver was doing was illegal.
And do you believe for a second that the driver wasn't doing exactly as he was being told?
The driver should never have been called back in after being dismissed for the day, and there is no doubt in my mind that he was being pressured by Dodi to lose the paparazzi. I don't blame the driver - a poor working slob who was trying to please his rich patrons. I blame those rich patrons, and primarily Dodi.
Great example of how a conspiracy theory starts and is fostered. Take a stereotype of an ultra rich person, extrapolate some completely fact free statements about how a specific ultra rich person might have acted--using "logic". Voila you've got a story that sounds right enough to a bunch of people to repeat and like incontrovertible fact to people with an ax to grind. Congrats!
The fact is that people like drivers do what they are told by their bosses, especially when those bosses are rich and powerful. Blaming this on the driver is ludicrous. It was Dodi and Diana who decided to call back a driver after he had been sent home and then go on a late-night chase through Paris (they didn't need to go anywhere). The driver didn't decide to do that. These are facts.
I don't get the American obsession with royalty. We fought a war about that.
But then I don't get the British obsession with it either, and they have a reason. I guess I just don't like hereditary dictatorships, even when they're shrunk down to a novelty act.
Some people just need people to be "better" than them, I guess. You see a lot of the same thing with Don Trump.
Agree. More broadly, why do people obsess over "celebrities" generally? I truly don't get it. I like pro sports, movies, and music, but I don't give a flying fish what the people who engage in that stuff do or say in their personal lives.
Concur 100%. Ok 90 %. If a guys a troglodyte I tend to ignore their artistry.
It’s a part of human nature to be impressed by the powerful and prestigious just like primates are impressed by the strongest and healthiest. That instinct helps a species survive.
What is particularly human is the powerful attraction so many of us feel toward ritual, pomp, ceremony. We are a deeply symbolic species and these things are all deeply symbolic. It’s not rational but it’s real.
A non-observant Jewish friend of mine married an observant Jewish man who was an extremely rational person. It puzzled her that such a rational person was so passionate about following ancient rituals. He explained that it made him feel deeply connected to those who went before him by participating in the same rituals they observed over many centuries. Both his parents were in concentration camps where they lost their families. They met after the war and had only one child so it isn’t hard to imagine the power his ancestors’ experiences had for him and why he felt so strongly about honoring them.
I love the fact that Christmas and New Years come at the darkest time of the year. I recently explained to my youngest grandchild that humans have celebrated the time right after the darkest day for thousands of years
You took the words right off my keyboard! I never have gotten the "Princess Di" obsession, but I blame Walt Disney. (so there.)
Eh. I think I kind of get the appeal. Royalty are a little bit like characters from fairy tales, come to life. Monarchy is a crime against humanity, but if the royals are defanged and housebroken, they can be kind of charming, on good days with good lighting for short periods of time.
It's a little bit like looking at a wild animal in a zoo. It's cruel, but one can understand the appeal nonetheless.
I've had a lifelong fascination with the Windsors due to the excess over the top crown jewels. I have a bookshelf of coffee table books on historical jewels, decorative arts and the like. I don't even need to own such jewels, I just like visiting museums and books about them. Also fascinated by the last Czars and Faberge too.
Constitutional monarchies that are supported by the majority of the citizens of a country are hardly a crime against humanity. If the Brits want to have a monarchy that has no real political power that’s their choice.
The one benefit I see of a monarchy is that it separates the roll symbolic rituals and pomp — something that many people deeply need — from their political leaders. In our country we expect our presidents to fulfill both roles. If you pay attention our mainstream political media blatantly hates the idea of a boring leader. An Angela Merkel is unthinkable to them because they want inspiration and glamor. From what I have seen over the decades (I remember Eisenhower!) the media is always looking for the glamor of the Kennedys and they punish politicians who don’t fit that image. They hated Carter’s insistence on being more down to earth. I once heard Chris Matthews dismiss a guest who was touting a very capable but unglamorous politician (can’t remember who) as a presidential candidate. Matthews said his job was to find heroes! What struck me is that no one on the panel thought that was ridiculous.
I also know a lot of people who stay in the Catholic Church because of the power of its rituals and some who converted because of them. Most of them also work hard to push for reforms. They don’t accept the sexual abuse and extremist politics.
And economists and economic writers obsess about the "Maestros", the Fed Chairmen.
That was my understanding. I don't know whether her driver was trying to "evade" the paparazzi or how much of a contributing factor that might have been, but I was aware he was intoxicated and speeding through a tunnel, and the paparazzi were there but didn't do anything that directly caused the crash. Really, whatever the specifics, it starts and ends with intoxicated driver.
The initial coverage did give royals and celebrities a chance to bash the paparazzi who understandably make their lives harder. And it gave fans a chance to be outraged despite the fact that many of them buy the celeb magazines that pay for paparazzi photos.
I guess. Although lots of other women are doing what Di did (having affairs, allowing drivers who are under the influence to drive them home, etc.) and don't die every night in a car crash. Of course most of those women aren't followed by paparazzi either. Perhaps the paparazzi didn't directly cause the crash, but it's silly to also argue that they had absolutely zero effect on the outcome in this particular case. Her driver was obviously aware that the paparazzi existed, so it's impossible to say whether that knowledge made him drive any worse. (There's a reason why we don't let people routinely chase after non-famous people in regular driving situations...)
You seem awfully fixated on her "cheating". As others have pointed out, at the time of her death, she'd been legally divorced for quite some time, and offically "separated" from her husband for much longer. It's a *huge* stretch to claim link that to her death.
You've done so twice, in the service of countering an argument that no one is making. (That paparazzi had "absolutely zero effect".) I can't help but wonder if her gender is part of the reason you're doing so.
It's less likely, at least, that the intoxicated driver would have been speeding as fast were he not trying to evade the paparazzi. And if he weren't going so fast, it's less likely the accident would have happened, or at any rate, would have been so lethal. So it's hard not to blame the paparazzi as being the primary cause of all of it.
Nonsense. That driver has the agency that any human has. As driver of the car, he was solely responsible for its safe operation. The decision to operate the car while intoxicated was his. The decision to drive at high speed to evade the photographers was his. He was not "forced" to evade the paparazzi. The decision to attempt to evade them was in no way forced, and was a judgment call for which the driver bears sole responsibility.
"He was not "forced" to evade the paparazzi."
You don't think he was ever told "Get us out of here", "Take us away from them", "Part of your job is making sure the paparazzi aren't in her face whenever she is in the car" or anything similar multiple times throughout his career, including that very day as a driver for the her?
His fault lies in driving that day when he was in no condition to, but driving to evade the photographers was basically half of his job as a driver (or any driver who drives around celebrities with an army of photographers behind).
This whole argument about "well the paparazzi didn't directly cause her death" is very "counting the number of angels on the head of a pin."
Sure, they didn't directly cause her death. Her driver was still free to not drive crazily/unsafely, and it was his choice to drink and use other meds that night that impaired his judgement.
But seriously? The paparazzi had little to no effect on the driver's behavior? That's like when we hear about a teenager who struggled with undiagnosed depression and uses alcohol or drugs to cover that up but eventually commits suicide... and then we find out that mean kids in the high school were talking shit about him/her every single day to the point where the teen felt ostracised by everyone. Sure, the teen directly chose to use substances and that probably impaired his/her judgement to the point that he/she took his/her own life. The mean kids were perfectly within their rights to say whatever they wanted about the dead kid. But seriously? Who the fck doesn't think that - perhaps! - the mean kids hounding the dead kid every day contributed in some way to the dead kid making poor choices at the end?
Same thing with the paparazzi. They don't *have to* chase celebrities around and write shit about them 24/7/365. And they might be totally following all laws when they *choose* to hound celebrities. But celebrities (and their staff) are people too, and they will behave differently in a situation where everything they do is spied on 24/7/365 than the rest of us do in our lives that (mercifully) aren't spied on anywhere near as often.
Doesn't that explanation just raise more questions? How did they not know that their driver was drunk, and stop them immediately?
It's never just one thing.
So yet another possibly significant factor was found in the non-critical, ancient-news event of a person who's importance was always blown way out of proportion. In other breaking news, scientists pump in 200 megajoules of energy and get back 3 joules: the Fusion Millennum is at hand!
I've known that for just about 25 years. That came out pretty quickly after her death, along with footage of her driver before they got in the car that, IIRC, suggested he was toasted.
Waitaminute! The account I heard was that Diana ordered her driver to lose their tail. The same account (or one of them, this is from multiple sources) also allege that the princess may herself have been under the influece at the time.
'Course, this was back in the day when you could find out the _real_ truth for yourself while waiting in the checkout line.
The way I heard it, a bunch of people went out to dinner, had a few glasses, got into a car without bothering to use safety belts, and ran into a concrete wall or pillar. And yes, they were being chased around by the photographers, who may have felt it was sport, or may have been pissed that the object of their lenses was driving fast in a curving place.
What I have always felt about that incident is that royals are actually flesh and blood humans, just like the rest of us, and risking your life in that silly and stupid way will sometimes come back to bit you -- or in this case, crush your chest and internal organs. Why the princess and her escorts didn't put on safety belts is on them. The car they were in presumably had crush zones which would have protected them from the dashboard, steering wheel, and seat backs, if only they had been properly restrained. But apparently this is not what royals do, or drunken society people, or whoever. Perhaps the photographers harassed and confused the driver enough to cause him to go out of the lane. Had even one person in the car had any sense, there might have been some other solution taken to the problem of being photographed.
Kevin is just wrong about this. The jury in the 2008 inquest into the affair found that Diana was killed due to the gross negligence of both her driver (Henri Paul) *and* the paparazzi who were pursuing her.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7328754.stm
The answer to who killed Diana is all of the above.
Consider this example:
A woman walking on the street starts being chased by a man with a weapon in his hands (ie the paparazzi's). She starts running away and while doing so crosses a street carelessly (ie Diana and her partner not wearing their seatbelts, nor noticing the driver was drunk, nor telling him to slow down when he started speeding). As she is crossing she is hit by a speeding car being driven by a drunk driver (ie the limo driver).
Who caused the death (as in the circumstances, not the physical death)? The man who started the chain of events by chasing her, the woman's own mistakes committed while in a hurry, or the drunk driver who delivered the final blow? Take away any of one of this events and the death wouldn't happen.
She was an irresponsible asshole and could have just stayed inside somewhere with her kids and would still be alive today, but instead had to party it up.
How dare she attempt to have a life after divorce! The gall of that woman!
What a bizarrely misguided, judgmental and cruel comment.
Ah. See? You fell for it. It was all part of the Bilderburger and Illuminati conspiracy to take over the world with the dead hand of Hugo Chavez and the Italian satellite network.