These are personal opinions of course - let's start out with that proviso!! Diana was a loose cannon - more dangerous because she was so beloved. In the years before her death she had been having an affair with Haznat Khan a Muslim surgeon - she was said to be deeply in love with him but he didn't want the attendant publicity which their affair generated because he felt it would interfere with his work so he ended the affair. This sent Diana off on a quest to make him jealous enough to want her back - she chose another Muslim - Dodi Fayed - and was pictured having a wonderful time with him - kissing him etc. It is my opinion that this sent the Royals into a frenzy - what if Diana had a black child - a Muslim half brother to William and Harry? It was unthinkable. You may not know that Camilla - Charles now wife but mistress at the time - had also been in a car accident - Charles had sent out a mini army to retrieve her from the scene. I think that it was obvious that one of them had to go - this time Diana wasn't so lucky. I think that it was our MI6 that was tasked with getting rid of her. They used a method that had been previously been suggested to kill a foreign politician (sorry I can't remember his name). A doctor who treated her at the scene said that he was surprised that she died - they took about 90 minutes to get her to a hospital - passing one on the way that could have treated her. The cameras in the tunnel where the crash happened were "not working" the scene was cleared within hours - the French police would not give out any details. She was embalmed before she was returned to Britain and it took years for an inquest to be convened. They blamed the driver - said he was drunk when photographs of him at the Ritz clearly showed that he was not. The back seat belts were said to be broken - Diana was known to be very careful to wear a seat belt - in this case she couldn't. In any case the car wreckage was whisked away and I have never seen any report of any forensic examination of it. Camilla could never have become queen if Diana had lived because it is against royal protocol that a present spouse cannot be named queen if a previous spouse is still alive. Charles is the most obstinate and determined person you are ever likely to meet and his obsession with Camilla brooks no interference with what he wants for her and himself. So, in my view Diana's death was not an accident. I think the royals have a lot to answer for. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on JFK also.

What you're told me has the ring of truth. Poor Diana, she was given the bobby prize, a Prince who never loved her and always had his mistress on the side. I can understand why she wanted to flaunt her affairs; she felt Charles was flaunting his in her face the whole time. But she likely didn't understand how dangerous a game she was playing. I recall hearing her brother speak at her funeral, how angry he was, and I thought at the time that he suspected the Royals. JFK Our Federal Reserve Bank isn't federal at all. It is a cartel of private banks, some of them foreign. Back in 1913 a group of bankers and industrialists got together in a secret meeting at Jekyl Island Georgia and worked out what would be the legislation which allowed this banking cartel to create the money supply for the United States. President Woodrow Wilson was hoodwinked into signing the bill, thinking he was stabilizing the economy, preventing future depressions. HA Our Constitution stipulates that the Department of the Treasury creates our money supply. What's the difference? The federal reserve (the fed) creates the money by fiat, by speaking it into existence, literally entering it on a ledger sheet and saying here is more money, then it loans it to the US government at interest. Since the fed was created the value of the dollar has fallen to less than one penny of what it was before, and our national debt has gone through the ceiling. JFK issued an executive order switching the creation of our money supply back to the Treasury. For a few months our dollars no longer said "Federal Reserve Note" on them, but "United States Note" instead. This meant that suddenly that banking cartel was cut off from billions of dollars of interest (well, back then it was hundreds of millions).
Now JFK had also made major enemies along the way. He was elected with help from the mafia. There is evidence that they were instrumental in committing vote fraud in strategic places. But after he was elected, JFK did not take the heat off of the mob. Instead his brother Bobby Kennedy, who was the Attorney General, seemed to go after them with increased vigor. Vice President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) hated JFK and there was no love lost between them. Johnson was only picked as his running mate because JFK needed his help getting the southern vote. It is certain that LBJ was in on the plot to kill Kennedy. Once he signed off on the plan JFK was a goner. The plotters could not have gone forward without LBJ on board. But LBJ wasn't the originator of the plot. Allan Dulles of the CIA was fired by Kennedy but continued to run off the book operations. The CIA was absolutely part of the plot. They hired a Corsican hitman to take part in the hit, and elements of the Mafia were also involved. Naturally the mafia has quietly bragged that they killed JFK. Great for their street cred.
I am also aware that members of US Special Forces were aware of the plot ahead of time, i.e. were not surprised, and were not unhappy about it either. I am not really sure what story they were told to make them believe JFK was a traitor. Once cannot ever trust the cover stories they float around, but I am 100% certain that some of them knew before it happened and were on board. I knew someone who was not surprised when the news came down. He was stationed outside of the country when it happened, was not involved, but he knew about it before it happened. But to my mind it was the private bankers who were the prime movers in pushing for his death. They buy off everyone in government, they have people throughout the government and intel agencies, and they know how to stay in the shadows. They never get their hands dirty. It is much better to have people chasing down first this theory, then that theory, each of them with some merit, than to have people suspecting the people who lost hundreds of millions, and trillions going forward. The other players mentioned are fairly well documented. But I don't think it was a coincidence that a few months after John Kennedy cut off the federal reserve banks that he was assassinated. JFK tried to do right for the country and they killed him for it.

I didn't know the details of the banking cartel you mention but when things like this happen - I always ask - who benefits the most? In the one case - the royal family and Charles and Camilla - in the other case- the banking cartel and LBJ. They know that conflicting theories will fudge the truth forever and they probably put out misinformation to ensure that happens. In my view (but I am a mature woman with much more experience of the world than Diana) Diana was over emotional and foolish in the extreme - she knew there were plans afoot to kill her - she even wrote a letter detailing how it would probably be done in a car crash. Yet she still did the most dangerous things that she knew would enrage her ex-family. All she had to do if she wanted revenge was to stay married to Charles and maintain separate households (which they were pretty much doing anyway - he was in Highgrove and she was in Kensington Palace) then she would still have had all her titles and her bodyguards and the sweet knowledge that he would never be rid of her and never be able to marry Camilla. It is very telling that six weeks after the royal bodyguards were taken away from her she was dead. As far as JFK is concerned - I simply don't understand him - how did he expect to use the Mafia to get elected (was it the Illinois votes?) and then set his brother on them. Why indeed did he even make his brother Attorney General - shouldn't that be an elected office - it reeks of nepotism which is not a popular image. I think his father Joe had a lot of influence over him and probably suggested the help of the mafia - did I hear that Joe had ties with them during his boot legging days in the twenties? I think he was a good president who probably thought it worth dancing with the devil to get into a position of power where he could effect the most change. Unfortunately he didn't appreciate the power of money and the lengths that people will go to in order to acquire it or keep it. I think he thought his position made him unassailable - history should have taught him that is never the case. To return to a former subject - I read about that Bill Gates book that was written back in the nineties about vaccines being used to control populations - it doesn't seem to have been put into practice does it!! Africa is still wildly over populated and getting moreso every day. I think the only way they could do it is to use vaccines to save lives which would then contribute to overpopulation starvation famine disease and death. All the time claiming they were trying to help. Any other way would be too obvious.

@write2topcat

"The liberals" are the source of all our woes? But "the conservatives" hands are clean?

The greatest examples of media bias are CNN and MSNBC? But Fox manages not to make your list?

GMAFB. Regardless where on the spectrum I may slide, I can acknowledge good on the other side and bad on mine. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." The people on my team aren't all always good/right, and the people on the other team aren't all always bad/wrong because no people on either side are perfect. Your determined bias and apparent inability to be objective strains your credibility.

@strangebedfellows said:

I didn't know the details of the banking cartel you mention but when things like this happen - I always ask - who benefits the most? In the one case - the royal family and Charles and Camilla - in the other case- the banking cartel and LBJ. They know that conflicting theories will fudge the truth forever and they probably put out misinformation to ensure that happens. In my view (but I am a mature woman with much more experience of the world than Diana) Diana was over emotional and foolish in the extreme - she knew there were plans afoot to kill her - she even wrote a letter detailing how it would probably be done in a car crash. Yet she still did the most dangerous things that she knew would enrage her ex-family. All she had to do if she wanted revenge was to stay married to Charles and maintain separate households (which they were pretty much doing anyway - he was in Highgrove and she was in Kensington Palace) then she would still have had all her titles and her bodyguards and the sweet knowledge that he would never be rid of her and never be able to marry Camilla. It is very telling that six weeks after the royal bodyguards were taken away from her she was dead. As far as JFK is concerned - I simply don't understand him - how did he expect to use the Mafia to get elected (was it the Illinois votes?) and then set his brother on them. Why indeed did he even make his brother Attorney General - shouldn't that be an elected office - it reeks of nepotism which is not a popular image. I think his father Joe had a lot of influence over him and probably suggested the help of the mafia - did I hear that Joe had ties with them during his boot legging days in the twenties? I think he was a good president who probably thought it worth dancing with the devil to get into a position of power where he could effect the most change. Unfortunately he didn't appreciate the power of money and the lengths that people will go to in order to acquire it or keep it. I think he thought his position made him unassailable - history should have taught him that is never the case. To return to a former subject - I read about that Bill Gates book that was written back in the nineties about vaccines being used to control populations - it doesn't seem to have been put into practice does it!! Africa is still wildly over populated and getting moreso every day. I think the only way they could do it is to use vaccines to save lives which would then contribute to overpopulation starvation famine disease and death. All the time claiming they were trying to help. Any other way would be too obvious.

Diana was very popular around the world I think. I know I had sympathy for her. It was clear that Charles had never stopped seeing Camilla. I recall reading that Diana had been assured that his affair with her was a thing of the past before she married Charles, or that she believed it would be. For her to find out that she was there to produce a son and a spare, and nothing more, must have hurt her terribly. It is one thing to go into something with eyes wide open and being fully informed, but I gather that isn't what happened. So she must have felt like a fool, unloved, rejected. As you said, she was young. When we are young we sometimes have a sense that "it won't happen to me" concerning dangers in life. I did not follow her life or death as closely as I presume most Brits did. I take your word for it that she was over emotional and foolish in the extreme. Given that she knew there were plans to kill her, why then did she continue to flaunt her affair with the Eqyptian man Dodi Sayed? Did she think it couldn't happen to her? Did she not care? Did she think she was somehow more safe since she was not in the U.K.? Was she aware of the danger, but just in so much emotional pain over her treatment by the Royal family that she didn't care that she might die? She had to know that the Royal family would not stand for her having a child with Dodi Sayed, a Muslim black child who would be sibling to a future King. She apparently wanted to cause them the embarrassment they caused her. I think your assessment of her is the correct one; over emotional and foolish in the extreme.

I liked JFK. For his faults, I think he was trying to be a good President for the country in a way that few have. He was aware of the power of those he was opposing, and he was determined to stand up against them and change things for the good of the entire country.

Those were different times indeed. No President could appoint his own brother as Attorney General today. I think only JFK could do that. He was quite popular. But yes it did smack of nepotism. As far as the AG office, I don't think the general public is well enough informed to make good decisions on who should be the AG. It isn't a political office, it's a legal office. And the general public does not know enough to make wise decisions regarding a person's legal background, their credentials, their grasp of the law, and so on. So it has always been an appointed position. The President seeks and gets good advice from various legal experts regarding an acceptable pool of possible people, I suppose. But probably it has as much to do with paying off political favors as anything else. And I don't know why he set Bobby on the mob. Did the mob make impudent demands after helping him win Illinois? Did JFK think that the secret service could protect him from the mob? If it were only the mob they could have done so. And if only the mob wanted him dead, the mob never would have tried. If it had been solely a mafia job, there would have been unholy hell unleashed on the mafia. They would have been slaughtered. Those who were not slaughtered would have been thrown in jail until they died, no parole. Some would have fled the country. The rest would have been harrassed, even if they were unconnected to it directly. It would have been that bad. But it wasn't only the mafia. JFK likely was a bit naive. He probably did feel as though his office protected him. He made too many powerful enemies, tried to change too much all at once. I wish he had been successful because he was a good man. I mean, I know he cheated on his wife like crazy up until the last year. But frankly, that is quite common in political marriages from what I hear, in both major parties. I mean, yes it's not a good thing. But I don't condemn him for that.
He just made too many powerful enemies, the most dangerous being the bankers, in my opinion. I agree with what you said: "Unfortunately he didn't appreciate the power of money and the lengths that people will go to in order to acquire it or keep it. I think he thought his position made him unassailable - history should have taught him that is never the case."

Times change indeed and now since Prince Harry and Megan Markle have had a baby (and will probably have more) a mixed race child is seventh in line to the throne. I can't help thinking that somewhere in Harry's subconscious this is his reply to what they did to his mother. If you would like to continue to chat - have you heard anything about Edward Vlll - our king that abdicated over an American woman in the thirties? No problem if you figure this thread has gone on long enough !!

@strangebedfellows said:

I can't help thinking that somewhere in Harry's subconscious this is his reply to what they did to his mother.

That's deep. On several levels.

But, one angle is rather painful to consider: they kill his mother, so he "gets back at them". He gets back at them for murder, not by murdering someone, but by marrying a woman who is (gasp) half black. The horror.

DRDMovieMusings - I said this is his subconscious reply - not that he is "getting back at them". I think it's more how stupid he considers them to be in their old fashioned attitudes and protocols - it's not about race - it's about how far they will go to protect the monarchy. The royals live in their ivory towers - they don't realise that Britain is so multicultural now that nobody gives a toss what colour you are. We are no longer a country with an identity of it's own - we are just a melting pot. Nobody gasped with horror when Harry and Megan got married - all you need to do is look at the crowds cheering for them and their continuing popularity.

@strangebedfellows said:

DRDMovieMusings - I said this is his subconscious reply - not that he is "getting back at them". I think it's more how stupid he considers them to be in their old fashioned attitudes and protocols - it's not about race - it's about how far they will go to protect the monarchy. The royals live in their ivory towers - they don't realise that Britain is so multicultural now that nobody gives a toss what colour you are. We are no longer a country with an identity of it's own - we are just a melting pot. Nobody gasped with horror when Harry and Megan got married - all you need to do is look at the crowds cheering for them and their continuing popularity.

I wish you were completely right. Alas, you are but partially so.

Yes, there were lots in the crowds in support. You are right about that.

But to sweepingly generalize "nobody gives a toss" and "nobody gasped" is absurd. There are those posting pictures of royal parents with a well dressed chimp, and all those who silently laugh and take comfort that, not only are they not alone in such thinking, but that others would publicly do such a thing. That is absolutely, all the way, about race.

Have we made progress as a society? Yes. You're right, we have. I can acknowledge that.

Is everything always about race? Of course not. Crying wolf is a PITA. You're right again. I can acknowledge that, too.

Are we done? Is racism dead? Hell no. We can't afford to ignore the call when the wolf is in play, just because it wasn't in play yesterday. You ought to concede here and acknowledge that. Dismissing racism with sweeping generalizations is not cool, and not helpful.

I won't discuss racism here - it is too inflammatory a subject. I will only concede that maybe my generalisations were sweeping because I don't know anyone who felt horrified or angry about it. It's inevitable that some people disapproved - but there were no demonstrations of hatred (unlike the Muslims who marched through London bearing placards with "Death to Infidels" (ie white Britons) with a protective police escort) whilst the picture you mention was met with a police investigation despite our police forces being decimated and knife crime in London at record levels. I am now finished with this discussion and wont respond further.

@strangebedfellows said:

I won't discuss racism here - it is too inflammatory a subject.

Nice to be able to opt out when discussing it (let alone living it) gets uncomfortable. And, even though you said you wouldn't discuss racism, you continued. So, I will address what you continued to discuss. You are free and welcome not to reply, I'll share comments for anyone else who may be reading along.

I will only concede that maybe my generalisations were sweeping because I don't know anyone who felt horrified or angry about it.

That's fine, but it's a big world out there. Lots is going on beyond whom you know or what you see/experience. And that is an ongoing issue when it comes to conversations about "others" - somehow, others' experiences need to be qualified by the limited view of someone who is not at the centre of the issue. It's like a man saying "none of my pals are misogynists, so I've no idea what you women are talking about." Other people's lived experiences are equally valid and worthy of dignity.

It's inevitable that some people disapproved -

Agree. So why assert "nobody" twice? Yeah, you conceded that, but I had to call you out on it. Had I not, it'd have been left there as if it were true.

but there were no demonstrations of hatred

That you could see. Again, it's a big world out there. I've seen and heard plenty.

(unlike the Muslims who marched through London bearing placards with "Death to Infidels" (ie white Britons) with a protective police escort)

Interesting how easy it was for you to insert race when hate is aimed at white people, interpreting "infidels" as "white Britons". But was it really aimed at white people? As far as I understand, "infidel" has nothing to do with race, rather referring to anyone who does not accept their religious views. Salman Rushdie was born in Bombay to a Muslim family, but was cursed or excommunicated or whatever their version of it is as an infidel. Seems Muslims marching through London bearing placards with "death to infidels" is something you would/should have dismissed as "no racism here", if you were being objective and unbiased. Yet here you are calling it out. Wasn't hard at all, was it? See how our vantage, our bias, skews our assessment of situations? That's one of the good things about diversity - we can learn a lot when we see the world through the eyes and experiences of others beyond ourselves.

whilst the picture you mention was ....

If this indicates you were well aware of this picture, yet, you still attempted to assert that race was a non-issue, well, again, I'm glad I checked in on it.

At any rate, quite the digression from Ted Bundy.

@strangebedfellows said:

Times change indeed and now since Prince Harry and Megan Markle have had a baby (and will probably have more) a mixed race child is seventh in line to the throne. I can't help thinking that somewhere in Harry's subconscious this is his reply to what they did to his mother. If you would like to continue to chat - have you heard anything about Edward Vlll - our king that abdicated over an American woman in the thirties? No problem if you figure this thread has gone on long enough !!

I am enjoying our chat. I spent some time in the UK back in 79-80 and loved it. I am very interested in hearing from you on all things British which you may want to discuss, or on American topics.
About Edward VIII I do recall that he fell in love with an American woman. If I recall correctly, the issue was that she was divorced and thus not suitable to marry Edward. He chose to abdicate the throne rather than marry someone else. That is all I recall about that.

I find it interesting that Wallis Simpson turned up when she did - with a playboy prince about to take the throne whose family name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and another war with Germany was looming. She didn't want him to abdicate - she didn't want to marry him - recent letters of hers prove that at this point she was still in love with her husband - so what was going on? It was also strongly suspected that she was having an affair with Von Ribbentrop at the same time as she was seeing Edward. It makes me wonder if she was - if not an agent - taking instructions from either the British government or the C.I.A who had files on both of them. Did it all go to far - was the strength of Edward's feelings for her completely underestimated? Did the resultant publicity once the news of their affair broke - make it impossible for them to recall her because that would reveal how the government set Edward up? (Their affair was not known about by the British public at this time) They definitely wanted him off the throne - this man who spoke German at home and who would meet with Hitler and offer to become President of Britain should we lose the war -notwithstanding that this would presuppose the removal of his brother the King? (Who was funding their lifestyle) I think Edward was regarded as so dangerous - his loose talk at parties about troop movements caused many deaths) that somebody needed to be in close contact with him to report his every thought and intention. I don't think they expected for him to become so besotted with her but it was a Godsend to them when it happened - not so much for Wallis who was forced to play it out to the bitter end. That's my theory anyway !!!

@strangebedfellows said:

I find it interesting that Wallis Simpson turned up when she did - with a playboy prince about to take the throne whose family name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and another war with Germany was looming. She didn't want him to abdicate - she didn't want to marry him - recent letters of hers prove that at this point she was still in love with her husband - so what was going on? It was also strongly suspected that she was having an affair with Von Ribbentrop at the same time as she was seeing Edward. It makes me wonder if she was - if not an agent - taking instructions from either the British government or the C.I.A who had files on both of them. Did it all go to far - was the strength of Edward's feelings for her completely underestimated? Did the resultant publicity once the news of their affair broke - make it impossible for them to recall her because that would reveal how the government set Edward up? (Their affair was not known about by the British public at this time) They definitely wanted him off the throne - this man who spoke German at home and who would meet with Hitler and offer to become President of Britain should we lose the war -notwithstanding that this would presuppose the removal of his brother the King? (Who was funding their lifestyle) I think Edward was regarded as so dangerous - his loose talk at parties about troop movements caused many deaths) that somebody needed to be in close contact with him to report his every thought and intention. I don't think they expected for him to become so besotted with her but it was a Godsend to them when it happened - not so much for Wallis who was forced to play it out to the bitter end. That's my theory anyway !!!

WOW. All of that is news to me. That is fascinating. Of course if Edward was that much of a liability I can fully understand why plans were made to monitor him and isolate him from sensitive information and so on. All I recall hearing about it was that he had fallen in love with an American divorcee and that he gave up his chance to be King to be with her. I heard how the British people loved him and were heartbroken that he did this. Naturally the governments of Britain and America would keep the truth under wraps about him being chummy with Hitler. Knowing that I have to wonder whether his loose talk at parties was all accidental. It would seem unthinkable that he would be traitor to his own people. But if he spoke German at home and was chummy with Hitler, perhaps he considered the Germans his people. Wow. That is a lot to think about.

Indeed it is - he didn't give much of damn about the British people and was quite willing to become a fascist king under Hitler if we had lost the war and you probably know what Hitler had planned for all conquered countries - the extermination of Jews, Freemasons, the mentally ill, the physically handicapped, all secret societies etc. Edward it seems was cool with all that. In his own words - after meeting with Hitler in 1937 and shaking hands and giving the full Nazi salute - he didn't think Hitler was such a bad chap. In my opinion he was a traitor who should have been treated like all traitors is wartime.