This sort of makes Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s accusations against the Royal Family look like small potatoes, huh?
We know that Princess Diana had an extremely contentious relationship with the British royals, particularly her husband Prince Charles. Now, Daily Mail has new reporting on “Operation Paget,” the examination into conspiracies surrounding Diana’s death, which includes the astonishing fact that the future king was actually investigated in connection to the crash that took his ex-wife’s life.
Charles was questioned in part because of a sensational note Diana wrote in 1995, a year before their divorce, and left for her butler Paul Burrell in his pantry in Kensington Palace (handwriting analysis confirmed that Diana had penned it, per DailyMail.com). The note not only predicted her death, but claimed Charles would be involved — so that he could marry their sons’ nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke. It read:
“I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head high. This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous — my husband is planning an accident in my car. Brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry Tiggy. Camilla is nothing but a decoy so we are being used by the man in every sense of the word.”
WOW. Now that’s a bombshell.
Contents of the note were made public in the early 2000s, and the official findings of Operation Paget dismissed the princess’ “paranoia” and concluded that drunk driving was the cause of the fatal accident. However, former head of Scotland Yard John Stevens revealed to the outlet that Charles had, in fact, been questioned about possible involvement in her death. He shared:
“Yes, allegations had been made about the Prince of Wales and other royals but we had to find or examine the evidence before we approached him with formal questions. We found no other evidence to support the scenario suggested in Diana’s note.”
He went on:
“We were left with the note, which in itself was not enough to make Charles a formal suspect. If he chose to assist Paget, he would be doing so voluntarily as a potential witness. We would not be interviewing him under caution.”
While Prince Philip declined to be questioned, his son agreed to an interview, which Stevens described as a “unique situation.” During a private meeting in 2005, the law enforcement officials read the father of two the explosive note and asked him why Diana would have written it. Charles responded that he hadn’t know about the note until it was published in the media, nor did he understand “why the princess had these feelings.” Afterwards, Charles signed off on a “statement of truth” regarding details of the meeting, a document which will not be released to the public until 2038, according to the Daily Mail.
“At the end of the day he was incredibly cooperative because he had nothing to hide.”
The detective now suspects that Martin Bashir, the journalist accused of manipulating Diana into the infamous Panorama interview, may have been fueling the young royal’s paranoia around the time she wrote the note. He explained:
“If there’d been an allegation then that Bashir had produced allegedly fake documents to Princess Diana, which is a criminal offense, we’d have investigated it. My goodness me, we would have done. But this has only come out recently, which is unfortunate.”
“If we’d known at the time of Paget we would certainly, certainly have gone and seen him and interviewed him. And it would have been part and parcel of the inquiry to get to the bottom of it. … We don’t know what Bashir was saying to Diana. But if he had put the fears in her mind which had caused her to write that note then that is what caused us to interview Charles. When we watched the Panorama interview at the start of the inquiry it didn’t cross our mind that Bashir could have done anything fraudulent.”
“After all, this was the BBC, this was their flagship programme and it was being broadcast to the world. There was nothing said in the interview we didn’t know about by then. What we didn’t know of course was how Bashir had managed to get it.”
Stevens confirmed they never found any evidence to support Diana’s suspicions, and further, that witnesses at the time had claimed she tended to have “wild thoughts.” However, he now reflected:
“But I think my question, with hindsight — and I know the Paget team’s question would be and we’ve discussed it — is this: Was Bashir aware of how fragile she was in the months leading to this interview? Or, did he say something to her through Earl Spencer or other channels that actually fed that paranoia?”
Goodness. All this conspiracy and royal intrigue sounds like it should be from a blockbuster thriller, not real life. How devastating that Diana lived with such fear, whether real or imagined. We just hope the investigation really was thorough and fair… and that Charles was upfront and honest during that interview.
Source: Read Full Article