Monday, December 3, 2018

The Demise of Diana by Olivia Simmons


Olivia Simmons

The Demise of Diana
            Conspiracy theories tend to arouse a sense of discomfort when mentioned in common conversations. Images of aliens and men in tin hats usually flood the brain, but there are a few which may hold some validity. The death of Princess Diana, a royal with rebellious tendencies, is one such example. The “People’s Princess” was tragically killed in a car accident while fleeing paparazzi in Paris on the morning of August 31, 1977 (“Princess Diana.”). Although the tale of her death seems quite straightforward, there are many discrepancies which have caused people to tilt their heads and question the validity of the official report. Was the princess killed by her driver, Henri Paul (McDermott)? Was the accident intentionally planned by the Royal Family as a cover-up? Or were bright flashes of light the ultimate reason for Diana’s demise (Griffin)? These theories will be further explored in the following essay.
Diana Spencer was a woman full of beauty, grace, and charm. These qualities almost always accompany her name in any given conversation regarding the Princess. Slender, blonde, and blue-eyed, Diana was an icon in many ways. She was constantly pushing the traditional definition of royalty and regality. She was also affectionately dubbed the “People’s Princess” due to her caring heart and her overall personableness with the common man (“Princess Diana.”).  A woman held so prominently within the hearts of the general public appeared to be flawless, untainted by the common grime affecting the entirety of the human population. Yet sadly, Diana was no different. According to numerous sources, Diana was pronounced to be self-condescending and was alarmingly paranoid (“Diana: the Rebel Princess.”) (Smith). Nevertheless, Princess Diana was an emotionally complex woman, full of kindness as well as conflicting secrets.
            Diana Spencer has been immortalized in history as the “Rebel Princess” (“Diana: the Rebel Princess.”). One way in which she defied the standards placed before her was through her wedding ring. Traditionally, royal engagement rings are custom made, but Diana selected her a12-carat sapphire and 14 solitaire diamond ring from a Garrard jewelry collection catalog (Fogle). She also did not conform to normality in regards to the upbringing of her two sons (1). Diana frequently exposed them to societal norms such as McDonald’s, the tube, and waiting in line just like everyone else (1). Fashion was also a rebellious output for the princess (1). An iconic example of such defiance is Diana’s black, form-fitting mini dress, which she wore for the Serpentine Gallery benefit (1). Such a worldly and unorthodox article shocked the world and sent ripples of excitement through the media (1). Although Diana’s unconventional actions greatly display her rebellious nature, she was fully aware of her emotional tendencies. She herself said, “I don’t go by a rulebook, I lead from the heart, not the head,” (Smith). Princess Diana was a rebellious royal who established her own set of standards for what it meant to be royalty.
            Diana Spencer lovingly became known as the “People’s Princess” as a result of her kindness, compassion, and simple ability to relate to the common man. In her book, Diana In Search of Herself: Portrait of a Troubled Princess, Sally Bedell Smith raved about her “informality”, “small talk”, and her ability to “...step down and make you feel special” (Smith). Diana would frequently speak with children, meeting them at eye level (Fogle). This was a yet another royally revolutionary act on her part, but it also painted a gentle portrait of the woman (1). Diana also displayed her tenderness in dozens of other ways. She shook hands with an HIV positive patient as well as visited Brazilian AIDS orphans (1). Overall, Princess Diana was a woman filled with selflessness and compassion toward those around her.
            Although Princess Diana appeared to be unscathed by the negativity of human emotions, she tragically struggled with self-condescending thoughts as well as paranoia. According to Sally Bedell Smith, on numerous occasions Diana belittled herself saying that she was “thick as a plank” and “had the brain the size of a pea,” (Smith). Behind closed doors, Diana was known to focus on her misgivings. Dwelling on her enemies-both real and imaginary-and betrayals, Diana would spiral into fits of crying and “vengeful schemes” (1). Diana was also incredibly paranoid (“The Operation...” 95). She was utterly convinced that someone was out to get her, whether it be an individual or an institution (Smith). In an excerpt from the official police report, Diana said “This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. [...] is planning ` an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry. ...” (“The Operation…” 94). As her divorce finalized and her ties with the royal family became strained, she grew increasingly eccentric (“Diana: the Rebel Princess.”). Rumors of affairs, nuisance calls, and New Age therapies arose (1). This social backlash no doubt contributed to her mental and emotional struggles. Despite the fact that Princess Diana appeared picture perfect, her emotions slowly ran rampant in the form of self-loathing and vicious rumors.
            Princess Diana was a woman bubbling with waves of emotional complexity. The media portrayed her humanitarian heart well, giving the entire world a loving and compassionate portrait of the royal. Sadly, much like the common man, Diana Spencer was not spared emotional trials and tribulations. She struggled with ailments behind closed doors, including self-deprecating thoughts and paranoia. Yet, Diana’s paranoia may have not been a delusion. Perhaps, her fears were well placed and her enemies had plotted her untimely demise or possibly these intrusive thoughts were all illegitimate.
The first theory regarding Princess Diana’s death involves Henri Paul, her driver (McDermott). Due to the fact that the beloved icon was mortally wounded in a car accident, placing the blame on Paul appears to be an obvious conjecture (Griffin). According to The Independent, Henri Paul was the acting Head of Security for the Ritz Hotel in Paris, which was owned by Mohamed Fayed (Griffin) (McDermott). Mohamed was the father of Dodi Fayed, Diana’s newfound lover who perished at her side in the fatal crash (1) (1). Media outlets claimed that Paul, an assumed alcoholic, was in a drunken state when operating the vehicle (1). This action is believed to have been what ultimately caused the crash (1).  Skeptics counter this by proposing a rather sinister alternative. According to them, Paul plotted the assassination of Princess Diana and intentionally wrecked the vehicle (1). They also believe that Paul’s body was swapped in order to give a false positive on the toxicology report, all the while masking the true objective of the crash (1). This "body swap" theory implies that Paul was sober, calculated, and fixated on the task of killing Diana. There does appear to be some validity to this theory. On that fateful night, he did not portray classic drunken characteristics (1). One of the claims in the official police report stated that “Contemporaneous evidence from the Ritz Hotel's video cameras from about 10 pm when Mr. Paul returned to the hotel until 12.20 am when he left does not suggest that he was under the influence of alcohol” (“The Operation...” 150). Furthermore, his toxicology report identified a very high average carbon monoxide level within his bloodstream (1, 151). With his levels of 20.7%, Paul would have most definitely appeared drunk and incapable of operating the vehicle (1, 151). The postmortem examination of his liver also disproves the claim that he was an alcoholic. His liver appeared to be completely normal (1, 150). Although the postmortem examinations and toxicology report were incredibly compelling, experts proceeded with hesitance (1, 152). They theorized that the samples collected by the French authorities could have not been Paul’s blood (1, 152).
There are also those who approach the Henri Paul information with timidity (Griffin). He did have a high average level of carbon monoxide running through his veins and very well may have been drunk (“The Operation...” 151). Swapping a body is no simple task. If Paul’s body was swapped, a scheme with this magnitude of complexity would have taken months of planning and perhaps other parties to orchestrate it. Paul also appeared to have no motive or gain in regards to Diana’s murder. Overall, the “Henri Paul” theory is a compelling one that could be true but is full of curious assumptions, compelling facts, and holes as well.
            The second theory surrounding Diana’s demise is increasingly sinister compared to the “Henri Paul” theory. It entertains the idea that the Royal Family plotted Diana’s death due to her impending proposal to Dodi Fayed (Griffin) (McDermott). Mohamed Fayed, the father of Dodi Fayed, surmised that Diana’s family “...could not accept that an Egyptian Muslim could eventually be the stepfather of the future King of England” (1). Rumors of a future engagement surely would have added to the Royal Family’s vengeful fire. According to USA Today and Martyn Gregory, Dodi was planning on proposing to Diana the night of the crash (1). Whether this is purely coincidence or fact is left unknown, but Dodi supposedly ordered a ring for his lover and had it delivered to the Ritz Hotel in Paris (1). Mohamed Fayed also stated in the official police report that on numerous occasions Diana feared death at the hands of the Royal Family (“The Operation...” 95). This postulate appears to have valid points, but it also contains substantial gaps regarding information. Rosa Monckton, an old friend of Diana’s,  recalled that the princess had never mentioned that she “feared for her life” and had never written about anyone wishing to kill her (1, 112). In contrast, Mohamed Fayed made numerous claims in regards to Diana’s apprehension regarding her life (1, 110). According to the police report, in mid-July 1997, he also mentioned that “...the Princess of Wales told him during this summer holiday that she feared she would be murdered by the Royal Family” (1, 110). Perhaps Mohamed was distraught over the death of his son and sought to blame Diana’s family and said statements out of spite, or maybe his words hold some merit. As mentioned earlier, the Royal Family appeared to have reasonable grounds for animosity. Yet, would Diana’s own flesh and blood plot her demise? In recent decades, the Royal Family has never openly appeared to be morbid or sinister. However, in a survey of twenty-five Houstonian respondents, 48% believed that Diana’s family did orchestrate the crash (Simmons). The masses suspect that the Royal Family is most definitely capable of committing such a heinous act. Ultimately, there does appear to be reasonable facts regarding this “Royal Family” theory and it overall seems more realistic than the Henri Paul “body swapping” theory.
            The third and final conspiracy theory states that bright flashes of light in the Alma underpass were the ultimate reason for the death of Diana (“The Operation...” 428). According to The Independent, numerous reports of light flares emerging from the tunnel arose after the crash (Griffin). The police report provides compelling evidence in support of this “flash before the crash” theory (McDermott) (“The Operation...” 427). It mentioned Alain Guizard, a photographic agent that followed Diana’s doomed car, who said: “There were some flashes at this point, but I do not know where they were coming from” (1, 448).  A former member of MI6 spoke of an untitled assassination technique used by the United Kingdom Secret Intelligence Service (1, 428). This method uses a stroboscopic light to disorient the driver in the hopes of causing a collision (1, 428). Perhaps the Royal Family issued the usage of such a morbid technique, or possibly there was an independent party which used the device to plot Diana’s demise. However, there is not a vast amount of evidence in support of this theory. Some claimed that the lights originated from paparazzi chasing Diana’s vehicle (1, 447). Others stated that the lights were simply a result of the crash (Griffin). Additionally, if this stroboscopic technique were used, vehicles would have been seen fleeing the scene of the crime, and there is no record within the police report regarding the cars that did exit the tunnel (“The Operation...” 428). Overall, the final conspiracy theory regarding Princess Diana’s death is the weakest of the three and has the least amount of supporting evidence.
            Conspiracy theories do not tend to be topics discussed in conventional conversation. They tend to arouse feelings of discomfort due to their incredulous natures. Yet, there may be some theories that are not completely peculiar. The death of Princess Diana is one such event that was filled with inconsistencies and which sparked numerous theories filled with hints of truth. Did Henri Paul, Diana’s drunken driver, cause the fatal wreck? Was the Royal Family seeking vengeance? Or were bright flashes of light the ultimate cause of Diana’s demise? Although all of these theories hold points of validity and are thought-provoking, the “Royal Family” theory, despite its lack of concrete evidence, appears to have the largest volume of truth and motive.




Works Cited
“Diana: the Rebel Princess.” History Extra, 5 Sept. 2018, www.historyextra.com/period/modern/diana-the-rebel-princess/.
Fogle, Asher. “14 Ways Princess Diana Bucked Tradition.” Good Housekeeping, Good Housekeeping, 22 Apr. 2018, www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/entertainment/g3675/princess-diana-royal-protocol/.
Griffin, Andrew. “People Still Don't Believe Diana Died in an Accidental Car Crash. Here's Why.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 19 May 2018, www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/princess-diana-death-conspiracy-theories-paris-tunnel-car-crash-reasons-why-not-clear-planned-murder-a7918766.html.
McDermott, Maeve. “Who Killed Princess Diana? Conspiracy Theories Endure, Twenty Years Later.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 29 Aug. 2017, www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2017/08/29/who-killed-princess-diana-conspiracy-theories-still-endure/543939001/.
“Princess Diana.” Biography.com, A&E Networks Television, 18 May 2018, www.biography.com/people/princess-diana-9273782.
Simmons, Olivia. “The Death of Diana.” SurveyMonkey, 2018, https://www.surveymonkey.com/analyze/k_2FkUTzrPHAUENGTyFJmDwHvMHHckFO0qY24n7vofG2A_3D.
Smith, Sally Bedell. Diana in Search of Herself: Portrait of a Troubled Princess. New American Library, 2000.
“The Operation Paget Inquiry Report into the Allegation of Conspiracy to Murder.” CBS News, www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Diana_Study.pdf.

No comments:

Post a Comment