Amidst New Scrutiny of Charles's Saudi Ties: British Royals Feel Heat Over Diana’s Assassination - part 1 | WPN World People News

Initial British press headlines about Jon Conway’s play “Truth, Lies, Diana,” which opened Jan. 9, 2015 in London’s West End, chiefly highlighted its strong insinuation that Prince Harry was fathered not by Prince Charles, but by James Hewitt, one-time lover of Harry’s mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. That soap-opera aspect of the drama, however, is not what is most likely to have sparked hysteria at Buckingham Palace.

Far more explosive for the British monarchy, is the play’s presentation of the investigation by Australian researcher and author John Morgan into the Aug. 31, 1997 deaths of Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, in the crash of their car in the Pont d’Alma road tunnel in Paris. Morgan has assembled and published evidence in support of the charge that the Queen ordered the assassination of Diana, and that the British foreign intelligence agency MI6 carried it out. Conway credits Morgan with inspiring his play, even working him into the script as an adviser to the investigator (played by himself) who is the central character.

After the show had started its run, major press in the UK acknowledged that its main subject was, as The Times wrote on Jan. 15, an “attempt to get to the bottom of the murky events in Paris in August 1997,” using the results of new research. Calling it “a little David of a play that the Goliath of the Establishment would probably rather didn’t exist,” Domenic Cavendish wrote in The Telegraph, “The picture formed gives an unnerving amount of plausibility to those who maintain that MI6 were involved and that there was a cover-up.... I think [the play’s] heart is in the right place, trying to do justice by ‘the People’s Princess.’ ”

“Truth, Lies, Diana” had been showing off-Broadway for a year. Conway has said that he took it first to New York, out of apprehension about reactions in the UK. He was emboldened to bring it to London, however, by a new eruption of opposition to the British Royals within the UK itself. This has been caused not only by multiple scandals implicating the degenerate royal family, but also by the British Crown’s crucial role in war-mongering and international terrorism. The wave of openly expressed disgust with the Royals is rising toward levels as high as in 1997-99, immediately after Diana’s death.

Storms Over the House of Windsor

First and foremost is the ties of Charles, heir to the throne, with the Saudi sponsors of Wahhabite terrorism worldwide. With momentum building in the United States for disclosure of the 28 suppressed pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, concerning the relationship of the Saudi royal family to those crimes, Charles cannot escape attention to his Saudi connections: Not only did Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Ambassador to the USA in 2001 and undoubtedly a subject of the 28 pages, pour tens of millions of dollars into Charles’s private “charities” and the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (known as “Charles’s OCIS,” because of his active patronage), but Charles himself negotiated mega-deals within the Anglo-Saudi arms trade. Bandar’s brother-in-law Prince Turki bin Faisal, who resigned as director of Saudi General Intelligence 10 days before 9/11, is a member of the OCIS Board of Trustees and chairs its Strategy Advisory Committee. The pair were among only eight foreign royals whom Charles invited to his wedding to Camilla Parker-Bowles in 2005. Both are named in the 4,000-page lawsuit filed on Feb. 4 in New York by the families of 9/11 victims.

Already in 2005, a book co-authored by British former prisoner of the Saudi regime Sandy Mitchell pointed out that “Prince Charles’s relationships with prominent House of Saud members have created serious problems and obstacles to UK agencies investigating claims of Saudi financing of international terrorism, according to Special Branch sources,” citing how lawyers for 9/11 families encountered such a stone wall on a visit to the UK in 2003.

Outrage at the Windsor-Saud connection is now spreading. Human rights activist Joan Smith, for example, blasted Charles in a Jan. 25 column in [[The Independent,]] for “sucking up to the Saudis.” She cited the role of “Saudi Arabia, with its two-faced royal family,” in “the 9/11 attacks, Madrid, the 7/7 bombings, the kidnapping of the Chibok girls [and] the massacre at Charlie Hebdo.”

Charles is feeling the heat. A new biography of the Prince of Wales claims that he “no longer wants to promote UK arms sales in Gulf States,” according to the BBC on Feb. 4. And with Charles visiting the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, yet again on Feb. 6-12, Clarence House (his residence) issued a defensive-sounding statement that “the Prince of Wales’s return to the region only one year after his last tour demonstrates the importance that Her Majesty’s Government places on its association with key partners in the area. These connections are underpinned by the long-standing and respectful relationships which exist between the Royal Family and the ruling families in the Gulf.” The BBC reported that a spokesman followed up with a pre-emptive denial of new arms deals, saying: “The Prince of Wales’ upcoming visit to the Middle East is not about sales of defence equipment.”

In other developments potentially contributing to the fall of the House of Windsor:
•Revelations about a pedophile ring operating in high society, including within Buckingham Palace, continue to rock the UK. At the same time, Catherine Mayer’s biography has drawn attention to the status Prince Charles accorded the late Jimmy Savile—a TV personality and notorious pedophile (exposed as such only after his death in 2011)—as friend, confidant, adviser, and even “key aide,” as one newspaper account put it. A 2013 Scotland Yard report cited abuse by Savile “on an unprecedented scale,” shown in complaints by 450 people, covering the period 1955-2009 and victims aged 8 to 47.
•Sworn testimony is sought from Prince Andrew, fifth in line to the throne, in a sexual abuse claim against convicted child-abuser Jeffrey Epstein by a victim who testifies she was pimped to Andrew by Epstein, his friend, when she was a minor.
•Charles’s “fury” over a BBC documentary called “Reinventing the Royals,” was widely reported. It concerns the PR campaign waged after Diana’s death to get the public to accept Charles’s longtime mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles, as his next wife. Scheduled to air on Jan. 4, the program was pulled because Clarence House refused to provide archival footage. After an uproar over Charles’s heavy-handed intervention, the program is now supposed to air on Feb. 19.

A Challenge to the Throne

Diana’s death, and the cover-up and suppression of evidence during its investigation, remains the biggest scandal of all. The crux of the matter, and of John Morgan’s impressive dossiers, is not the sad personal drama of the Princess of Wales as such, but the allegation that she was killed for challenging the very institution of the Crown.

After her separation from Charles in 1992, it was openly discussed in Britain whether Diana, the beloved “People’s Princess” and mother of future King of England Prince William, had the power to reshape the Windsor dynasty in a more human direction, as she herself proclaimed to be her goal, or even to bring it down altogether, as was publicly talked about by prominent British Establishment figures at the time. While the Queen herself had carefully maintained an image of being “above politics,” her consort, Prince Philip, was already widely despised as arrogant, and as a notorious racist with family connections to the Nazis, even by those unfamiliar with his expressed desire to be “reincarnated as a deadly virus in order to help solve the population problem.”

The publicity around Conway’s play puts the Windsors’ enmity for Diana back in the spotlight. Like the ghost of the murdered King of Denmark who stalks the parapet in Hamlet, Diana’s spirit wields the power to shake the Windsor throne. Half of all Britons still today regard her death as “suspicious.”

Conway and his colleagues are convinced that if the 2007-08 Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) inquest into the deaths of Diana, Dodi, and their chauffeur, Henri Paul, were held today, there would be “a totally different verdict,” because of Morgan’s work as well as the growing public recognition—thanks to the revelations by Edward Snowden and others—of malfeasance by top government institutions, especially the intelligence agencies.

Amplifying the appearance of “Truth, Lies, Diana” was a Jan. 14 commentary on the play in the Daily Mail (readership 40 million), by the tabloid’s Investigations Editor Sue Reid. She wrote, “I have also investigated the events that led up to the crash and what happened afterwards. I have spoken to eyewitnesses, British and French police, MI6 officers based in Paris that night, friends of Diana and Dodi, and hospital medics in the French capital who tried to save her life. Despite the official line that the crash was a terrible accident, many are still convinced she was killed ... and that shadowy figures in the British Establishment have covered up the truth.” Even in this short article, Reid set forth abundant evidence for both charges.

A Forensic Investigator’s Approach

Like Sue Reid, playwright Conway did independent research, as well as studying John Morgan’s work. These investigations have revisited all the issues brought out in EIR’s early, exclusive coverage of Diana’s murder—evidence-tampering; the almost two-hour delay in taking Diana to a hospital, whereas she likely would have survived the car crash with prompt treatment of her internal injuries; fakery in the claims that driver Henri Paul was drunk or speeding; the role of a Fiat Uno car and unidentified motorcyclists around and in the d’Alma Tunnel; the blinding of Paul by a flash of light in the tunnel; and the role of intelligence agencies, especially Britain’s MI6.

The thousands of pages of documentation assembled by Morgan, and published in 11 volumes, treat all these issues, and more. Morgan brought to the project his professional experience as a forensic accountant, that is, a career of dealing not only with minute detail, but with issues of evidence-handling and court admissibility. In addition, Morgan’s research has been informed by leaks from dissident sources within the British Establishment, enabling him to examine previously suppressed evidence.

Morgan’s minute-by-minute account of Diana’s mistreatment after the car crash is especially gripping. Morgan called his volume on medical evidence (Part 2 of Diana Inquest), “including deliberate mistreatment in the ambulance,” the “most distressing volume” of his 10 years of work. It evidently struck playwright Conway that way, too, as the John Morgan character in Conway’s play says at one point, “You don’t get it, do you? They killed her in the ambulance.”

From the outset, a distinguishing feature of Morgan’s work has been that he examines the evidence not only in its own right, but also through the prism of what was, and what was not, included in the 2006 findings of the official British Metropolitan Police (“Scotland Yard”) inquiry called Operation Paget, or even during the 2007-08 RCJ inquest. Those hearings were only convened, over the Crown’s bitter opposition, because of Mohamed Al-Fayed’s tireless pursuit, through publicity and legal actions, of justice for his son and Diana. The inquest, despite being presided over by a judge who swears allegiance to the Queen and who heavy-handedly directed the jury away from calling the deaths intentional, nonetheless returned a verdict of “unlawful killing,” meaning that they were not accidental, but were homicides by perpetrators unknown. “Unlawful Killing” became the title of a feature-length documentary by British filmmaker Keith Allen, which debuted at the Cannes film festival in 2011, but has been almost entirely suppressed ever since.

New Zealand-born John Morgan is a longtime resident of Australia. The head of state of both countries is the British Queen. Forced by illness to retire in 2003, Morgan was prompted to look into the death of Diana upon seeing, in the book by her butler Paul Burrell published that year, a photostat of a 1995 handwritten note in which she worried that Charles was planning to have her killed in a car accident. Morgan’s first book, Cover-Up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report, analyzed Scotland Yard’s published report. It was followed by the six-part Diana Inquest series, published in 2009-13, and five other volumes on the case, including a 2012 synopsis titled Paris-London Connection: The Assassination of Princess Diana and, in 2014, How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth, a more thoroughly documented, 800-page summary of the Diana Inquest series.

Diana Inquest analyzes the 2007-08 RCJ inquest, highlighting errors in its procedures and findings, as well as what evidence was withheld from the jury. Its volumes are: Part 1, The Untold Story, covering the pre-crash events at the Ritz Hotel and what happened in the d’Alma Tunnel; Part 2, How & Why Did Diana Die?, on her post-crash medical treatment and possible motives for murder; Part 3, The French Cover-up; Part 4, The British Cover-Up; Part 5, Who Killed Princess Diana?, on evidence concerning, in Morgan’s words, “the involvement of MI6 and senior British royals in the assassinations of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed”; and Part 6, Corruption at Scotland Yard. Especially Part 4, published in 2011 at the length of 722 pages, drew on a supplementary volume Morgan had issued the previous year under the title The Documents the Jury Never Saw, a compilation of documents leaked to him by a source familiar with Operation Paget from the inside, but not included in its 832-page published report.

Diana vs. the ‘Way Ahead Group’

In a bombshell interview on the BBC’s primetime Panorama program in November 1995, Diana said that by 1984, after the birth of her two sons, her three-year-old marriage with Prince Charles had gone “down the drain.” Morgan’s summary of her situation echoes the famous funeral eulogy by Diana’s brother, the Earl Spencer, about “the most bizarre-like life imaginable,” in which his sister had been caught. Writes Morgan, “She ends up finding herself living in a gilded cage, but with her every move analysed by an increasingly intrusive media.... In the end the pressure of the royal mistreatment and the public misperceptions becomes too much for her, so she decides she must tell the public her story. This is unprecedented. And that action is completely unacceptable to the Queen—it is unacceptable that a princess feels she can speak out about unpalatable royal truths.”

Morgan’s formulation is remarkably similar to one written by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, which Morgan cites: “[Diana] was radicalising [the image] of the monarchy.... For someone as acutely perceptive and long-termist about the monarchy and its future as the Queen, it must have been deeply troubling. [The Queen] knew ... that while there was a need for the monarchy to evolve with the people, and that its covenant with them, unwritten and unspoken, was based on a relationship that allowed for evolution, it should be steady, carefully calibrated and controlled. Suddenly, an unpredictable meteor had come into this predictable and highly regulated ecosystem, with equally uncertain consequences. [The Queen] had good cause to be worried.”

In 1991, Diana began secretly recording interviews with Andrew Morton, whose book, Diana: Her True Story, was serialized in The Times starting in Summer 1992. The Crown’s reactions included letters to Diana from Prince Philip, described by her friends as shockingly vicious, and the formation of the so-called Way Ahead Group (WAG) on the future of the monarchy, chaired by the Queen and comprising Philip and their four children, Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward. The formal separation of Charles and Diana came in December 1992, one month after the WAG’s first meeting.

Diana’s bodyguard Ken Wharfe wrote about 1992, “These were dangerous times. The knives were being sharpened for the Princess.” In October 1995, shortly before the Panorama interview, Diana at least twice—once in the note to Burrell and once verbally to her lawyer, whose notes on the conversation were revealed only years later, at the inquest—expressed fear of being killed at Charles’s behest, through sabotage of her car’s brakes. The lawyer, Lord Victor Mishcon, was so shocked by “the serious statements made by Her Royal Highness” in their Oct. 30, 1995 conversation that he made an unusual decision “to write this entry and to give instructions that it should be securely held.” Among other things, Mishcon recorded that Diana told him that the information about a threat to her life came from “reliable sources whom she did not wish to reveal.” The next month, as Morgan cites Diana’s friend Simone Simmons, she did experience brake failure in her Audi.

Describing herself as “a liability” to the Royals ever since the separation, Diana in the Panorama interview declared, “I shall not go quietly.” She vowed to play a role in raising the next heir to the throne, her son Prince William, and expressed hope of being “a queen of people’s hearts.” She also questioned Charles’s fitness to be King, saying, “I know the character, ... and I don’t know whether he could adapt” to the rigors of “the top job.”

In retaliation, the Queen promptly cancelled the BBC’s sole rights to broadcast her annual Christmas message, while Charles’s former equerry, Minister for the Armed Forces Nicholas Soames, went on national TV to question Diana’s mental stability. Prominent Establishment figures pointed to the profound issues at stake in the conflict between Diana and the Windsors, placing it on the canvas of several centuries of British history. Referring to Diana’s descent from the Stuart dynasty, ousted in the Dutch invasion known as the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and replaced by the Hanoverians (later called the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, after Queen Victoria’s spouse Albert, and then renamed as the Windsors), The Times’ former editor Lord William Rees-Mogg wrote in the paper on Nov. 20, 1995, “Like other historic co-inheritors of Stuart PR gene, the Princess is brilliant at the kingcraft of public image building,” but Stuart brilliance “almost always ends in personal tragedy, like that of Mary Queen of Scots.”

“God Help the Princess of Wales,” was the title of a column by Germaine Greer, recounting the tragic fate of earlier Princesses of Wales at the hands of the Hanoverians. Military historian John Keegan, writing in The Telegraph of Nov. 24, 1995, warned that Diana must not “go too far,” or else “it is she who will become the casualty, not the monarchy.” British author A.N. Wilson laid out the stakes in the Nov. 25, 1995 New York Times, calling Diana’s Panorama interview “a skillfully organized attack on the institution of the monarchy itself.” If Diana were to continue, Wilson warned, “the Establishment will simply get rid of her.”

In the wake of the Panorama interview, the Queen demanded that Charles and Diana divorce. That process was completed in August 1996.

Source: Executive Intelligence Review