| Saturday's Daily Mail Asks: Was Diana Pregnant When She Died? |
|
|
|
| Written by Joanne Leyland | ||||||||||||||||
| Saturday, 04 February 2006 | ||||||||||||||||
|
There's been much speculation and conjecture this past week about the ongoing investigation into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. This continues in Saturday's newspapers, with the Daily Mail offering an extensive feature on one particularly intriguing question: was Diana really pregnant when she died? To be honest, the article by Daily Mail journalist Sue Reid, although very interesting, throws up more questions than it does answers. In essence, by the end of it we still don't have much more insight into what went on the night Diana died and whether she was, indeed, pregnant? After all, we've been offered both positive and negative answers to that question from a number of people who claim to have seen or known 'the truth'. And so it is that the Mail article tells us yet again of the claims of people such as an unnamed policeman who told the media he knows for sure Diana was pregnant, to the medical staff who carried out examinations of the Princess who stipulate that she wasn't. Perhaps the most interesting information in the whole feature is left until the end. And even then it is offered in a throw-away fashion. The article claims Prince Charles told Lord Stevens that the crash which killed his ex-wife was, in his opinion, a freak car crash.  Meanwhile, we're told that the crash inquiry team — a small team incorporating 15 top detectives — are tracing people whom Diana and Dodi phoned in the days before their deaths, the suggestion being they may have been ringing friends from the Jonikal yahct on which they were holidaying to inform them of 'exciting' news (i.e. news of a pregnancy? Or maybe an engagement? Myself, I feel we will never know as everything is pure conjecture). Quite a lot of the article focuses on what I think is an unedifying aspect of reportage into the death of Diana, but I appreciate it has to be included in any investigative feature: extensive details relating to the Princess's post mortem. Not for the first time, questions are asked as to why the Princess's body was embalmed, this being unusual as it is against French law? After all, as Sue Reid states, Diana's body was due to be flown back to Britain within just a few hours. Why, then, was there such an apparent rush to illegally embalm her body? why delay it so the process could be undertaken by the Royal coroner as opposed to an outsider (however emminent the lady who carried out the procedure was)? This is of interest to many because the accusation is the formaldehyde used in the embalming would have cleared Diana's body of any evidence of a baby, thereby 'covering up' any pregnancy, especially one which may have caused embarrassment to the Royal Family. Much is made of the fact the order to embalm Diana's body came from "the British authorities" back in England. Again: why? Again, we just do not know, and this article offers no answers as the key players, including the Ambassador who attended the hospital on the night of August 31st 1997, refuses to answer any questions. Little is made of perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of the whole story: why Diana's medical files went missing just two days after the crash? Of course, it's likely that this is standard practice as the private medical files of any senior public figure, let alone the mother of the future King, would not be left in reach of the eyes of just anybody. But...it does fuel the conspiracy theories. As I believe we've already learnt before now, the article states that the Mercedes car was removed from the scene before Diana had even been taken to hospital. Why the haste? And, as we already know from previous investigations, the tunnel was re-opened just hours after the fatal crash, thereby ridding the scene of much vital evidence (this fact alone has apparently greatly hindered Lord Stevens' thorough investigation — we're informed that the former Police Chief has interviewed almost 1,500 people). The Mail article, although very interesting and well worth reading, really doesn't offer us very much new information, simply throwing up the same old questions. Having read the full feature, my own reaction was to walk away thinking: "Will we ever know the truth?". Sadly, I think the answer to that is a firm: "No". Please feel welcome to offer your opinions on this and any other royal story by visiting our Royal Forum or via our Comments section below. Comment on this article
Leave your comments (Show/Hide Form)
Other Visitors Comments
|
||||||||||||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
