Talk:Death of Diana, Princess of Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

France health care[edit]

Diana may have lived if she had been treated in the USA or UK. On the spot treatment failed in France. It took hours to take her to have surgery. This should be mentioned.

There is no way we could ever know what might have happened. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


Quote: 'In the midst of this "public outpouring of grief" many commentators and members of the public found themselves nonplussed by what they considered to be mawkish, sentimental and self-indulgent displays of insincere emotion.' Just wanted to say how true, (and also how well-written) this passage is. Nice work. JH1977 14:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a query. Was she a princess when she died? When she married Prince Charles she was Lady Spencer. Wouldn't she have lost the honorific "princess" when she divorced Charles and have reverted back to Lady Spencer?

No. Her official title after her divorce was "Diana, Princess of Wales".Manormadman (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

What she lost in the divorce was not her right to be called "Princess of Wales" but her HRH - her right to be called "Her Royal Highness." I have a feeling (and this is simply my opinion) that the Royal Family may have been as adamant about Diana losing her HRH as they were determined that Wallis Simpson would never gain the HRH. After Diana's death the Spencer family received an offer to reinstate Diana's HRH, possibly so she could be addressed as such in her funeral and buried under that style, but the Spencer family firmly refused. (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Yikes! Who wrote this?[edit]

The accident theory fits also badly that Dianas Mercedes was stolen three months before, its electronics was exchanged. It is mystic that driver Henri Paul had 1.7 parts promille per thousand, however he could without to varying the shoes to tie up itself. That a camera proves in the hotel.

Can someone who knows about this story either clean this up or delete it. Without varying the shoes to tie up itself! 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The passage in questio I cannot say from which language. (German?) My guess is that it refers to the fact that the car that crashed was one that had been stolen and recovered, after thieves had removed a computerized component (or components) of the braking system. Conspiracy theorists use this to support their charge that the car had been tampered with so that assassins could take over its operation (or perhaps just the braking) by remote control. Images of Henri Paul captured by Ritz Hotel security before the fateful drive showed him looking composed. Perhaps one image captured him bending to tie his shoes and rising again without wobbling? (Or could "shoes" refer to brake shoes or tires?) If this is a reference to Paul's sober-appearing behavior, can a drunk man accomplish this? Can a man unfit to drive manage to appear sober on camera? Conspiracy theorists charge that it cannot be done--or that it was unlikely that Paul could have pulled off such a thing. With regard to the car, it should be noted that the particular Mercedes in which the four traveled was chosen at the last minute, because another Mercedes, the one in which the couple had traveled to the Ritz, was used as a decoy to lure away paparazzi. Both cars belonged to a leasing agency that was owned, like the Ritz itself, by Dodi Fayed's father. How could assassins have known he would transport Diana in the car that had been stolen? How could anyone know that this car would be the extra vehicle dispatched that night? And if the car needed repairs after it was recovered from the theft episode, doesn't that make it less likely that any tampering went undetected? Daphodyl 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The expression "to tie up itself" is obviously a poor translation of the reflexive in many European languages such as French and Spanish, where "se faire" means both passive sense ("to be done to" or "to be done") as well as reflexive ("to do it for/to oneself"). The better translation in this case is almost certainly "It is [a mystery/mysterious] that driver Henri Paul had 1.7 parts per mille, however he could without to [wobbling/falling/moving/changing his balance] [tie up his shoes]. That [is proven by] a camera in the hotel." FT2 (Talk) 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the most poorly-written paragraph I have come across in Wikipedia; it needs to be removed or re-worked to make sense. If I knew more about the subject I would have done it. Quote: 'The accident theory fits also badly that Dianas Mercedes was stolen three months before, its electronics was exchanged. It is mystic that driver Henri Paul had 1.7 parts promille per thousand, however he could without to varying the shoes to tie up itself. That a camera proves in the hotel.' EdX20 21:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

EdX20, this was complained about above. It seems that nobody wants to make the effort to fix it... I'm more concerned by the lack of references at this point tho. For instance, without them, how can we know if promille means percent or per thousand? — Donama 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
OK I have rewritten this paragraph and moved it to a more logical location. Also I have taken out the bits about blood alcohol levels and merged them with an earlier paragraph on the same. Curtains99 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See above for better translation FT2 (Talk) 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The original poster refers to an amazing german documentary "tod im tunnel" Producer: Heribert Blondiau Director: Michael Gramberg (see imdb). Among MANY suspicious facts it mentions the Mercedes having been stolen 3 months and having its electronics ripped out, as well as the driver tieing his shoes on a security cam and getting up without any signs of being drunk. Can someone please add the "stolen mercedes" into the main article, please REF .... and NOT into the Diana Conspiracy Theories, because it is A FACT. (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability issues[edit]

References certainly are needed in this article. Problem is that many news companies didn't have very advanced websites back then. Here are some links to original news items in 1997:

And links to news analysis well after the 1997 event:

Any more, people? — Donama 02:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Accident Photos?[edit]

Anyone have links to the photos mentioned in the Conspiracy Theories section: "Later in 2004, US TV network CBS showed pictures of the crash scene showing an intact rear side and an intact centre section of the Mercedes..."? Since they say they were relesed in 2004, shouldnt they be archived somewhere? Kamiawolf 06:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Try here from this page. Shame they're only photocopies.--Darrelljon 09:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lack of guardrail (2010 update: Theory supported by a British Safety expert: Murray mackay)[edit]

I've always wondered why there wasn't a guardrail or other barrier running between the pillars and roadway in the tunnel. I suppose that with the low speed the road was designed for meant that a barrier wasn't necessary, but it seems like most engineers would think to put one in anyway when there are two dozen vertical concrete posts in a row. Is there a barrier the length of the tunnel today? —Mulad (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there is not. I was there yesterday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:51, July 16, 2006 (UTC)

In the United States, it is customary for road engineers to add a metal guardrail running the length of all the pillars. This is to prevent a minor course deviation from turning into a catastophic head-on accident, where the vehicle runs in to an immovable object and comes to a dead stop in less than one second. Since head-on collisions can be deadly even at fairly low speeds, the argument that the road was not designed for high speed is spurious. 07:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I used to wonder about the lack of a guardrail. Now I wonder why this fact has been overlooked in all of the inquiries held to date. I can't believe that a competent, experienced traffic safety investigator would overlook this life-or-death issue. I have to conclude that competent, experienced traffic safety investigators were not involved in the inquiries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Professor Murray Mackay stated that the lack of a guardrail was THE real cause of the death of 3 passangers in that crash [1] Randroide (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fightin' Words[edit]

'As the casualties lay seriously injured/dead in their wrecked car, the photographers continued to do their job of taking pictures of celebrities[citation needed].'

This is an extremely bold accusation to make, and I'd like to see some support to back it before it's simply laid-out. Without a citation, it seems rather slanderous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:20, July 4, 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is true or not, however I've changed the wording slightly to avoid the (in my opinion) PoV "continued to do their job" Yandman 13:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The report by Lord Stevens on the crash states on page 146 that three named photographers were still taking photographs in the situation described - though they seem to have stopped once the emergancy services arrived, and also called (or attempted to call) the emergency services apparently before they took the photographs. If no-one else does, I'll add the citation later, bit busy at the mo. MilleauRekiir 13:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


I search for the pictures from the italian magazin chi? -- 03:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That picture was in the forums on However that site has now merged into and subsequently a lot of its former media seems to no longer exist, unless someone can prove me wrong. --J. Smith 10:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Vine[edit]

Unable to find any verification regarding the BBC blackout on 16 May 2006 other than wikipedia mirrors and the web pages of Mohammed Al Fayed. Various sources - for example the scotsman (free registration required: report the interview without mentioning the blackout. I think if this is to stay in the article we should find some independent verification that it actually happened. -- 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

i've removed it, there is no mention of this blackout at all anywhere. it is basically bollocks.-- 18:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it too - I can not find any reference on the web - not even on Mohamed Al-Fayed's site. If anyone would like to re-add it, please cite sources, or list them here. --Leigh 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


French reopen Diana inquiry--Striver 05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC) --Striver 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Tomlinson[edit]

The Richard_Tomlinson directly contradicts this one:

Tomlinson was arrested by French Authorities in July 2006 as part of their inquiry into the death of Princess Diana, the police seized computer files and personal papers from his home in Cannes. - This article

The police seized computer files and personal papers from his home in Cannes. It was mistakenly reported by some quarters that this arrest was linked to the inquiries into the death of Princess Diana. - The Richard_Tomlinson article.

This article quotes a source, however the source makes no reference to the arrest, nor does it seem that any other sources in the bibliography. The Tomlinson article is also lacking in sources, in the absence of both I'd be minded to ammend this article to match the Tomlinson one until better sources can be found for both. Thoughts? --Edith The Hutt 13:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Downing St, the Queen, and Alastair Campbell[edit]

Hi. I was tidying up this article and I found the following. It sounds interesting, can anybody reference it? --Guinnog 04:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC) "At the urging of Downing Street, what was to be a recorded piece became a live broadcast, and the script was revised by Alastair Campbell to be more "human".[citation needed]" --Guinnog 04:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Having recently seen The Queen, I know that statement was made in the film. However, I do not know if it was a factual statement repeated by the movie, or if the director exercised creative liberty and put it in. Not really an answer to your question, I know, but I thought the information could be helpful. 19:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
According to Alistair Campbell's recently published diaries, the only change it records him as making was to insert the phrase "as a Grandmother".--HoraceCoker 04:47, 29 October 2006

Armoured car?[edit]

Many news reports refer to the mercedes as "armoured", but is there any evidence for this? I once heard (but cannot find to verify a source) that the vehicle was armoured, at the cost of various crumple zones. However, other sources suggest that it was not armoured at all? Slow Riot 21:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to get to hospital[edit]

The article asks why it took so long for Diana to get to hospital. Its standard practice in france to treat road accident victims at the scene rather than risk moving them in an ambulance. She was then only moved slowly because of her injuries.

This is taken from page 516 of the Operation Paget report. The report also states that the ambulance left the scene of the crash at 1:41am (p514) and arrived at the hospital at approximately 2.06am (p515)

Dr Martino was not involved in the decision to go to the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. He explained his medical assessment that the transportation had to be very slow because of the level of the Princess of Wales’ blood pressure.

--J. Smith 12:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a common misconception due to different practices. In some countries, accident victims are taken asap to the hospital and ambulances are not equiped to treat them on site. In France ambulances carry extensive medical equipment and qualified medical personnel. Their role is to start treatment asap while they are taken to the hospital. There therefore was no delay in Diana's case, although that is not evident if you are not aware of the procedure followed. Codik 14:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename Section?[edit]

would it make sense to rename the heading 2004–2006 investigation to '2004–2006 investigation, the Operation Paget Report' or something to that effect? --J. Smith 12:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Trevor Rees Jones[edit]

I read on several web sites that he was wearing a seat belt and was saved because of it. Could someone change this and add a reference?

Well spotted. I corrected it. A cite could easily be found if anyone requires one. --Guinnog 18:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually the edit on 17:30, 14 December 2006 by, not long ago, changed it to say that no-one was wearing a seatbelt, from the original text (which had a valid cite) for unknown reasons. Ive put back the original cite. (Winnow 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC))
Both the French and the British investigations, as well as Trevor Rees Jones own account in his book "The Bodyguard's Story" concur that none of the occupants wore seatbelts. I have changed the text and added these citations.(HoraceCoker 10:25, 07 August 2007

Can someone update the article Trevor Rees-Jones as well? At the time I recall it was widely reported as fact that Rees-Jones had been the only one wearing a seatbelt (and indeed there was talk of using Diana's image for a road safety campaign on seatbelt use). Timrollpickering (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple of reputable sources that say he was wearing a seatbelt - BBC and CNN. Although at [2] the transcript isn't quite clear: "REES-JONES: I think I've been told that I wasn't wearing a seatbelt.
I assume that's been misreported". I don't have his book.
Can anyone point to some info on this or (reputable) refs for the other argument? Thanks
peterl (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Found my own answer: Page 421 of [3]. I'll add this ref to the main text.
peterl (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


I read in the article:

(these eyewitnesses are not identified by Scotland Yard).

I cannot understand what is meant by "identified". Can anyone explain? I suppose "to identify" means "to determine the identity of". As far as I know, the word "To identify" means "To determine who it is". Which of the following is correct:

  • They are not currently being identified by Scotland Yard (Scotland Yard did perhaps identify them several years ago).
  • Scotland Yard does not identify them now, and has not identified them in the past.
  • Scotland Yard refuses to determine who these people are.
  • Scotland Yard does not know who these people are.
  • Something else

Please clarify. Johan Lont 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Operation Paget[edit]

I propose to expand the conspiracy theories section to include the conclusions of the Operation Paget report on each conspiracy theory. I have read all 852 pages of the report and can make citations. I think it would be worth including as such a thorough investigation was made of each conspiracy theory. Once this edit has been completed, I propose to delete the section '2004-2006 Investigation' as it only contains very limited information about the investigation and its conclusions. The edit proposed above would be more comprehensive and informative.

Any comments? B626mrk 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency? Death and Removal[edit]

In the "Circumstances" section, the article states that the doctors pronounced Diana dead at 4:00am. Later in the section, The Prince of Wales and Diana's sisters arrive at 2:00am and leave with her body "ninety minutes later." That would be 3:30am--before the doctors pronounced her dead. Was the body removed before her death was revealed (for security and crowd control, maybe?), or is something amiss here?

I think someone's mixing up am and pm - this is why 24hr clock is better. My memory of that day is that it was definitely late in the afternoon (British Summer Time) when they flew the body back. Timrollpickering 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I was going to add the same comment about the inconsistency - can someone who knows clear it up, or remove the material altogether. The continued presence of such a seeming mistake, a month after it was first flagged up, detracts from the article. 21:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Evening Standard article about further Martin Bashir interview[edit]

I read in the London Evening Standard shortly before Dianas' death an article saying she was planning another interview with Martin Bashir.

Even if this is so, it is not relevant to the page. She may well have had any number of scheduled appointments with media outlets before her death. I'm confused as to how a possible future interview with Mr. Bashir adds content.

Needs more / better refs[edit]

There are plenty cited, but there are also entire paragraphs (including very contentious information) which are not sourced to anybody. Please fix this. Eleland 13:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a sentence about Henri Paul appearing sober / lucid in CCTV footage, as it was unsourced and began, "It is claimed..." --Vans74 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Took out this uncited paragraph as it's pretty offensive to be an article about her death: Sue Wallace 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC) In 1999, a little more than a year after her death, the journalist Christopher Hitchens made a comment about her while on a cruise ship. He stated that Diana "has in common with a minefield the following: relatively easy to lay but extremely difficult, expensive, and dangerous to get rid of."[citation needed] When there was a backlash concerning his quip he said that he "thought it was funny."[citation needed]

Recent developments[edit]

How do we want to proceed as evidence is presented in the new trial? How should the Operation Paget page fit into this? --John 06:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

--It is not a "trial", if you read the transcripts, the coroner explicitly said no one is on trial. It is an inquest, constituted under English law to find out how the people died.

I'm reading the transcripts on a near daily basis. I'd be happy to provide updates. B626mrk 18:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you've been reading the transcripts every day why haven't you added any up-dated any information in regards to the new inquest? Sue Wallace 19:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, other things, keeping my life in perspective etc. And, people didn't seem all that interested, no one else was updating it. B626mrk 19:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Book promotion rfc[edit]

I'm unsure if Wikipedia is an appropriate place to promote a book the one has to pay money for in order to read. It appears to be a breach of Wikipedia's five pillar's policy.

Or, more specifically, can one promote a book on here that promotes a point of view that has been proven to be without foundation and, in places, blatently untrue by publicly available evidence?

As such, I'm minded to delete the most recent edits by Paperbackrighter. However, I thought I'd seek advice on here before doing so. --B626mrk 09:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Bear in mind WP:NPOV: the article cannot endorse the opinion that the book which Paperbackrighter wants to mention has been proved untrue. The problem with Paperbackrighter's edits is that it seems to be a single purpose account with what looks like a conflict of interest. We don't allow authors or people closely connected with them to advertise their books. Also, there have been so many books published about the death of Diana that I'm not sure this one is significant enough for mention. For that reason I would support removing Paperbackrighter's edits. By the way, I like your username, B626MRK - nice but subtle connection to these events. Sam Blacketer 09:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. It raises the issue of POV expressed through references to external sources. I've came across this issue on the article about a recently deceased Northern Ireland politician with links to terrorism. A use kept on posting a link containing blatantly partisan POV in the 'external links' section on the page. I didn't think it was in order under WP:NPOV: to include links that contained extreme POV. I would think this should apply to external printed sources too.B626mrk 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I just say, I agree also, I was going to delete it on the grounds that it's not a notable book anyway, and there are soooo many already and it doesn't add anything new to the article. Sue Wallace 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I see someone without an account is back to persistently including this book. I am deleting in compliance with what was discussed above. P.S. An IP look up shows the IPs being used to include it are based in Australia, leading me to suspect that it is the author of the book or someone connected with him who is trying to promote it.B626mrk (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoever it is appears to be utterly determined to keep adding it regardless of the opinion on this page. Further action may be necessary.B626mrk (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This is getting somewhat ridiculous now. He is editing only to be deleted a matter of moments later every single night. Is there anyway of blocking an ip address starting 114.77 from editing the page? B626mrk (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture references?[edit]

Should there be a section of popular culture references to Diana's death? The Spooks episode Diana about the guy convinced her death was a MI-5 plot, for example. Or are there not enough notable references to warrant a section? Or would such a section be in poor taste? --Micahbrwn (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lord Justice Scott Baker[edit]

Can I just add that the coroner's name is Lord Justice Scott Baker (or technically also: Sir Scott). Lord Baker, Lord Justice Baker, Lord Scott Baker is simply wrong. See here. Panthro (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz refusal to release the car and the "strange" cleam up the the crash scene[edit]


We need material on Mercedez Benz refusal to release the crashed car for investigation. Also we need info on reports saying that the crash scene was cleaned up almost immediately after the crash. (destroying forensic evidence of crash?)--Redblossom (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The car was released to the British Police by the French authorities (it was not held by Mercedes Benz at any time) and shipped to London in summer 2005. The crash scene was cleaned up in line with routine procedures and the tunnel re-opened after an appropriate time. There was nothing to suggest anything untoward at the time of the crash and preserving the scene would only have served to cause unncessary inconvenience to Parisian motorists. I wonder where you are getting your information from? B626mrk (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
How do you know there was "nothing untoward"? Were you there? Normally, at the scence of a potential crime, things are left in tact. Not cleaned up. (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know what finally happened with this fatal Mercedes Sedan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Staggering cost of inquest[edit]

I added this, since, from the very start, the inquiry would get nothing. Cover-up, lies and secrets. And the cost, oh, must have fed our hungry people. The cost of the death inquiry exceeded £ 12.5 million, with the coroner's inquest at £ 4.5 million, and a further £ 8 million spent on the Metropolitan Police investigation. It lasted more than 3 months and heard 250 witnesses.[1] --Florentino floro (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


I personally have done a lot of research on the death of Diana Princess of Wales and Henri paul was 3 times over the French limit of alcohol, i would love to show the world what i have discovered but is this really possible? if there is anything anyone wants to comment on or ask me then feel welcomed to leave a comment below and i will revise it with great confidence

R/ When you get Its and It's right and use capital letters, we might be interested

Criticism of public reaction[edit]

I've added a bit about the criticism there was over the public reaction to her death, both then and later. I've also added something about the three people who were jailed for taking teddy bears from the piles of rotting vegetation that had been left outside the various palaces. As examples of hysterical overreaction, you can't get much better.Steve3742 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Attack Infobox?[edit]

Since the Coroner proved this was an accident, is it really appropriate to have the details shown in an 'attack' style infobox? I mean, the car involved was hardly a 'weapon'. --Old Marcus (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It should be removed. Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, I don't know what box to replace it with. The most I can do is remove the fields indicating it was an attack. Someone more experienced with wiki code could replace it. --Old Marcus (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Do we even need an infobox? Surtsicna (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, replaced the infobox with just the image and a caption. Arguments against this had better be grounded in fact, as the Coroner concluded this was not a conspiracy. So no trying to push batshit insane theories here. Please. --Old Marcus (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Saw the infobox was removed and readded it. Then saw the discussion here. The infobox is a quick and easy way to summarize info (like exact time) that doesn't really belong in the text of the article. Not trying to use the name of the template (which is only displayed to editors, not readers) to push a theory. While I agree this particular one may not be the most appropriate, the article is improved by having something instead of nothing. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This infobox likely violates WP:BLP by naming the paparazzi as belligerents. In this case, having nothing is better than having something. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The infobox almost said that the paparazzi had killed Diana. We can't allow that. Surtsicna (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

2007 inquest: source doesn't say what text says[edit]

Here's the sentence:

The inquest heard evidence from people connected with Diana and the events leading to her death, including Paul Burrell, Mohamed Al-Fayed, her stepmother, the survivor of the crash, and the former head of MI5.[2]

Here's the link:

I might simply remove the one-sentence paragraph, but flow might be hampered. Any suggestions? --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

2007 inquest: Unclear sentence[edit]

Here's the sentence:

After summing up, the jury retired to consider five verdicts, namely unlawful killing by the negligence of either or both the following vehicles or Henri Paul; accidental death or an open verdict.

I don't understand what five verdicts were to be considered. Can someone clean this up? --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Brutal tunnel pillars[edit]

Unmentioned in the main article was the obvious lack of guard rails, which might have prevented such a tragedy.
The photo clearly shows that the tunnels support pillars, on the inside curve, appear not to have any guard rails.
Such as is shown, guardrails are indicated as a safety feature.

Sadly I doubt anyone considered that fact, and therefore no guard rails have been installed since the accident.

--Devilslexicon (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you a have a reliable source which states that the lack of guard rails was a contributing factor in Diana's death? If not, the topic should not be in the article. Your personal analysis of photos or other information is considered original research, which is not supposed to appear in Wikipedia articles. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Why they left the hotel[edit]

The article does not say why they wanted to go back to the apartment so late in the evening. It was because Dodi was not experienced at handling the paparazzi, and felt nervous. So the chauffeur had to be summoned back during his off-duty interval. (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


What happened to the paparazzi who were arrested, were they sentenced / punished? Jay (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, none were punished. And the witnesses (other than the paparazzi) have slowly died off - sometimes in less than likely circumstances.. (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Radio 1 music for lady diana[edit]

The Radio 1 music for lady diana article isn't notable enough for its own article, and its content should be merged into this article. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Question : Pont d'Alma fatalities[edit]

How many other people have been killed in car crashes in the Pont d'Alma? If known, it might be useful to include the figure in the article. It many or quite a few, it would support the *accident* theory - as drunk drivers tend to crash in the same place(s). If none or just a very few, it would support the *conspiracy* theory - as the likelihood that the only victim was Diana would be very very slim. (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to keep. Iztwoz (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Consistent with other articles that have the title 'Death and funeral of (name of person)'. Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The funeral of the Princess of Wales is a significant event in its own right, as is the manner of her death. More than enough material for two wholly separate articles. As the 'Death of Diana, Princess of Wales' article is already long at about 50K, the simple issue of manageability rules out a merger. Philip Cross (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Notable in its own right and perhaps one of the few funerals that was watched by over 1 billion people on TV. Can be expanded further. Brandmeistertalk 00:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Her funeral is notable in its own right and needs a separate article. Keivan.fTalk 18:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: They are both notable on their own and are both of a significant length to be their own individual articles. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 17:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Diana's funeral is important enough to be featured as an entire new article. --Ragref (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

The link from reference 35 is now dead. (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


I was about to add a hatnote to Murder of Diana Miller, since Death of Diana redirects here. I'm not sure on second thought, since the murder seems little known.--Nevéselbert 16:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^, Diana inquiry costs exceed £12m
  2. ^ "Al Fayed gets his 'moment' in court". BBC News. 18 February 2008. Retrieved 2 January 2010.