London-AP -- More revelations about Princess Diana from her former butler. London's Daily Mirror is running excerpts from the upcoming book "A Royal Duty" by Paul Burrell (BUR'-ul).

In today's excerpt, Burrell says Diana sent him a handwritten note on the day her divorce from Prince Charles was finalized, saying she never wanted a divorce and always dreamed of a happy marriage.

But the note suggests the relationship had been poisoned by others. The note says, "it has been a turbulent 15 years having to face the envy, jealousy and hatred from the prince's friends and family."

Burrell also says Diana once told him her son Prince William "doesn't want to be king. He doesn't want his every move watched." William is second in line to the throne, after his father.

Three photographers to stand trial in France for Princess Diana crash pictures

Three photographers will go on trial in Paris on Friday for shooting pictures at the scene of the 1997 car crash that killed Princess Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed.

The trial, the latest judicial proceedings surrounding the high-speed crash, stemmed from a criminal complaint for invasion of privacy filed by Dodi Fayed's father, Egyptian-born billionaire Mohammed Al Fayed.

Celebrity photographers on motorcycles had been chasing Diana and Dodi Fayed after they left the Ritz Hotel in their car on Aug. 31, 1997. The couple and chauffeur Henri Paul were killed when the car crashed in a Paris tunnel.

The photographers were cleared last year of manslaughter charges in the crash and will now be tried only for pictures they took of Dodi Fayed.

Diana's relatives and the British royal family are not plaintiffs in the case. Photos taken at the site were confiscated, and none was ever published.

At the one-day hearing on Friday, the court is expected to set a later date to announce a verdict.

Jacques Langevin of the Sygma/Corbis agency, Christian Martinez of the Angelis agency and free-lancer Eric Chassery face one year of prison and $53,000 fines.

The judge dismissed the case against five other photographers who took pictures at the crash scene.

Manslaughter charges against the three photographers were dismissed in 2002 by France's highest court. An investigation into the crash concluded that Henri Paul had been drinking and was driving at high speed.

The new hearing in Paris comes as Britain's The Daily Mirror is publishing excerpts from "A Royal Duty," an upcoming memoir by Diana's former butler and confidant Paul Burrell.

The newspaper also published a letter, allegedly written by Diana 10 months before her death, saying someone was planning a car accident "in order to make the path clear for (Prince) Charles to marry."

After the letter was published, Mohammed Al Fayed urged a public inquiry, but that was rejected by the British government.

A former butler to Princess Diana says she suspected a plot to kill her, 10 months before her death in a car accident in Paris in 1997.

Paul Burrell says he received a letter from the princess in October 1996, saying her death would clear the path for Prince Charles to remarry. The princess died in the crash the year after the royal couple's divorce became final.

A British tabloid, The Mirror, reported Monday Mr. Burrell describes the letter in a new book called A Royal Duty.

The report says the letter includes the name of the person Princess Diana suspected of planning to tamper with her car's brakes. But the newspaper declined to publish the name for fear of a lawsuit.

Last year, Mr. Burrell was accused of stealing hundreds of Princess Diana's belongings. But the trial was abruptly called off after Queen Elizabeth told prosecutors Mr. Burrell offered to look after the items. The British press said at the time that the Queen acted to prevent undue publicity regarding the royal family.

LONDON : Months before she lost her life in a road crash, Britain's Princess Diana claimed in a letter there was a plot to kill her in a car "accident", according to published extracts which reignited conspiracy theories surrounding her death.

"This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous," Diana reportedly wrote to her butler and confiant Paul Burrell, 10 months before she was killed in a car crash in a Paris underpass on August 31, 1997.

She wrote that someone "is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry" again.

Diana also said in her letter that her husband and heir to the throne Prince Charles had put her "through such hell", and described how she longed to hug Queen Elizabeth, her mother-in-law.

Extracts of the letter were splashed across Britain's Daily Mirror tabloid, and will also be published in Burrell's book, "A Royal Duty", which the newspaper is serialising ahead of its launch next week.

Diana named the person she believed was plotting to kill her, but the newspaper said it was unable to repeat the allegation for legal reasons.

Also killed in the crash were Diana's lover Dodi Fayed and the driver of their limousine.

Dodi, 42, and Diana, 36, were in the back seat of their car -- pursued by photographers on motorbikes -- when it crashed. Only Diana's bodyguard survived.

A French inquiry in 1999 concluded that the car crashed because the driver had been drinking and travelling too fast. But there has never been an inquest in Britain.

Burrell said he had released the letter in the hope that it would lead to an inquest and a "thorough investigation of the facts by the British authorities".

Dodi's father, Egyptian-born tycoon Mohammed Al Fayed, has long campaigned for a public inquiry, claiming the crash was the result of foul play.

"The British people have an absolute right to know what really happened to their princess", The Daily Mirror demanded in its editorial on Monday.

Fuelling the conspiracy theories, it asked: "Was she pregnant?... Was the car's driver Henri Paul really drunk?"

More than a quarter of Britons believe Diana was murdered, according to a poll published on the sixth anniversary of her death earlier this year.

Burrell was dramatically cleared by a court a year ago of stealing hundreds of Diana's possessions following her death.

The case against him collapsed after it emerged he had told the queen that he had been keeping some items belonging to Diana for safe-keeping.

Burrell, once described by Diana as her "rock", later sold his story to the Daily Mirror, in which he claimed the queen warned him that his close relationship with the princess could put him in danger.

"There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge," the queen is claimed to have told the former butler.

She gave Burrell the hand-written letter in October 1996. Clearly feeling much pain, she wrote: "I have been battered, bruised and abused mentally by a system for 15 years now, but I feel no resentment, I carry no hatred.

"I am weary of the battles, but I will never surrender... Thank you Charles, for putting me through such hell and for giving me the opportunity to learn from the cruel things you have done to me.

"I have gone forward fast and have cried more than anyone will ever know," Diana added.

Of the queen, she said: "I just long to hug my mother-in-law, and tell her how deeply I understand what goes on inside her."

In a famous British television interview, Diana claimed there were three people in her marriage, referring to Charles' close relationship with his long-standing companion Camilla Parker Bowles.

London - Princess Diana made a chilling prediction of her own death in a car crash just 10 months before she died in a Paris road tunnel in August 1997, the Mirror newspaper reported on Monday.

The former wife of heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles wrote a letter in October 1996 claiming there was a plot to kill her in a car crash and gave it to her butler Paul Burrell asking him to keep it for insurance for the future.

The Mirror, which is serialising Paul Burrell's book A Royal Duty, said the letter includes an allegation by Diana that someone was plotting to kill her, but that the allegation could not be repeated in full for legal reasons.

"This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous," it quoted the letter as saying. "(Deleted word/s) is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry."

Burrell claims in his book that before sealing the letter in an envelope marked "Paul", Diana told him: "I am going to date this and I want you to keep it... just in case."

Burrell was Diana's servant, friend and confidante for more than a decade during some of the most turbulent times in her marriage to Charles.

Burrell stood trial in 2002 accused of stealing hundreds of Diana's belongings including jewellery and clothes, but the case collapsed dramatically after Queen Elizabeth told prosecutors she remembered Burrell telling her after Diana's death that he would look after some of her possessions.

Diana died alongside her lover Dodi al-Fayed and their chauffeur Henri Paul when their Mercedes crashed in a Paris tunnel on August 31 1997.

Burrell told the Mirror: "With the benefit of hindsight, the content of that letter has bothered me since her death."

An inquiry by French authorities in 1999 ruled the crash was a accident caused by Paul being drunk and driving too fast.

Dodi's father, the multi-millionaire owner of the exclusive London Harrods store, Mohamed Al Fayed, has repeatedly called for a British inquiry into their deaths, insisting that Diana and his son were murdered by the British secret services.

Piers Morgan, editor of the Mirror newspaper which has exclusive coverage of Burrell's book and its claims, said he had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter.

"Paul Burrell is about as reputable as it comes in my book when it comes to the testimony and legacy of Princess Diana," he told BBC radio.

In the letter, Diana also writes about being "battered, bruised and abused mentally by a system for 15 years now" but says she is determined that her "inner strength" will not allow her to break under the pressure.

THE princess met the Queen at Buckingham Palace to discuss the strains on her marriage to Prince Charles. In this startling and historic extract, Burrell reveals for the first time the details of the dramatic meeting and the Queen's instructions to the couple...

FACING the Queen in a one-to-one meeting at Buckingham Palace, the princess knew she would never have a better opportunity to ask the one question that had constantly chipped away inside her mind since Prince Charles had publicly confessed to an affair with Camilla Parker Bowles.

If the Boss had gone into that meeting looking to emerge with concessions, that one reassurance from the highest level made her feel more secure about the future if it involved divorce.

It was mid-morning on 15 February 1996, and the princess had come to Her Majesty's sitting room for a discussion that Prince Charles hoped would end the stalemate over the divorce that everyone but the princess wanted.

On the previous day, she had sent her estranged husband a Valentine card, signed "With love from Diana".

Cupid had long since deserted them as a hopeless cause, but the princess was defiant until the end, even as the system prised away her fingers off a marriage on which she had so stubbornly refused to loosen her grip.

She never stopped loving Prince Charles. She felt she was being forced to let go. Even when she stared irreparable damage in the face, the inevitable never dawned on her.

But the summit with the Queen was her first opportunity - since the divorce letters had dropped on to her mat - to speak openly and frankly to her mother-in-law, and she didn't want to leave anyone under any illusions.

"I do not want a divorce. I still love Charles. None of what has happened is my fault," said the princess. Her stance was crystal clear from the outset in what turned out to be a businesslike but friendly discussion.

It couldn't be anything other than businesslike because the Queen's deputy private secretary Robin Janvrin was there to take notes. The grey suits at Buckingham Palace had been worried because "bulimics rewrite history in 24 hours".

The princess didn't want a note-taker at a private family discussion but it was feared that she might brief allies in the media. The Queen had Robin Janvrin by her side to preserve the truth. When she got back to Kensington Palace, the princess had me for the same protection.

As the princess spoke of her profound upset over the marriage break-up, the Queen apparently listened sympathetically.

Indeed, she emphasised how, over the years, she had tried to do everything she could to help, as had the Duke of Edinburgh.

But the princess, who never doubted that her parents-in-law had made a substantial effort even if their son had not, felt that others were only too happy to see her cast adrift, that they had been jealous of her work in public life.

She unbottled years of suspicion and emotion before the Queen, and not for the first time. She knew she could talk to the Queen. Answers and solutions were rarely forthcoming, but Her Majesty always provided a sympathetic ear, even when the complexities of the situation frustrated her.

Over the years I despaired when journalists and "in-the-know" royal "experts" had claimed that the princess and the monarch spat venom at each other or, as the Daily Mail once suggested, "Diana spurned the Queen's hand of friendship... turning the two women into enemies". They were never enemies.

UNTIL the princess's death in 1997, the Queen and the princess exchanged numerous letters. Two different royal icons from different generations tried hard to understand each other.

The one area on which they shared common ground was the welfare of William and Harry. In that meeting, the Queen reassured the princess that she must not worry about the welfare or custody of the two young princes.

"Whatever may transpire in the future, nothing will change the fact that you are the mother of both William and Harry.

"My concern is only that those children have been in the battleground of a marriage that has broken down," she said.

As the meeting continued, and Mr Janvrin's pen remained poised, the princess ultimately agreed to a divorce, but she wanted to record her hurt too.

She said: "Mama, receiving your letter and Charles's letter on almost the same day before Christmas was tough.

"It was the first time Charles had actually mentioned divorce, and the letters I have received since have not helped." The Queen agreed. "The recent exchange of letters has not led anywhere, but what I wrote before Christmas remains my view. The present situation is not doing anybody any good, either country, family or children."

THE monarch was insisting, at her diplomatic best, that divorce proceedings should start soon. There was no turning back.

But she more than understood the princess's concerns for the future. Afterwards, the princess said that she had displayed the sensitivity and kindness that the Duke of Edinburgh had shown in his letters in 1992.

By the spring of 1996, the princess felt she had had far more constructive talks with her mother-in-law than she could ever have had with her husband.

Then the meeting had reached the point about the future and title of the princess, a sensitive issue that became the subject of intense media speculation in the following days.

The princess insisted that she had not offered to drop "HRH" because it was too important to her.

Then Buckingham Palace issued a statement stating: "The decision to drop the title is the princess's and the princess's alone."

It is true that the princess first raised the issue of her future role. She said to the Queen: "I have worked hard for 16 years for you, Mama, and do not want to see my life taken away from me.

"I want to protect my position in public life. I want to be able to stand up for my own life."

She then added: "I have real concerns about the future, and all the answers lie with you, Mama."

The Queen accepted that, but said: "I would like to decide things in consultation with Charles. The title is also a matter to be discussed with Charles." Then she added: "Speaking personally, I think that the title Diana, Princess of Wales would be more appropriate."

The issue of HRH status remained uncertain until both the Queen and the princess could discuss it with Prince Charles. What is certain is that the idea for the title by which the princess would later be known was a seed sown by the Queen.

Many things were discussed that day: the princess was refused an office inside Buckingham Palace.

As the lengthy meeting continued, the princess expressed her concerns about William's safety.

She was worried about her eldest son and Prince Charles flying on the same aircraft: if a disaster or mid-flight incident occurred, they would both be affected.

The Queen replied: "That is only a problem on holiday and then it is only a question of who flies on public aircraft. The royal aircraft are safe. That is probably not a big worry."

By the end of the meeting, the Queen was anxious to let the princess know that she was always there for her. "This is a very difficult issue for me personally but the situation does need resolving for everybody's sake," she said.

Duty and protecting the country's interests had placed the Queen, yet again, in an unenviable position as mediator between son and daughter-in-law. The princess accepted that the Queen needed to be firm but she could not get over how considerate she had been.

"I just want an amicable agreement, Mama," said the princess. "I do not want to be difficult."

On 28 February 1996, Kensington Palace issued a statement: "The Princess of Wales has agreed to Prince Charles's request for a a divorce. The princess will retain the title and be known as Diana, Princess of Wales."

The announcement followed a meeting between Prince Charles and the princess. But it was a letter from the prince, received earlier that week, that had finally convinced the princess to raise the white flag.

NOTHING would change his mind and he was exhausted from arguing about what had gone wrong and who was to blame.

"Let's move forward and not look back and stop upsetting one another," he urged her, and the princess agreed. With mutual obduracy removed as an obstacle, lawyers began work on the severance of the fairytale. Throughout that spring, the princess maintained communication with the Queen.

Once a decision had been reached the Boss seemed mentally stronger. After years and months of being in denial over divorce, she seemed to have garnered some extra mental strength from somewhere.

"I'm focused, Paul," she said. "I have a strong sense of public duty. I am clear-headed and motivated and want to get on without obstruction."

The divorce settlement stated that the princess would receive a £17million lump sum payment. In return, the Prince of Wales had made his demands clear: he wanted back a pair of watercolours of distant German relations, a pair of chairs (circa 1780) and all of the George III silver, which we had used on a daily basis.

On 1 July, there was a constant stream of flowers, presents and cards for the princess's 35th birthday. One smitten individual sent two bunches of long-stemmed red roses, 35 in total. But two days earlier, on the Saturday, there had been an even greater surprise.

The front doorbell rang. No one was expected and I turned the brass knob, wondering who it could be.

The last person I expected was the heir to the throne. Prince Charles had popped in, unannounced.

"Hello, Paul, may I come in?" he said. He had been due to catch a helicopter from the paddock beyond the upper stables at the rear of the palace but was early, so he had decided to visit his estranged wife.

"Your Royal Highness, I think you know the way." He smiled and went up the stairs.

"Diana, are you there?" Prince Charles called, walking up the stairs as I followed behind.

He was met by the rather stunned princess on the first-floor landing and they greeted each other with a kiss on both cheeks. She looked over his shoulder at me and her eyes widened with mock horror.

Then she couldn't resist breaking the ice with her usual humour."Isupposeyou've come to take the furniture away, then, Charles!" Husband and wife, in the throes of a rather awkward divorce, laughed together for the first time in an age.IFonly they could have done that more in public, I thought. These two people got on, even if it was as friends. It was a bizarre scene, and also sad: I detected a surge of excitement in the princess. I could see her re-energising on the spot. It was all very cordial, relaxed and civil.

I went downstairs to make the prince a cup of tea, just how he used to like it at Highgrove: Earl Grey, strong, with a dash of milk. In mid-July Buckingham Palace announced that a decree nisi had been granted. It left one outstanding issue: the princess's HRH status. The Queen had first suggested the title Diana, Princess of Wales, but the matter of HRH had remained unresolved. What I do know is that the princess rang her brother-in-law, the Queen's private secretary, Sir Robert Fellowes, to ask that she be allowed to retain the title HRH.

Her request was declined. She would receive a £17million lump sum payment but the price would be the loss of her royal status. The princess was not someone to stand on ceremony but it was an important title because, in her eyes, it was a special title given to her upon marriage and it seemed spiteful to take it away. It was, she felt, part of her royal identity and she had worked tirelessly as a royal highness for many years.

When the final decision was taken behind the scenes, the princess was devastated. From mid-February, we had all been working towards and building ourselves up for the morning of 28 August 1996, the day the divorce became absolute; the day the Prince and Princess of Wales became single again. When that day dawned, the atmosphere was a mixture of sadness and anticipation. As I stood in the corridor waiting for the princess to come for breakfast, it struck me that while she was letting go of her marriage I was cutting ties with the royal household I had joined in 1976 and beginning a new adventure, so the sadness was balanced with the excitement of a new challenge. When the princess appeared, she was full of energy, determined to make a success of her independence.

She tucked into grapefruit and honey and talked about the tours that were planned: Washington in September, Australia in November. She was still thinking about moving to Australia. Later, she paced the sitting room, preparing herself for a day of being besieged by the world's media outside. The telephone rang. Itwas Sir Robert Fellowes, in his capacity as her brother-in-law rather than as the Queen's private secretary. "I wanted to ring just to say good luck for this difficult day ahead. It is a tragic end to a wonderful story," he told her, but the princess was in no mood to wallow in pity or sympathy.

"Oh, no," she said, looking at me. "It's the beginning of a new chapter. And remember, Robert, I do still love my husband. That will never change." The princess looked so elegant that day in pastel blue. She picked up her handbag, took adeep breath and strode along the landing, down the stairs and to the front door with determination, still wearing her engagement and wedding rings. "I'll take them off eventually," she said, "but not now."

SHE remembered only too well her reaction when divorce ended the marriage of her mother and father, and how traumatic it was for her as a child to see the rings removed. "A ring is so small but it signifies so much," she said. She walked out of the door to fulfil an engagement at the English National Ballet. She returned later that day, wanting to talk. Over coffee in her sitting room, she said, "I'm now a very rich lady and I think you deserve a wage rise." My salary was increased from £22,000 to £30,000, and the rest of the household - chef Darren McGrady, secretary Caroline McMillan, comptroller Michael Gibbins and personal assistant Victoria Mendham - were rewardedtoo.

The Boss was thanking us for sticking with her over the past few months, through thick and thin. She seemed quiet when I left her. We had spoken about the significance of the day, her love for Prince Charles, how she wished the British public knew how much she hadn't wanted a divorce, how she wished things could have been so different.

She delved into the myriad philosophies that, as she put it, "help me to do the mental house-cleaning". Philosophy arrested her insecurities, worries and doubts, and the words of others gave her strength. Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are. The self must know stillness before it can discover its true song.

Success is the result of good judgement. Good judgement is the result of experience. Experience is the result of bad judgement.Use problems as opportunities to change our lives. Problems call forth our courage and wisdom. Learn to adapt yourself to the demands of such a creative time. From a correct relationship to yourself comes a right relationship to all others and to the divine.

Or she quoted Benjamin Franklin: "Those things that hurt, instruct." ONthe night of the divorce she repeated another to convince herself that she had done the right thing. "'There needs to be a meeting of heart and mind which allows one to love and let go.' I know that, Paul. I know that now," she said. So much nonsense has been written about the princess and her divorce. So-called friends and advisers have lied to the world that she wanted to divorce Prince Charles from as early as 1990. So much nonsense has been written about a hatred for her husband that never existed. "Charles and I are friends and are civil to one another. I think he realises what he lost in me.

I have no hatred for him. All the suffering has made me into the person I am," she said. Whenit came to her views on Camilla Parker Bowles, she harboured resentment but not hatred. She had to fall back on her philosophies again to come to terms with her feelings towards her husband's mistress. She referred to one in particular: "Resentment is trying to change something that is just what it is. When we can't change it, we resent it." The princess spent many hours trying to fathom why her marriage had failed.

We spoke about it many times. Even more than that, she spent hours analysing herself, trying to understand her own mind. In doing so, she would become a better person, she said. It was easy and convenient for her husband's friends to deal with her problems by explaining them away as "Diana is being unstable again". The princess didn't operate in such shallow waters. She often went in search of deep self- analysis. In doing so, she learned a lot about what had gone wrong, and where, perhaps, the rot had set in. The bottom line was that she suffered from low self-esteem, which ate away at her, then at her marriage. As she explained it: "High self-esteem doesn't protect you, but it does allow you to entertain self-doubt without being devastated!" She felt her low self-esteem had taken root in childhood when she had acquired many of her ideas about herself. She had taken that poor self-image into the marriage with Prince Charles. In him, she focused solely on deriving a boost to her ego, through his recognition of her achievements. When it was not forthcoming, she said she felt rejected. "As if the entire foundation of my self-esteem had been demolished," she said. Citing someone she called Mevlana, "the best poet and mystic ever" apparently, she said, "It is said that 'patience is the key to joy' - if only I knew that back then!"

The princess also needed to realise, and I think many people told her this, that anger was a natural emotion, but she felt many women found anger distressing. I told her that Prince Charles did too. She even hired a boxer to come to Kensington Palace with his punchbag so that she could rid herself of her anger. Diana, Princess of Wales, could certainly pack a mean punch. We discussed all those emotions that night of the divorce. After our discussion, I left to go to the kitchen. When I returned to the pantry, there was a little note saying "thank you" on top of another piece of A4 lined paper, her thoughts at the end of our conversation.ALLshe had ever wanted was for the British people to understand what she had gone through, how difficult it had been. And while she felt that Prince Charles had truly made her suffer, she had learned from her suffering. She went to her grave loving the prince.

I know that because it is the truth she left on my desk that night. Prince Charles has often said that, within the next 25 years, the royal archives will prove the truth of his relationship with the princess. It seems wrong to allow the world to labour under illusions for the next quarter of a century. The princess's own words can debunk the lies now. That night, she wrote to me: "It's the 28th August 1996 - 15 years of marriage have now been signed off. I never wanted a divorce and always dreamed of a happy marriage with loving support from Charles. "Although that was never meant to be, we do have two wonderful boys who are deeply loved by their parents. "A part of me will always love Charles, but how I wish he'd looked after me and been proud of my work. "It has been a turbulent 15 years, having to face the envy, jealousy, hatred from Charles's friends and family - they have so misunderstood me and that has been painful and brought enormous heartache. "I want so much to become Charles's best friend as I understand more than anyone what he is about and what makes him tick."

WHILE working for Diana, Burrell also became closer to her two sons. He and his family shared many happy moments with William and Harry as they grew up. But he was also there for them in the dark days after the princess died. Here, he tells of their return to Kensington Palace after their mother's death...

WHEN the princess faced losing her title of HRH she turned to her sons for comfort. She told me how William had sat with her one night, put his arms round her and said: "Don't worry, Mummy, I will give it back to you one day, when I am king," which had made her cry even more. William will be king one day, King William V. In the summer of 2003, in an interview to mark the celebration of his 21st birthday, he spoke of how seriously he took his role, and how much he wanted to become king.

I knew the boy, so it was heartening to hear him say this. I suspect it would also have been a nice surprise for his mother because she knew how much the shy, introvert schoolboy had dreaded the prospect of ascending the throne.He was reared with huge expectations and yet he didn't want the spotlight. As he went around Wales on his 21st birthday engagements, I know the princess would have been brimming with pride at the adjustment he seemed to have made. I know how proud she would have been because of her concern for his future.

"William doesn't want to be king, and I worry about that," she told me, one night in the sitting room. "He doesn't want his every move watched." She went on to telephone her American friend Lana Marks and express the same worries. The princess empathised with her son who, like his mother, was naturally shy and retiring.

He had been born second in line to the throne. At the time Harry's attributes and attitude almost made him more of a realistic prospect to take on the onerous duties of the monarch. He was more outgoing and pragmatic. "Harry would see no problem in taking on the job," said the princess. "GKH. That's what we'll call him. GKH, for Good King Harry. I like that!"

From then on, whenever Harry was visiting for a weekend, we used those three initials to refer to him. It was an affectionate nickname she shared with two other close friends, even if Harry never knew. "Where's GKH?" she'd ask, when looking for him around the house. Of course, whenever the boys were in the house, staff had strict instructions on how to address them. We were not to bow, despite their HRH status.

We were not to call them "Your Royal Highness". We were not even to refer to them as princes. They were, quite simply, William and Harry. It was all part and parcel of the princess's determination to ensure they were treated normally. After Diana's death, Michael Gibbins told me that William and Harry were coming home to Kensington Palace with Prince Charles. As they met the crowds outside, and inspected the flowers left in tribute to their mother, I was waiting for them in the inner hallway. Harry rushed through the door and hugged me, his tears soaking my shirt. William reached out and shook my hand.

THE outward courage both boys were displaying was incredible, and they suddenly seemed so grown-up in their black suits and ties. "We've come for a few things. We're just going upstairs," said William, and the two brothers went to the nursery and their sitting room. "How are you coping, Paul?" said Prince Charles, who was clearly struggling with the enormity of events. He spoke politely and calmly, but he looked distant as he wandered around the apartment, lost in thought. He went upstairs.

I followed, without being asked. At Highgrove, this wouldhave been the height of presumption because, when I worked under his command, my presence was requested, or expected, at lunch or dinner. But in a domain that was no longer his, I could not be dismissed. He was now in my territory. Whether a friend or the future King of England, no one was left out of my sight.

I FOLLOWED him into the sitting room, and he walked to the writing desk, standing over it. He opened a top drawer, looked up, saw me watching his every move, and closed it again. William's voice broke the awkwardness. "Are you ready, Papa?" All four of us went down the stairs together. "We'll see you soon, Paul. We'll be back," shouted Harry, before they all disappeared out of the front door. William and Harry returned to Kensington Palace two weeks before Christmas 1997. I had prepared the apartments with flowers and plants, to make them look as homely as possible, and nanny Olga Powell was with me in the sitting room, awaiting their arrival. The boys burst through the front door in a jolly mood, looking forward to Christmas at Sandringham.

I walked round the apartment with them, holding a handful of yellow Post-it notes to label what should go where, and who owned what item. The boys were moving, with Prince Charles, within St James's Palace, from an apartment to York House, their new London base. William and Harry scurried from room to room, gathering books, cuddly toys, photographs, posters, videos and paintings, then decided which sofas, chairs and rugs they wanted to take with them. William was the more methodical of the two. He mentioned jewellery, then dismissed it. "Oh, we can do that in the New Year, there is no rush," he said.

The one thing that struck me was how polite he was, even when it came to selecting his own possessions. "Can I have this ... Would it be all right if I have this?" "William," I said, "everything here is yours and Harry's. You can have whatever you want. There is no need to ask." He walked into the L-shaped wardrobe room, and stood facing a collection of Chanel, Versace, Jacques Azagury and Catherine Walker creations. "What should we do with Mummy's clothes?" he asked. "I'm not sure whether you are aware," I said, "but the Spencers are planning an exhibition at Althorp, and they want key possessions and costumes to be included in that - including the wedding dress." "No!" William retorted sharply. "I definitely do not want them to have that." "Why not?" said Harry, chipping in. "I just don't, that's all," William snapped, "but they can have some of Mummy's dresses.

We can do that in the New Year too." It was the princess's wish for her wedding dress to be sent to the National Dress Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Her elder son was making it clear that he didn't want it to go to Althorp. So where is it today? It's on display at Althorp. Then William continued around the nursery corridor. "I'd like that rug, that sofa, that chair... those curtains, that drinks table..." and we remembered how the princess had spent £30,000 on new carpets two years earlier.

It was poignant to watch the two brothers going around their rooms, selecting items, and watching William take charge of his younger brother. "Can I have my bed, please, Paul," Harry asked, "and that chest of drawers?" "Oh, you don't want that, Harry!" said William, getting all paternal. "There's not enough room for that." "Yes, there is," Harry shrieked, and I could see the princess shaking her head and smiling.

There was no dispute when they entered their sitting room downstairs, location of their huge wide- screen television. "It's far too big for Highgrove. Can it go to York House, please? It will fill one wall!" William said. He was always in charge of the electronics and visuals. I smiled because I sensed that Prince Charles would not approve. He hated the boys sitting in front of the television watching mindless programmes. He rarely watched television unless an informative documentary was being screened.

Then we entered the sitting room, and I think that was when memories stopped them in their tracks, because this had been their mother's room, and they felt it. Silence descended. William stood looking at the photographs on the table. Harry stood over the writing desk, touching everything in a daze. After a few minutes, William's voice halted the reflection. "I want the giant hippo, Paul," he said, pointing at it.

Mother and sons would all lie back against the huge cuddly toy on the floor to watch television. When the tour was finished, the apartments were littered with yellow Post-it notes, items of furniture labelled "W - York House" or "H - York House". As they searched through the video collection and flicked through the CDs, I remembered that 1997 was to be the first year ever that the princess would have had the boys to herself for Christmas Day: she had agreed in the summer with Prince Charles and the Queen that they could break away from the tradition of Sandringham.

She had planned to spend Christmas with her sons at the K-Club in Barbuda.BUT even though the princess was no longer with us, I still wanted them to have a reminder of a Kensington Palace treat: a tradition they could take with them to Sandringham. I had prepared a Christmas stocking for each of them. As the boys were saying goodbye and rushing down the stairs, I stopped them. "Because I have always been responsible for making up your stockings every year, I could not let this year pass by without doing the same," I said. Surprise registered on both their faces. "I have even sewn up the tops so that you cannot get to the contents!

I rather doubt they will survive, though, until Christmas morning," I said, handing over the knitted stockings the princess had used every year. "Oh, they will, Paul," said William, "and thank you so, so much." Harry ran into me and gave me a hug. Together, we walked to the front door. "Now, you know exactly where I am. If you want anything, then all you have to do is call me," I said. "We will, Paul," said Harry, "and we will see you in January when we return from skiing with Papa."

When their stockings were tucked safely into the back of the Land Rover Discovery with the rest of the belongings they had collected, they wound down their windows, William in the front, Harry in the back. "Bye, Paul!" they shouted, as protection officer Graham Craker drove them away. I had stood there so many times with the princess, waving them off. She always turned to me and said: "The house will be quiet now. I'll miss ma boys."

ONE of the complications that the loss of HRH brought the princess was that protocol dictated that she would be an outsider required to curtsey to those members of the Royal Family who still carried the title. The one-time future Queen of England now faced the humiliation of curtseying to the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Alexandra.

But she found support from an unlikely corner of the Royal Family. Her next-door neighbour from apartment 10, HRH Princess Michael of Kent, wrote a sincere letter that touched her. "Paul, look at this. What a sweet, sweet thing to say," she said. "I was horrified to learn in the Press that after your title was removed, you would be expected to curtsey in public when meeting me...

"I insist that this would cause me the greatest embarrassment, so please do not even consider it.

"If only Charles had loved you from the beginning, then this situation would never have happened. You will always have my support." The letter from Princess Michael of Kent was a shot in the arm.

All I could do, together with the rest of her friends, was reassure the princess that she was far greater than any combination of three initials. I told her: "You don't need a title. Wherever you go in the world, you are known as Lady Di - and no one can take that away from you. "Besides, you will always be HRH in my eyes."

And I remained true to my word for what would be the final year of her life. Each morning, when I greeted her at breakfast, I placed the coffee- pot on the table and said: "Good morning, Your Royal Highness."

DESPITE yesterday's public show of "business as usual" Camilla Parker Bowles is privately in a state of utter despair.

One who knows her well and has been in touch on a regular basis all week tells me: "She's in a bad way."

Prince Charles is not feeling any better but there is less sympathy for him.

He has various layers of "protection" to keep him distanced from a public which is learning day by day just how terribly the princess suffered throughout their marriage as he determinedly continued his relationship with Camilla.

As Paul Burrell's revelations have unfurled, backed up by astonishingly intimate private letters spelling out the extent of Diana's despair and her fears, Mrs Parker Bowles has been holed up in the country far away from London.

She came out of hiding at Oxford yesterday to open a new research centre into osteoporosis. She is president of the National Osteoporosis Society.

Camilla made it appear she did not have a care in the world, stepping into the spotlight in figure hugging crimson suit with long embroidered black pashmina and killer black heels.

It evoked memories of Diana's spectacular upstaging of Prince Charles on the night he went on TV to admit to being unfaithful, when she wowed guests at a gala dinner at the Serpentine Gallery in Kensington in a breathtaking off the shoulder, above the knee black chiffon dress.

Camilla, determined to mask any inner distress, looked happy and relaxed. Privately it has not been the same story.

Family and friends have been rallying around but to little avail. A friend said: "She can see the wheels coming off her relationship with Charles day by day and there's nothing she or anybody else can do about it. It's a shocking position for her and she's suffering. Of course she's in touch with Charles but he's got his own problems to deal with."

It has been made clear to me that no matter what, the prince and Camilla are inextricably linked for all time and there is no question of them taking even the tiniest of breaks from one another.

One friend went on: "Until now they had such a clear objective of their lives. No matter what others have said, there were no plans for marriage. They just hadn't thought about it. There was always much nervousness about going down this route so they didn't.

"They were comfortable with their arrangement, spending time together but less frequently than most people believe."

PRINCE Charles is equally shattered at this week's revelations. But he is far from bowed. I am told he is extremely cross and embarrassed.

He knows there will be little sympathy for him and has to rely on his staff at St James's Palace to try to extricate him from the mire he is in.

Those close to the prince say that with Sir Michael Peat as his private secretary and running his official life, Charles will find it hard to achieve this. Sir Michael is a finance man, not a spin doctor.

At Buckingham Palace there is even less sympathy for him. I am told: "The prince got himself into this mess and the feeling is it is not for the first time."

Although there is contempt for what Paul Burrell has written and is seen as betrayal, the belief among the Queen's senior courtiers is that the chickens have come home to roost for the prince and his mistress and that there is absolutely nothing they can do to help. One simply said: "They're on their own."

UNTIL Monday - when the Princess of Wales returned with a vengeance to the front pages - you could almost hear the Royal Family purring with self-satisfaction at what a good job they were doing.

Their post-Jubilee strategy has been to perform a music hall vanishing act. They wanted simply to disappear.

The diktat went out from the snooty men in grey suits at Buckingham Palace: no more stories about any member of the Queen's family in any newspapers, no more pictures on television.

Bar the odd photo of the Queen holding a posy of flowers and an entirely predictable row about the Palace's incompetent handling of Harry's gap "two years", they have succeeded in becoming completely invisible.

It's not a tactic I'd have ever advised. Based on solid, historical precedent, I take the old-fashioned view that the monarchy needs the oxygen of publicity to survive. Invisibility always breeds Republicanism - as they will find out to their cost.

Every institution has to earn the loyalty of each new generation. This is always a chal- lenge but it's a challenge that has to be met.

And then to remind us of that very point back comes Diana - dominating the news with genius, six years after her death.

These latest remarkable stories have reminded the nation of one of the worst moments in the monarchy's history, and laid bare its often cruel treatment of her.

The problem was then, and it is now, that the Royal Family and their advisers are totally out of touch with the real world.

As I shall explain later, the way they treated loyal servant Paul Burrell was an own-goal of astonishing proportions, showing huge insensitivity and sheer incompetence.

It is often thought that because I worked for the Prince of Wales and had a role in helping Camilla come to terms with the nightmare position in which she found herself after the Prince admitted his adultery (without telling her he was going to do so), that I am in some way anti-Diana.

Far from it. In fact, my job in my early days at the Palace was to help end the destructive "War of the Waleses" and weed out some of the "friends" and sour palace courtiers who had been responsible for vile whispering campaigns against the Princess.

Diana always showed me great courtesy and, I think, accepted that the Prince of Wales needed to be more honest with the public about his friendship with Camilla.

I remember her sending my mother notes, asking her to thank me on the occasions I'd managed to resolve some problem for her.

Diana had many remarkable qualities. The most important for the monarchy was her ability to connect with people and to champion important causes in a focused way.

Try as they might (and they don't often even try), there is little most of the Royal Family can do to build bridges successfully with those parts of the population whose support is crucial for their survival. Sadly, the Prince of Wales apart, they are blissfully unaware of real people's problems. Their declining audience is almost as narrow as the ageing rump of support that sustains the ailing Conservative Party. Indeed, their fates seem distressingly intertwined.

Those who disagree should cast their minds 10 years into the future. The Queen will be almost 90 and the Prince of Wales by then, if his new Buckingham Palace-imposed team of advisers has its way, will be a largely invisible, eccentric figure in his mid-60s, surrounded by luvvies and sycophants.

We'll have a prime minister probably three generations younger than the monarch, given power by the votes of a population, many of whom will have almost no interest in the Royal Family and read newspapers that will have ceased to report what little they do.

This disconnection between the people who elect the prime minister and the popular support for the Royal Family could - when the Queen dies - prove terminal for them.

Why will anybody see any point in an elderly, invisible Institution? The Royal Family will reap the bitter harvest from the seeds their courtiers are now sowing with their "do nothing say nothing" strategy.

Of course, I can hear the cries already that William is waiting in the wings to save the monarchy. Perhaps he will. But the force that most understood modern Britain, and could have guided him to do just that, perished in a car in Paris six years ago.

Since then, the Royal Family have done so little to sustain her memory that it's hard to believe they understand (or want to understand) her benefit to the monarchy.

Also, William has been so cosseted by the media in Britain that we have to doubt his appetite for the enormous public interest in his life that is his natural fate. As a modern young man he is all too aware of his generation's interests - and that they don't include the monarchy.

Which brings us to the disgraceful treatment of Paul Burrell. Here was a man who (whatever his faults) was appreciated by Diana and respected by the public. He was falsely accused of theft, hounded by the law and had to face the disgrace of a trial as a result of chatter and gossip among the very same set of courtiers who persecuted Diana.

Significantly, he was saved at the last minute only by our Head of State's memory returning with the revelation he had told her he was protecting Diana's possessions.

The consequences were entirely predictable. Scandals erupted around the Prince of Wales, some of which remain unresolved, and the monarchy was plunged into crisis.

Paul was utterly ostracised by the Royal Family and has now written a book, to help Diana's memory and reclaim his reputation.

WHO can blame him? The Royal Family did nothing to help him after his arrest and many who work for them actively sought his prosecution.

About a year before Burrell's trial, the Prince of Wales asked me to meet Paul, find out what he'd done and then arrange a meeting between them both.

The Prince's aim was to hear Paul's side of the story and then accept his offer to give back to William and Harry everything of Diana's he was looking after.

In these circumstances, I doubt there would have been any prosecution and Paul would, probably, not have felt the need to reveal all that he has. It would also have saved the Prince from the sordid revelations that engulfed him last year.

Sadly, forces stronger than the Prince of Wales thwarted these efforts at mediation and his reputation has been in ruins ever since. I wonder which advisers wanted that?

If the Royal Family want to learn lessons from Diana, it is still not too late. Why don't they build their own memorial to her?

Encourage William to honour his mother's memory in a public way? Why not just embrace what good she represented and her dynamic force for change?

The answer is that to do so would require visibility, energy, dynamism and an understanding of the way a modern, democratic society works in an age of global communication - all forces that frighten them.

PAUL Burrell was reunited with his family yesterday after returning from a trip to the States.

He had been finalising a promotion tour for his book - available worldwide on Monday.

Paul, 45, said: "It's good to be back home. I've been looking forward to spending some time with Maria and the boys. They've been enormously supportive of what I've been doing."

Maria said: "I know what Paul has been through and I know how much it means to him to tell the truth after all these years. This book is nothing but a tribute to both the Queen and the Princess."

LONDON (AP) - Princess Diana's sons implored her former butler Friday to stop revealing secrets of her private life, calling a series of gossipy tabloid articles a ``cold and overt betrayal'' of their late mother.

In an unusually emotional written statement, 21-year-old William said Diana would have been mortified by Paul Burrell's revelations. He said he also spoke on behalf of his 19-year-old brother, Harry.

Burrell has written a book about Diana, ``A Royal Duty,'' which has been excerpted all week in the Daily Mirror tabloid.

In a statement issued through his publisher Penguin, Burrell said he was saddened by the princes' statement ``because I know that this book is nothing more than a tribute to their mother.''

``My only intention in writing this book was to defend the princess and stand in her corner,'' Burrell said.

Burrell has written about private letters including one in which Diana reportedly said, 10 months before her death in a Paris car crash August 1997, that she feared someone was plotting to harm her in a staged car accident.

``We cannot believe that Paul, who was entrusted with so much, could abuse his position in such a cold and overt betrayal,'' the princes said in the statement released by Clarence House, where they live in London with their father, Prince Charles.

``It is not only deeply painful for the two of us but also for everyone else affected and it would mortify our mother if she were alive today and, if we might say so, we feel we are more able to speak for our mother than Paul.

``We ask Paul please to bring these revelations to an end,'' their statement said.

Clarence House said William and Harry - who often played with Burrell's children at Kensington Palace when they were growing up - were willing to meet with him to discuss the matter.

Burrell, whom Diana called ``my rock,'' was once one of the royal family's most trusted servants and still professes loyalty to them. He worked for Diana for almost 10 years, was the first friend to reach her side after the crash that killed her and sat with her body through most of the following night.

He was the only mourner from outside her immediate family to attend her burial, and the queen awarded him the Royal Victorian Medal for services to the family.

The excerpts from his book, due out next week, have included references to private correspondence and a raft of intimate details about Diana's life and her relationships with her royal in-laws.

He quoted her as writing in one letter to him, 10 months before she died in Paris, that ``this particular phase in my life is the most dangerous.''

She reportedly wrote that someone was planning ``an accident in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry.''

Burrell quoted a letter Diana received from Prince Philip, her father-in-law, as saying he had ``never dreamed'' Charles would leave her for his companion Camilla Parker Bowles.

She reportedly wrote in another letter, as her marriage ended, that she had never wanted a divorce but thought her relationship with Charles had been poisoned by ``envy, jealousy and hatred'' from his family and friends.

Meanwhile Friday, three photographers went on trial in France for taking pictures at the scene of the crash that killed Diana or in the chase across Paris that preceded it.

The trial stems from a criminal complaint for invasion of privacy filed by the father of Dodi Fayed, Diana's companion who died along with her and her driver.

Jacques Langevin, Christian Martinez and Fabrice Chassery had pursued Diana's Mercedes-Benz. They face up to a year in prison and a fine of $53,000. The prosecutor asked that they get suspended prison terms. A verdict is expected Nov. 28.

The trial hinges on a French law that says the interior of a car is a private space. The photographers took pictures of Fayed through an open door of the crumpled car, or driving away with Diana as he left a hotel.

In 2002, France's highest court dropped manslaughter charges against the photographers. An investigation concluded the driver had been drinking and was driving at high speed.

According to the UK Sun, Mohamed Fayed, the father of Dodi Fayed, Princess Diana's friend and lover, said that a frightened Princess Diana had been threatened by Prince Philip weeks before she died in a fatal "car accident" with his son Dodi, Diana's friend and lover.

Fayed said: "Diana told me personally during a holiday in the South of France, 'If anything happens to me, make sure those people are exposed. The person who is spearheading these threats is Prince Philip'."

This threat corresponds to the letter received by Diana's butler Paul Burrell, in which Diana predicted her own death by "car accident." She wrote " (Name Blacked Out) is planning a 'car accident' in my car."

In a sworn deposition, former MI6 Agent Richard Tomlinson states that he was shown documents by MI6 officer Dr Nicholas Bernard Frank Fishwick, the MI6 officer who at the time was in charge of planning Balkan operations, which "on closer inspection turned out to be an outline plan to assassinate the Serbian leader President Slobodan Milosevic.

" Tomlinson noted this "information that could be useful in establishing the causes of death of Henri Paul, the Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed," suggesting "that Milosevic could be assassinated by causing his personal limousine to crash."

"Dr Fishwick proposed to arrange the crash in a tunnel, because the proximity of concrete close to the road would ensure that the crash would be sufficiently violent to cause death or serious injury, and would also reduce the possibility that there might be independent, casual witnesses," said Tomlinson.

"Dr Fishwick suggested that one way to cause the crash might be to disorientate the chauffeur using a strobe flash gun, a device which is occasionally deployed by special forces to, for example, disorientate helicopter pilots or terrorists, and about which MI6 officers are briefed about during their training," Tomlinson continued.

"In short, this scenario bore remarkable similarities to the circumstances and witness accounts of the crash that killed the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed, and Henri Paul."

Prince Philip is ordinarily considered a buffoon for his many bizarre statements and sundry gaffes, including his most notorious anti-human remark, reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA),in August, 1988, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

In his disdain and scorn for humans, HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, wrote in his preface to "Down to Earth," that genocide is certainly not out of the question as a means of "population control." "I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history," he wrote, "but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the 'cull' to the size of the surplus population."

Was Diana then an "inconvenient woman" after her divorce from Prince Charles? After all she had fulfilled her function as a breeder, invigorating the degenerate House of Windsor with new blood.

In the end, Princess Diana's murder was most likely rationalized as nothing less than an affair of State security.

(Editor's Note: Paul Burrell, Princess Diana's butler, has revealed a letter from Diana in which she said she feared that someone was "planning an accident in my car." The sworn testimony of former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson below describes his knowledge of a MI6 plot to assassinate Serbian leader President Slobodan Milosevic with a very similar scheme. Photo shows Diana's handwritten note predicting her death by 'Car Accident')

Attached below is a sworn and testified statement that I have made on 12th May 1999 to the enquiry into the deaths of the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed, and Henri Paul. I firmly believe that MI6 have information in their files that would assist Judge Stephan's enquiry. Why don't they yield up this information? They should not be entitled to use the Official Secrets Act to protect themselves from investigation into the deaths of three people, particularly in the case of an incident of this magnitude and historical importance.

I, Richard John Charles Tomlinson, former MI6 officer, of Geneva, Switzerland hereby declare:

I firmly believe that there exist documents held by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) that would yield important new evidence into the cause and circumstances leading to the deaths of the Princess of Wales, Mr Dodi Al Fayed, and M. Henri Paul in Paris in August 1997.

I was employed by MI6 between September 1991 and April 1995. During that time, I saw various documents that I believe would provide new evidence and new leads into the investigation into these deaths. I also heard various rumours which though I was not able to see supporting documents I am confident were based on solid fact.

In 1992, I was working in the Eastern European Controllerate of MI6 and I was peripherally involved in a large and complicated operation to smuggle advanced Soviet weaponry out of the then disintegrating and disorganised remnants of the Soviet Union.

During 1992, I spent several days reading the substantial files on this operation. These files contain a wide miscellany of contact notes, telegrams, intelligence reports, photographs etc, from which it was possible to build up a detailed understanding of the operation.

The operation involved a large cast of officers and agents of MI6. One more than one occasion, meetings between various figures in the operation took place at the Ritz Hotel, Place de Vendome, Paris. There were in the file several intelligence reports on these meetings, which had been written by one of the MI6 officers based in Paris at the time (identified in the file only by a coded designation).

The source of the information was an informant in the Ritz Hotel, who again was identified in the files only by a code number. The MI6 officer paid the informant in cash for his information. I became curious to learn more about the identity of this particular informant, because his number cropped up several times and he seemed to have extremely good access to the goings on in the Ritz Hotel. I therefore ordered this informant's personal file from MI6's central file registry.

When I read this new file, I was not at all surprised to learn that the informant was a security officer of the Ritz Hotel. Intelligence services always target the security officers of important hotels because they have such good access to intelligence. I remember, however, being mildly surprised that the nationality of this informant was French, and this stuck in my memory, because it is rare that MI6 succeeds in recruiting a French informer. I cannot claim that I remember from this reading of the file that the name of this person was Henri Paul, but I have no doubt with the benefit of hindsight that this was he.

Although I did not subsequently come across Henri Paul again during my time in MI6, I am confident that the relationship between he and MI6 would have continued until his death, because MI6 would never willingly relinquish control over such a well placed informant. I am sure that the personal file of Henri Paul will therefore contain notes of meetings between him and his MI6 controlling officer right up until the point of his death. I firmly believe that these files will contain evidence of crucial importance to the circumstances and causes of the incident that killed M. Paul, together with the Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed.

The most senior undeclared officer in the local MI6 station would normally control an informant of M.Paul's usefulness and seniority. Officers declared to the local counter-intelligence service (in this case the Directorate de Surveillance Territoire, or DST) would not be used to control such an informant, because it might lead to the identity of the informant becoming known to the local intelligence services.

In Paris at the time of M. Paul's death, there were two relatively experienced but undeclared MI6 officers. The first was Mr Nicholas John Andrew LANGMAN, born 1960. The second was Mr Richard David SPEARMAN, again born in 1960. I firmly believe that either one or both of these officers will be well acquainted with M Paul, and most probably also met M. Paul shortly before his death. I believe that either or both of these officers will have knowledge that will be of crucial importance in establishing the sequence of events leading up to the deaths of M.Paul, Dodi Al Fayed and the Princess of Wales.

Mr Spearman in particular was an extremely well connected and influential officer, because he had been, prior to his appointment in Paris, the personal secretary to the Chief of MI6 Mr David SPEDDING. As such, he would have been privy to even the most confidential of MI6 operations. I believe that there may well be significance in the fact that Mr Spearman was posted to Paris in the month immediately before the deaths.

Later in 1992, as the civil war in the former Yugoslavia became increasingly topical, I started to work primarily on operations in Serbia. During this time, I became acquainted with Dr Nicholas Bernard Frank FISHWICK, born 1958, the MI6 officer who at the time was in charge of planning Balkan operations.

During one meeting with Dr Fishwick, he casually showed to me a three-page document that on closer inspection turned out to be an outline plan to assassinate the Serbian leader President Slobodan Milosevic.

The plan was fully typed, and attached to a yellow "minute board", signifying that this was a formal and accountable document. It will therefore still be in existence.

Fishwick had annotated that the document be circulated to the following senior MI6 officers: Maurice KENDWRICK-PIERCEY, then head of Balkan operations, John RIDDE, then the security officer for Balkan operations, the SAS liaison officer to MI6 (designation MODA/SO, but I have forgotten his name), the head of the Eastern European Controllerate (then Richard FLETCHER) and finally Alan PETTY, the personal secretary to the then Chief of MI6, Colin McCOLL.

This plan contained a political justification for the assassination of Milosevic, followed by three outline proposals on how to achieve this objective.

I firmly believe that the third of these scenarios contained information that could be useful in establishing the causes of death of Henri Paul, the Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed.

This third scenario suggested that Milosevic could be assassinated by causing his personal limousine to crash.

Dr Fishwick proposed to arrange the crash in a tunnel, because the proximity of concrete close to the road would ensure that the crash would be sufficiently violent to cause death or serious injury, and would also reduce the possibility that there might be independent, casual witnesses.

Dr Fishwick suggested that one way to cause the crash might be to disorientate the chauffeur using a strobe flash gun, a device which is occasionally deployed by special forces to, for example, disorientate helicopter pilots or terrorists, and about which MI6 officers are briefed about during their training.

In short, this scenario bore remarkable similarities to the circumstances and witness accounts of the crash that killed the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed, and Henri Paul.

I firmly believe that this document should be yielded by MI6 to the Judge investigating these deaths, and would provide further leads that he could follow.

During my service in MI6, I also learnt unofficially and second-hand something of the links between MI6 and the Royal Household. MI6 are frequently and routinely asked by the Royal Household (usually via the Foreign Office) to provide intelligence on potential threats to members of the Royal Family whilst on overseas trips.

This service would frequently extend to asking friendly intelligence services (such as the CIA) to place members of the Royal Family under discrete surveillance, ostensibly for their own protection.

This was particularly the case for the Princess of Wales, who often insisted on doing without overt personal protection, even on overseas trips. Although contact between MI6 and the Royal Household was officially only via the Foreign Office, I learnt while in MI6 that there was unofficial direct contact between certain senior and influential MI6 officers and senior members of the Royal Household.

I did not see any official papers on this subject, but I am confident that the information is correct. I firmly believe that MI6 documents would yield substantial leads on the nature of their links with the Royal Household, and would yield vital information about MI6 surveillance on the Princess of Wales in the days leading to her death.

I also learnt while in MI6 that one of the "paparazzi" photographers who routinely followed the Princess of Wales was a member of "UKN", a small corps of part-time MI6 agents who provide miscellaneous services to MI6 such as surveillance and photography expertise. I do not know the identity of this photographer, or whether he was one of the photographers present at the time of the fatal incident.

However, I am confident that examination of UKN records would yield the identity of this photographer, and would enable the inquest to eliminate or further investigate that potential line of enquiry.

On Friday August 28 1998, I gave much of this information to Judge Hervé Stephan, the French investigative Judge in charge of the inquest into the accident.

The lengths which MI6, the CIA and the DST have taken to deter me giving this evidence and subsequently to stop me talking about it, suggests that they have something to hide.

On Friday 31 July 1998, shortly before my appointment with Judge Hervé Stephan, the DST arrested me in my Paris hotel room. Although I have no record of violent conduct I was arrested with such ferocity and at gunpoint that I received a broken rib.

I was taken to the headquarters of the DST, and interrogated for 38 hours. Despite my repeated requests, I was never given any justification for the arrest and was not shown the arrest warrant. Even though I was released without charge, the DST confiscated from me my laptop computer and Psion organiser. They illegally gave these to MI6 who took them back to the UK. They were not returned for six months, which is illegal and caused me great inconvenience and financial cost.

On Friday 7th August 1998 I boarded a Qantas flight at Auckland International airport, New Zealand, for a flight to Sydney, Australia where I was due to give a television interview to the Australian Channel Nine television company. I was in my seat, awaiting take off, when an official boarded the plane and told me to get off.

At the airbridge, he told me that the airline had received a fax "from Canberra" saying that there was a problem with my travel papers. I immediately asked to see the fax, but I was told that "it was not possible". I believe that this is because it didn't exist. This action was a ploy to keep me in New Zealand so that the New Zealand police could take further action against me. I had been back in my Auckland hotel room for about half an hour when the New Zealand police and NZSIS, the New Zealand Secret Intelligence Service, raided me.

After being detained and searched for about three hours, they eventually confiscated from me all my remaining computer equipment that the French DST had not succeeded in taking from me. Again, I didn't get some of these items back until six months later.

Moreover, shortly after I had given this evidence to Judge Stephan, I was invited to talk about this evidence in a live television interview on America's NBC television channel.

I flew from Geneva to JFK airport on Sunday 30 August to give the interview in New York on the following Monday morning. Shortly after arrival at John F Kennedy airport, the captain of the Swiss Air flight told all passengers to return to their seats.

Four US Immigration authority officers entered the plane, came straight to my seat, asked for my passport as identity, and then frogmarched me off the plane.

I was taken to the immigration detention centre, photographed, fingerprinted, manacled by my ankle to a chair for seven hours, served with deportation papers (exhibit 1) and then returned on the next available plane to Geneva. I was not allowed to make any telephone calls to the representatives of NBC awaiting me in the airport.

The US Immigration Officers - who were all openly sympathetic to my situation and apologised for treating me so badly - openly admitted that they were acting under instructions from the CIA.

In January of this year, I booked a chalet in the village of Samoens in the French Alps for a ten day snowboarding holiday with my parents. I picked up my parents from Geneva airport in a hire car on the evening of January 8, and set off for the French border.

At the French customs post, our car was stopped and I was detained. Four officers from the DST held me for four hours. At the end of this interview, I was served with the deportation papers below (exhibit 2), and ordered to return to Switzerland. Note that in the papers, my supposed destination has been changed from "Chamonix" to "Samoens". This is because when first questioned by a junior DST officer, I told him that my destination was "Chamonix". When a senior officer arrived an hour or so later, he crossed out the word and changed it to "Samoens", without ever even asking or confirming this with me. I believe this is because MI6 had told them of my true destination, having learnt the information through surveillance on my parent's telephone in the UK.

My banning from France is entirely illegal under European law. I have a British passport and am entitled to travel freely within the European Union. MI6 have "done a deal" with the DST to have me banned, and have not used any recognised legal mechanism to deny my rights to freedom of travel. I believe that the DST and MI6 have banned me from France because they wanted to prevent me from giving further evidence to Judge Stephan's inquest, which at the time, I was planning to do.

Whatever MI6's role in the events leading to the death of the Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed and Henri Paul, I am absolutely certain that there is substantial evidence in their files that would provide crucial evidence in establishing the exact causes of this tragedy.

I believe that they have gone to considerable lengths to obstruct the course of justice by interfering with my freedom of speech and travel, and this in my view confirms my belief that they have something to hide. I believe that the protection given to MI6 files under the Official Secrets Act should be set aside in the public interest in uncovering once and for all the truth behind these dramatic and historically momentous events.

" The conspiracy included Sir William Gull, the Queen's physician and Sir Charles Warren Commissioner of Police and member of the Ars Quator Coronatorum Masonic Lodge, confidants to Queen Victoria herself, wrote Knight.

"A great deal is at stake if the Establishment considers it necessary to operate a full scale cover-up," writes Knight. "For the truth of the Jack the Ripper affair to have been painstakingly concealed can mean nothing less than State security was at risk, or that someone high in the Government or the Royal Family was involved."

Author Stephen Knight explains how Britain's entire political system at the end of the 19th century was threatened by the hidden facts -- Prince Albert Victor ("Eddy") was not only bisexual, but he had married a Roman Catholic girl and fathered a child with her. Evidently these debaucheries were so scandalous that the Ruling Class would not abide even the slightest hint of this revelation.

When a group of working girls decided to blackmail the Royals, the Marquess of Salisbury, then Prime Minister, had to take care of the problem. He entrusted Sir William Gull, physician and abortionist to the Royal Family, for the mission.

The deliberately engineered panic, i.e., the murder of five prostitutes, was done according to Masonic ritual. The ritual murder and disembowelment "met with such ghastly success because of the audacity with which they were executed," said Walter Sickert, Knight's informant whose painter-father had intimate knowledge of the Cleveland Street murders. This so-called "audacity" is a trademark of Masonic "mischief-making."

"All Jack the Ripper victims were dispatched according to age-old Masonic ritual," Knight continues. The mutilations of the "unfortunates" were done according to Masonic tradition, the standard way of dealing with "traitors." In fact, the oath recited by initiates promises a ghastly death and mutilation -- in the case of "betrayal."

Meanwhile the UK Mirror's editorial reflects a growing concern about the Princess Diana Murder and Cover-up: "Today's Mirror front page is one of the most dramatic and devastating we have published in our entire history."

Diana's letter reflects her understanding of the diabolical nature of the Royal Family and the House of Windsor. The UK Mirror, which published the letter, said it could not reveal the identity for fear of a lawsuit. It printed a photograph of part of the letter, with the name blacked out.

Before sealing the letter in an envelope marked "Paul', the princess told Burrell: "I'm going to date this and I want you to keep it. Just in case."

Burrell writes in his book -- "But, with the benefit of hindsight, the content of that letter has bothered me since her death. For this is what she wrote 10 months before she died in that car crash in Paris:

"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. (The princess then identified where she felt the threat and danger would come from) ... is planning 'an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry.

"I have been battered, bruised and abused mentally by a system for years now, but I feel no resentment, I carry no hatred. I am weary of the battles, but I will never surrender. am strong inside and maybe that a problem for my enemies.

"Thank you Charles, for putting me through such hell and for giving me the opportunity to learn from the cruel things you have done to me.

"The anguish nearly killed me, but my inner strength has never let me down, and my guides have taken such good care of me up there.

Burrell said Diana believed she was regarded as a nuisance once she and Prince Charles were divorced in 1996.

The cover story for Diana's murder was cast in stone with a French inquiry in 1999 that concluded the car crashed because the driver had been drinking and traveling too fast. But there has never been an inquest in Britain.

The UK Mirror, which published the letter, said it could not reveal the identity for fear of a lawsuit. It printed a photograph of part of the letter, with the name blacked out. Before sealing the letter in an envelope marked "Paul', the princess told Burrell: "I'm going to date this and I want you to keep it. Just in case."

According to the Mirror, these are the unanswered questions about the death of Princess Diana.

"The British people have an absolute right to know what really happened to their princess," the Mirror editorial continues. "The British people deserve nothing less and must get nothing less."

EXPLOSIVE tapes on the secret life of Princess Diana will prove that she was pregnant and intended to marry Dodi Al Fayed, it was claimed last night.

American secret agents regularly monitored Diana's conversations and collated 1,000 secret documents using its "spy in the sky", the National Security Agency.

They were obtained by its Echelon satellite surveillance system and contain highly sensitive material including her marriage plans, her views on Prince Philip, who was known to be highly critical of her, and new details of her love affair with James Hewitt. Now, lawyers acting for Mohamed Al Fayed are trying to obtain the tapes through America's Freedom of Information Act.

They hope to present the evidence at Diana's inquest, which is expected to take place next year.

The covert monitoring was controlled from the ultra-secret NSA base at Menwith Hill in the north of England during the last weeks of Diana's affair with Dodi.

A spokesman for Dodi's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, the millionaire owner of Harrods, said: "Mr Al Fayed believes that those intercepts will reveal conversations in which Princess Diana discussed her engagement to Dodi and her pregnancy.

We have been aware for some time of the existence of these documents and we have an ongoing action in the United States through the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to them."

Mr Al Fayed believes the Americans were monitoring Diana because they were concerned that her anti-landmine campaign threatened their defence industry interests. The information was also shared with the British and French intelligence services, he believes.

Last night NSA sources told the Sunday Express the tapes contain "very sensitive material".

But the spy agency has indicated it would look favourably upon a request from the new Royal Coroner, Dr Michael Burgess, to have them at the inquest into Diana's death he is due to hold later this year.

NSA sources indicate the 1.051 documents contain transcripts of intimate conversations between Dodi and Diana in the month they spent together before their fatal car crash in Parish five years ago this coming August.

Both the Queen and Prince Charles have agreed the inquest should be held before the end of the year. Palace sources indicate it is time to bring closure to the last unresolved link in the death of the Princess.

The inquest is seen as an important step in the continuing careful packaging of Camilla Parker-Bowles as the future partner of Charles.

In the aftermath of Diana's death, the Queen opposed an inquest. She feared it could cast an unfavourable spotlight on the way the Royal Family responded to Diana's death.

But the unprecedented success of the Golden Jubilee celebrations has convinced the Queen's advisers the inquest should go ahead.

Royal Coroner Dr Burgess has said there will be "important issues to consider. Should Diana have been taken to hospital from the crash scene sooner than she was? The speed of the car and the use of seatbelts are also relevant and important questions".

But undoubtedly the most important questions will be answered by those vital NSA documents. Finis

US SPY TAPES 'REVEAL DIANA WAS PREGNANT'
The Sunday Express, 23 June 2002
By Gordon Thomas

Part of the police case against the paparazzi is that once they arrived at the scene of the accident, they (the paparazzi) failed to assist an injured person. Yet nearly all the photographers are claiming they were several hundred yards behind the Mercedes and that they arrived after the first doctor was already on the scene, an off-duty doctor who had been driving by named Frederic Mailliez.

An email communique sent to an Internet discussion group by someone claiming to be of the photographers who was following the Mercedes the night of August 31 says that he has not only fled the crash site but also the country, apparently because after he took several pictures of the wreckage and the victims, a very alive Diana spoke some extremely chilling words to him.

Using an acknowledged alias and routing his letter through an intermediary for his protection, "Mr. Merceilles" declares (mistakes uncorrected), "I am one of photographer who followed Diana and her companion Dodi Al-fayed until their death in a car-crash.

(Paris tunnel -- 31 august 1997) I was lucky at that time, while the accident took place, I am 60 metres from the spot. When I heard a very loud sound came from the tunnel, I jumped from one of my friend's bike (who is now detained) to inspect the scene. I could see a hand of someone waving at us to seek some help. With a terrible shock, I found that was the hand of princess.

"I could not see her face clearly, as a warm blood streaming all over her face. She still alive and crying painfully. With "discourage feeling", I forced myself to take some picture of her -- (the pictures and negative are with me now and I am not intend to sell it for profit). From the distance, I could see people already gathering to see what was happening there. I do not understand the world, for accusing us (photographers) for Diana and Dodi death. As a matter of fact, It looks like all people of the world pointing at us as we are the greatest criminal of a crime that we did not responsible. I still remember the words came from Diana's throat before she died. "Help... someone outside plan to kill us".

A spokesperson for the Fayeds and the Ritz said that although Dodi had been "examined" by a pathologist in Britain before he was buried, this had not been a full postmortem examination, and that no blood samples were taken.

Lawyers for the photographers have questioned such procedures. "The behavior of passengers in the investigation of a car accident is very important," said one. Another said he would very much like to know how much, if anything, Dodi had drunk that evening and whether he would have been lucid.

Of course absolutely no postmortem of any kind, which could precisely indicate the direct cause of death, was done on the body of Princess Diana.

Paris police have said that after the accident occurred the ambulance took nearly half an hour to get to the scene. Also the police have confirmed that they were escorting the ambulance back to the hospital but then became separated. The ambulance arrived at the hospital much later and the drivers claimed to have lost their way! This was reported on many European radio channels. Why aren't the identities and records of these so-called ambulance drivers being released?

Witness accounts recorded by TV crews directly after the tragedy stated that there was an initial impact or explosion, then the sound of metal scraping followed by the sound of a very loud crash when the vehicle hit the tunnel structure. These descriptions were edited out of subsequent broadcasts and have not been heard since.

What was the initial sound caused by? If a massive crash could somehow be instigated, the time, location, and condition of the armor-plated limousine would assuredly create some delays in any occupants not killed receiving medical attention, which itself could be of a terminal sort administered by specially assigned agents who, while returning to the hospital in the ambulance, inconceivably lose their way!

Has the scenario being presented -- of all those photographers riding motorcycles and trying to take pictures of the inside of a car with tinted windows travelling at 120 MPH, at night, in a dim narrow tunnel -- been seriously called into question, as it seems it should ? Does anyone really believe that one or more of these paparazzi on motorcycles actually attempted to cut off a large automobile at such speeds?

(Nonetheless it's now certain that at least one other vehicle did intentionally impact the Mercedes in the tunnel.)

Does it seem the least bit likely that Diana, Dodi and their bodyguard would drive off in a vehicle with a man supposedly so completely inebriated? Why has it been claimed that Mr. Paul sped rapidly away from The Ritz to evade the paparazzi when there was no antagonism or ill will demonstrated before the Mercedes left The Ritz and video footage shows the car leaving at a reasonable speed?

Although earlier reports had the Mercedes going 120 miles per hour, more recent bulletins from Paris say experts estimated the car's speed at about 75 miles per hour.

Why would anyone drive at such a dangerous speed just to get away from photographers? Photographs can't cause bodily harm. If indeed the vehicle was travelling even the lower speed, it would seem likely Paul and the other occupants of the Mercedes were trying to get away from something considerably more sinister than photographers.

Yet another troubling inconsistency is the fact that early news reports said that the events of the crash were captured on video by traffic surveillance cameras in the tunnel. Yet subsequently this was completely denied. If there are cameras in the tunnel, why wasn't the crash filmed? That in itself seems quite suspicious. If there was no film taken then why the reports saying there was such film?

Yet another thoroughly contradictory series of news items to add to the already extensive list of such.

With all the initial hue and cry about the paparazzi being a factor in causing the accident, nearly all still photographs and videos shot before, during or after the tragedy have been seized. The potential for manipulation of such evidence under such conditions is astronomical.

In addition to the inexplicable delay in the arrival of the ambulanc and emergency personnel, there were reportedly serious difficulties in removing Diana and the other victims from the specially reinforced body of the limousine, which led to an additional delay of nearly an hour.

Also, again inexplicably, during this time Diana was left to wait on the roadside while all the other victims were extricated from the wreckage before she was put into an ambulance. How could anyone not question why Diana was not immediately airlifted out on an emergency medical helicopter but was instead unconscionably made to wait and was then driven at a bizarrely slow pace by an ambulance crew who supposedly couldn't find their way back to the hospital?! And this in a major modern city like Paris? Not bloody likely! (The ambulance however did manage to conveniently ditch their police escort).

Diana was very much alive after the crash, and was in fact sitting up, gesticulating and a one point telling the medics to leave her alone; yet we are told that all the most technologically advanced medical resources that our present-day world and her wealth could command were not able to save her.

The public should be told precisely how she died, of what specific medical condition and exactly where and at what time her death occurred, as well as who was present. If she in fact died of heart failure, and there was little or no initial emphasis on head wounds in her case, why was the supposed existence of massive head wounds used as the reason Diana did not have an open casket funeral?

Also questionable was the fact that instead of being hooked up to state of the art life support equipment at Salpetriere Hospital, Diana was cut open and her heart massaged directly by a physician.

Despite strenuous contortions and permutations of certain investigators attempting to make unwanted facts disappear or to create the desired facts out of thin air in order to promulgate a bogus and fanciful theory regarding the cause of the crash, apparently some members of the Paris police have decided to actually look at the evidence and listen to the witnesses.

An AP bulletin from Paris dated September 17 does indeed indicate that Paris police now believe a second vehicle was in fact involved in the crash, and possibly even a third. It states, "French television reported Tuesday that investigators are considering the possibility that another car was involved in the crash.

The report on France 2 said red shards of glass, apparently from brake lights, were found at the crash scene - but that the Mercedes' brake lights were still intact". Perhaps the Paris police force is reluctant to play along in covering up the awful truth about this miserable and sickening political assassination.

Another item datelined Paris, September 17, reads in part as follows (emphasis added): Authorities investigating the crash that killed Princess Diana are examining parts of a second car that were found at the scene of the accident, a police source said today.

Pieces of a tail light and traces of paint that are not used on the Mercedes car that carried Diana were found at the scene and are being tested in a police laboratory, the source said on condition of anonymity

Similar traces were also found on the rear-view mirror of the Mercedes, the source said. An AP news item from later the same day stated that Paris police, based upon new evidence, are considering the possibility that even a third vehicle may have been involved.

Latest reports are that pieces of this mysterious vehicle became embedded in the Mercedes, as it struck Diana's car with such extreme force.

The London Times report mentioned at the beginning dated Sept. 21 says that there is a highly credible witness who had provided significant and invaluable testimony on this aspect of the events to the Al Fayed lawyers several weeks ago.

This testimony was passed on to authorities but was apparently intentionally buried. Thankfully it has now resurfaced. The newspaper quoted Gary Hunter, a British lawyer who was in Paris on Aug. 31 celebrating his wife's birthday, as saying he saw a small black car fleeing at high speed from the crash that killed Princess Diana. He saw the car from the window of his third-floor hotel room. Witnesses had initially said they saw a small, black hatchback, possibly a Fiat Uno, near the smashed Mercedes. Hunter said he was watching television when he heard an "almighty crash" at 12:25 a.m.

From his window he saw people running toward the tunnel and then saw a car turning from the area by the tunnel exit and roaring down the Rue Jean Goujon, the street below. "I heard the screeching of tires. I saw a small dark car turning the corner at the top of the road. I would say it was racing at 60-70 mph," Hunter stated.

"My own feeling is that these were people in a hurry not to be there. I am confident that the car was getting off the scene. ... It looked quite sinister." (emphasis added.) Hunter said the car could have been a Fiat Uno or a Renault. The Times article also said the lawyers passed the testimony on to investigators, who, incredibly enough, apparently ignored it.

Certain witnesses interviewed right after the tragedy on CNN said that immediately after the event some people were around the car and that one man in a three piece suit screamed at them in French; that there was 'liquid on the ground'.

Understandably, the witnesses were afraid of another explosion, and so backed away as instructed. Of course, if there was someone in the tunnel just moments after the crash, clearing away witnesses, he would almost certainly be part of any assassination operation.

It is now clear that early reports of the crash suggested Diana was injured, but that her life wasn't threatened, according to the French doctor who treated her for some time at the scene before the ambulance took her to the hospital.

The doctor, who happened by and stopped to help, said she was "moaning" gesturing in every direction". Unconscious people do not moan and gesture in every direction. Early interviews with Dr. Frederic Mailliez also have him saying that he saw the Princess "thrashing about", and that her condition "did not seem desperate."

The presence of this doctor who just happened to be at the crash site when the tragedy occurred could be viewed as questionable; certainly it could have been a coincidence but it may not have been, and we have only his word as to what actions he took which affected Diana's physical condition. His location gave him an incalculable ability to drastically impact the course of events -- especially Diana's physical wellbeing.

In addition, the Fayed camp claims that at the hospital Diana was able to give a last message to an unknown person in England, so obviously she was fairly conscious for quite some time after the crash. The crash occurred at just past midnight, but Diana was not declared dead until 4 AM. Also, what was this message and who was it to? Did it implicate someone perhaps?

Something is terribly wrong about the death of Princess Diana. The factual evidence presented herein makes it fairly clear that her death was no accident. Diana was killed intentionally.

Diana Spencer was a human being of course, with some of the failings and weaknesses which that connotes. However, by most accounts she was a kind, decent person, who demonstrated genuine empathy with the underprivileged, the infirm, the oppressed and the ignored; those traditionally considered to be of lower social standing than she; also, for what it may be worth Diana was a true "blueblood" royal of England's House of Stewart.

Diana's constant and wholehearted support for numerous charitable endeavors worldwide, and her extraordinary enthusiasm, energy and more recently direct political activism in so many causes which sought to improve the lives and circumstances of great numbers of humanity was thoroughly commendable, and clearly came from the heart. These definitely were not things she had to do.

Diana seemed determined to use her position for the greater good. The tremendous worldwide outpouring of sadness and grief on the part of the general populace also came from the heart and was unprecedented, except perhaps for that following the Kennedy assassination. The response was certainly an indication of Diana's formidable and widespread popularity.

Perhaps Princess Diana's potential independent financial power by way of her boyfriend, a wealthy movie producer, was becoming a serious political threat to the status quo. The senior Mr. Fayed had been quite influential in bringing about the downfall of the Conservative government which held power for so long in England This fact would have hardly endeared him (or his son) to certain major British power brokers; in fact they detest Mr. Fayed and many liked Diana hardly a little more.

Diana herself was becoming more and more overtly political in her campaign against the use of land mines and in her visits to promote peace efforts in Bosnia, etc. This was a threat to the stated New World Order objective of a destabilized Russia and a wary, edgy Western bloc (Europe, the U.S. and allies).

The Royal Family is a major player in the high-stakes game of position within the New World Order, and international arms sales including land mines provide a substantial portion of their necessary operating capital.

Some objectives of the removal of Diana as a significant influence in our world could be: to keep Diana from "interfering" with the further development and education of her two boys, Princes William and Harry; to derail Diana's ever-more-effective international peace efforts (Great Britain is a major exporter of land mines); to send a message to and set an example for other members of Royalty, other world political figures and the entire human population; and to prevent a marriage to a member of the Saudi royal family.

The fact that her companion Mr. Al Fayed was an Arab or Semitic in race is probably a one of the lesser reasons for this assassination. The fact that Diana was of the House of Stewart, Britain's true and rightful royal family, and not of the House of Windsor, the German (Hessian) royal family which usurped the British throne centuries ago and still holds power, could be somewhat of a factor, as is the issue of who would exert the most influence over the further upbringing of her two children, heirs to the British throne.

The Royal Family is rid of someone they unquestionably saw as a troublemaker and a source of significant embarrassment; a thorn in their side and a monkeywrench in the(ir) works. In addition, the mainly Conservative power structure in Britain despised her and her humanitarian and peacemaking agenda and resented having to pay for her security.

They and other governments may have had concerns about her increasingly political activities in light of her great popularity, perhaps also concerns about her knowledge of (and willingness to make public) certain information which could prove troublesome to the New (One) World Order, or things of that nature.

Dodi Al Fayed had in fact purchased an engagement present for Diana the very day of their deaths, and a public announcement of an engagement would undoubtedly have been imminent. It has been suggested by a U.K. correspondent that this provided a powerful incentive in terms of time for British intelligence to "remove" Diana immediately.

Once the news of her engagement to Dodi was made public, any such "accident" would certainly be considered much more suspicious. This jewelry was in fact initially reported missing from the wreckage (along with approximately 30,000 francs). It reportedly later turned up and was given to the Spencer family. It may well have been intentionally removed by operatives on the scene, and later replaced when it was realized that the existence of the gift was already too widely known.

Even a brief but thorough study into the forces which have a measurabl and significant impact upon the course of international policy and the political and social conditions in which the human race exists, will disclose the continued importance of royalty as one of such forces and prompt realization that its ability to influence the course of these events is (still) quite substantial.

As a general example of such influence, all contemporary national banks in existence today such as The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank are modeled upon the Bank of England, founded by Britain's King William 111 as a private, for-profit institution which loans money at interest to the national government to pay government's operating costs, thus discreetly enforcing tremendous economic control (at least!) over entire human populations.

The Royal Family is a unquestionably a key element of the George Bush's so-called New World Order, with a considerable network of supporters firmly entrenched in the United States political system. Certainly both Ronald Reagan and George Bush were unabashedly pro-Monarchy in great number of major foreign policy decisions implemented during their terms.

Most assuredly another ardent supporter is Bill Clinton, who was a Rhodes scholar, meaning that he was hand-picked, groomed and educated at the expense of The Council of Rhodes to one day take his place as a world leader dedicated to bringing about the fundamental objective of the Council -- a one-world government.

Mr. Clinton, indeed, seemed peculiarly upbeat when making his public statement about Princess Diana's death; some reports had him "smirking" during his brief comments. Clinton also didn't even bother to offered any valid reason at all for his refusal to attend Diana's funeral.

Given that Princess Diana had recently focused considerable energy and attention on the continuing unjustifiable use of land mines and was campaigning vigorously for their global abolishment, the Clinton administration's current vehement opposition to the recent land minestreaty overwhelmingly approved by 89 nations and widely supported internationally is certainly noteworthy and surprising, even if nothing more than coincidence and bad timing politically for Clinton. Great Britain is one the world's leading exporters of land mines, Bill! Their production and sale most definitely fill the coffers of some of the British Royal Family's more ardent political supporters.

Following are the four news stories mentioned above regarding the medical condition of "bodyguard" Trevor Rees-Jones. I have emphasized the most important sections and have edited the items slightly for the sake of brevity.

In and of themselves these four items indicate deliberate distortion and manipulation of information. This can only be an attempt to suppress the truth, and realistically, that truth could only be that Diana's death was not a tragic accident but a deliberately and methodically planned and executed political murder.

A host of other inconsistencies and highly troubling questions have been raised which the protective and investigative agencies of both countries as well as the mainstream media have almost totally sidestepped. This very fact in itself seems quite suspicious. It should be, indeed it is imperative that the events and circumstances of the tragedy be thoroughly and completely investigated and examined for the slightest indication that it may have been more than a shocking and virtually inexplicable accident! A great number of such indications have just been cited, many of which have been known from the very beginning of the terrible events.

When all is said and done, we have all lost someone truly special, and it appears clear that once again it was no accident, but a deliberate act intended to deprive the human race of one of it's brighter luminaries and finer leaders. The late Princess of Wales, Lady Diana Spencer, will be long and deeply missed.

++ NewsHawk subscriptions cost $15 US for three months, payable by MONEY ORDER only, made out to JOHN QUINN (of course cash is OK, but inadvisable for snailmail).

++ Any donations of funds should also be sent as a money order made out to JOHN QUINN

London-AP -- More revelations about Princess Diana from her former butler. London's Daily Mirror is running excerpts from the upcoming book "A Royal Duty" by Paul Burrell (BUR'-ul).

Burrell also says Diana once told him her son Prince William "doesn't want to be king. He doesn't want his every move watched." William is second in line to the throne, after his father.

LONDON : A vast majority of Britons feel princess Diana was murdered, a poll conducted by a London tabloid claimed on Thursday.

More than 85% of Daily Express readers who took part in a phone poll refuse to believe that the crash in a Paris underpass, which killed the princess and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed in 1997, was an accident.

Her former butler Paul Burrell’s disclosure, that 10 months before her death Diana wrote a letter outlining her fears that someone would tamper with her car brakes and try to kill her, appears to have convinced the British public of the conspiracy theories.

According to the report in the tabloid today, the new opinion poll is expected to pile pressure on prime minister Tony Blair to hold a public inquiry, amid claims by Dodi’s father, Harrods owner Mohamed al Fayed, that the couple were murdered by the British secret service and the government had engaged in a cover-up.

In the poll, the readers were asked if they thought Diana was murdered. And 85.1% of nearly 5,000 people who phoned in said yes. When a similar question was asked in a Sunday Express poll on the sixth anniversary of her death, less than two months ago, only 27% thought she was the victim of a sinister plot.