This article appears in the February 13, 2015 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

AMIDST NEW SCRUTINY OF CHARLES’S SAUDI TIES

British Royals Feel Heat
Over Diana’s Assassination

by Robert Barwick

[PDF version of this article]

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

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

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

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

Storms Over the House of Windsor

First and foremost is the ties of Charles, heir to the throne, with the Saudi sponsors of Wahhabite terrorism worldwide. With momentum building in the United States for disclosure of the 28 suppressed pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, concerning the relationship of the Saudi royal family to those crimes, Charles cannot escape attention to his Saudi connections: Not only did Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Ambassador to the USA in 2001 and undoubtedly a subject of the 28 pages, pour tens of millions of dollars into Charles’s private “charities” and the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (known as “Charles’s OCIS,” because of his active patronage), but Charles himself negotiated mega-deals within the Anglo-Saudi arms trade.[1] Bandar’s brother-in-law Prince Turki bin Faisal, who resigned as director of Saudi General Intelligence 10 days before 9/11, is a member of the OCIS Board of Trustees and chairs its Strategy Advisory Committee. The pair were among only eight foreign royals whom Charles invited to his wedding to Camilla Parker-Bowles in 2005. Both are named in the 4,000-page lawsuit filed on Feb. 4 in New York by the families of 9/11 victims. [See article in National—ed.]

Already in 2005, a book co-authored by British former prisoner of the Saudi regime Sandy Mitchell pointed out that “Prince Charles’s relationships with prominent House of Saud members have created serious problems and obstacles to UK agencies investigating claims of Saudi financing of international terrorism, according to Special Branch sources,” citing how lawyers for 9/11 families encountered such a stone wall on a visit to the UK in 2003.[2]

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

Charles is feeling the heat. A new biography of the Prince of Wales claims that he “no longer wants to promote UK arms sales in Gulf States,” according to the BBC on Feb. 4.[3] And with Charles visiting the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, yet again on Feb. 6-12, Clarence House (his residence) issued a defensive-sounding statement that “the Prince of Wales’s return to the region only one year after his last tour demonstrates the importance that Her Majesty’s Government places on its association with key partners in the area. These connections are underpinned by the long-standing and respectful relationships which exist between the Royal Family and the ruling families in the Gulf.” The BBC reported that a spokesman followed up with a pre-emptive denial of new arms deals, saying: “The Prince of Wales’ upcoming visit to the Middle East is not about sales of defence equipment.”

In other developments potentially contributing to the fall of the House of Windsor:

• Revelations about a pedophile ring operating in high society, including within Buckingham Palace, continue to rock the UK. At the same time, Catherine Mayer’s biography has drawn attention to the status Prince Charles accorded the late Jimmy Savile—a TV personality and notorious pedophile (exposed as such only after his death in 2011)—as friend, confidant, adviser, and even “key aide,” as one newspaper account put it. A 2013 Scotland Yard report cited abuse by Savile “on an unprecedented scale,” shown in complaints by 450 people, covering the period 1955-2009 and victims aged 8 to 47.

• Sworn testimony is sought from Prince Andrew, fifth in line to the throne, in a sexual abuse claim against convicted child-abuser Jeffrey Epstein by a victim who testifies she was pimped to Andrew by Epstein, his friend, when she was a minor.

• Charles’s “fury” over a BBC documentary called “Reinventing the Royals,” was widely reported. It concerns the PR campaign waged after Diana’s death to get the public to accept Charles’s longtime mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles, as his next wife. Scheduled to air on Jan. 4, the program was pulled because Clarence House refused to provide archival footage. After an uproar over Charles’s heavy-handed intervention, the program is now supposed to air on Feb. 19.

A Challenge to the Throne

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

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

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

Conway and his colleagues are convinced that if the 2007-08 Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) inquest into the deaths of Diana, Dodi, and their chauffeur, Henri Paul, were held today, there would be “a totally different verdict,” because of Morgan’s work as well as the growing public recognition—thanks to the revelations by Edward Snowden and others—of malfeasance by top government institutions, especially the intelligence agencies.[4]

Amplifying the appearance of “Truth, Lies, Diana” was a Jan. 14 commentary on the play in the Daily Mail (readership 40 million), by the tabloid’s Investigations Editor Sue Reid. She wrote, “I have also investigated the events that led up to the crash and what happened afterwards. I have spoken to eyewitnesses, British and French police, MI6 officers based in Paris that night, friends of Diana and Dodi, and hospital medics in the French capital who tried to save her life. Despite the official line that the crash was a terrible accident, many are still convinced she was killed ... and that shadowy figures in the British Establishment have covered up the truth.” Even in this short article, Reid set forth abundant evidence for both charges.[5]

A Forensic Investigator’s Approach

Like Sue Reid, playwright Conway did independent research, as well as studying John Morgan’s work. These investigations have revisited all the issues brought out in EIR’s early, exclusive coverage of Diana’s murder—evidence-tampering; the almost two-hour delay in taking Diana to a hospital, whereas she likely would have survived the car crash with prompt treatment of her internal injuries; fakery in the claims that driver Henri Paul was drunk or speeding; the role of a Fiat Uno car and unidentified motorcyclists around and in the d’Alma Tunnel; the blinding of Paul by a flash of light in the tunnel; and the role of intelligence agencies, especially Britain’s MI6.[6]

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

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

From the outset, a distinguishing feature of Morgan’s work has been that he examines the evidence not only in its own right, but also through the prism of what was, and what was not, included in the 2006 findings of the official British Metropolitan Police (“Scotland Yard”) inquiry called Operation Paget, or even during the 2007-08 RCJ inquest. Those hearings were only convened, over the Crown’s bitter opposition, because of Mohamed Al-Fayed’s tireless pursuit, through publicity and legal actions, of justice for his son and Diana. The inquest, despite being presided over by a judge who swears allegiance to the Queen and who heavy-handedly directed the jury away from calling the deaths intentional, nonetheless returned a verdict of “unlawful killing,” meaning that they were not accidental, but were homicides by perpetrators unknown. “Unlawful Killing” became the title of a feature-length documentary by British filmmaker Keith Allen, which debuted at the Cannes film festival in 2011, but has been almost entirely suppressed ever since.[7]

New Zealand-born John Morgan is a longtime resident of Australia. The head of state of both countries is the British Queen. Forced by illness to retire in 2003, Morgan was prompted to look into the death of Diana upon seeing, in the book by her butler Paul Burrell published that year, a photostat of a 1995 handwritten note in which she worried that Charles was planning to have her killed in a car accident.[8] Morgan’s first book, Cover-Up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report, analyzed Scotland Yard’s published report. It was followed by the six-part Diana Inquest series, published in 2009-13, and five other volumes on the case, including a 2012 synopsis titled Paris-London Connection: The Assassination of Princess Diana and, in 2014, How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth, a more thoroughly documented, 800-page summary of the Diana Inquest series.[9]

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

Diana vs. the ‘Way Ahead Group’

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

Morgan’s formulation is remarkably similar to one written by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, which Morgan cites: “[Diana] was radicalising [the image] of the monarchy.... For someone as acutely perceptive and long-termist about the monarchy and its future as the Queen, it must have been deeply troubling. [The Queen] knew ... that while there was a need for the monarchy to evolve with the people, and that its covenant with them, unwritten and unspoken, was based on a relationship that allowed for evolution, it should be steady, carefully calibrated and controlled. Suddenly, an unpredictable meteor had come into this predictable and highly regulated ecosystem, with equally uncertain consequences. [The Queen] had good cause to be worried.”[10]

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

Diana’s bodyguard Ken Wharfe wrote about 1992, “These were dangerous times. The knives were being sharpened for the Princess.”[11] In October 1995, shortly before the Panorama interview, Diana at least twice—once in the note to Burrell and once verbally to her lawyer, whose notes on the conversation were revealed only years later, at the inquest—expressed fear of being killed at Charles’s behest, through sabotage of her car’s brakes. The lawyer, Lord Victor Mishcon, was so shocked by “the serious statements made by Her Royal Highness” in their Oct. 30, 1995 conversation that he made an unusual decision “to write this entry and to give instructions that it should be securely held.” Among other things, Mishcon recorded that Diana told him that the information about a threat to her life came from “reliable sources whom she did not wish to reveal.”[12] The next month, as Morgan cites Diana’s friend Simone Simmons, she did experience brake failure in her Audi.[13]

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

In retaliation, the Queen promptly cancelled the BBC’s sole rights to broadcast her annual Christmas message, while Charles’s former equerry, Minister for the Armed Forces Nicholas Soames, went on national TV to question Diana’s mental stability. Prominent Establishment figures pointed to the profound issues at stake in the conflict between Diana and the Windsors, placing it on the canvas of several centuries of British history.[14] Referring to Diana’s descent from the Stuart dynasty, ousted in the Dutch invasion known as the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and replaced by the Hanoverians (later called the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, after Queen Victoria’s spouse Albert, and then renamed as the Windsors), The Times’ former editor Lord William Rees-Mogg wrote in the paper on Nov. 20, 1995, “Like other historic co-inheritors of Stuart PR gene, the Princess is brilliant at the kingcraft of public image building,” but Stuart brilliance “almost always ends in personal tragedy, like that of Mary Queen of Scots.”

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

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

Enter the Al-Fayeds

That Diana’s view of the evil of the British Crown was deeper than merely a reaction to the flawed personalities of her husband and in-laws, was reflected in her 1994-97 correspondence with an EIR staff member, which began when she acknowledged receiving the Oct. 28, 1994 issue of EIR, “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor.”[15]

The first in a series later issued as an EIR Special Report of the same title, this feature documented, including from sources within the UK, that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), co-founded in 1961 by Prince Philip and the notorious eugenicists Sir Julian Huxley and former Privy Council secretary Max Nicholson, was committing genocide in Africa through the deployment of mercenary units to stoke armed conflicts, in order to control the continent’s riches. It also showed that big-game hunter Philip and others of the WWF had contributed to the extinction of the endangered species they claimed to protect. In the final, March 1997 letter in the exchange, responding to documentation received on strategic issues (including the threat of world war arising from Russia’s devastation by “free market” reforms), Diana’s secretary wrote, “The Princess of Wales asked me to thank you for your letter of 19th February and the most interesting enclosures. The Princess was touched that you took the trouble to write following her visit to Angola [where she had been campaigning against land mines].... Your letter meant a great deal to the Princess, who has asked me to send you her sincere thanks.”[16]

In July 1997, Diana accepted an invitation from Mohamed Al-Fayed to holiday with her sons at his villa in Saint-Tropez on the French Riviera. The Egyptian-born billionaire Al-Fayed had already incurred the Crown’s wrath himself, during a protracted struggle in the 1980s and 1990s for control of Harrod’s department store in London. His opponent in the battle for Harrod’s was Tiny Rowland, a longtime MI5 agent and head, since 1961, of the Crown-linked giant multinational firm Lonrho, specializing in the looting of Africa.[17]

By the end of this holiday, during which she met Dodi Fayed, Diana had less than six weeks to live. Events unfolded rapidly. As the vacation ended, the Daily Mirror, alluding to leaks from the Royal household, wrote: “Speculation about Diana’s future, which is as strong at Buckingham Palace as it is in the Princess’s camp, comes as plans are made for the next meeting of the Way Ahead Group.... Top of the agenda at the forthcoming meeting is Diana.” Morgan suggests that that WAG meeting, held at Balmoral Castle on July 23, may have been moved up from later in the Summer, out of urgency. The Diana-Dodi relationship blossomed quickly, leading to a second Mediterranean vacation and exchanges of gifts and love letters. Diana had expressed a wish to spend time or even live in America (hoping to take her sons there), a desire that meshed with Dodi’s purchase of a house in Malibu, California.

On Aug. 30, Dodi and Diana flew to Paris from their cruise, and dined at the Ritz. That night they headed by car to Dodi’s apartment, but crashed in the d’Alma Tunnel. Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul died there, Diana at the hospital—where she was taken only nearly two hours after the crash. The morning of their deaths, Aug. 31, coincided with a second, now famous Mirror article, which reported: “At Balmoral next week, the Queen will preside over a meeting of The Way Ahead Group where the Windsors sit down with their senior advisers and discuss policy matters. MI6 has prepared a special report on the Egyptian-born Fayeds which will be presented to the meeting.... The delicate subject of Harrods and its royal warrants is also expected to be discussed.... A friend of the Royals said yesterday, ‘Prince Philip has let rip several times recently about the Fayeds.... He’s been banging on about his contempt for Dodi and how he is undesirable as a future stepfather to William and Harry. Diana has been told in no uncertain terms about the consequences should she continue the relationship with the Fayed boy.’ ”[18] Morgan devotes many pages to documentation and analysis of the inquest coroner’s failure to allow either this report, or the minutes of the WAG meetings in question, before the jury.

Evidence Withheld and Testimony Not Taken

John Morgan has examined in detail all of the above events, and more: how Diana was treated at the crash scene and thereafter, the handling of her body after death, and the subsequent investigations. Many of his conclusions are necessarily in the nature of surmise (often prefaced by Morgan with “I suggest that” or a statement that the evidence “may point to” a given conclusion), but for each case, he provides the relevant documentation. That evidence is available to readers of Morgan’s books, but the amount of it that was not heard, and the number of interested parties who were not called to testify, in either Operation Paget or the subsequent RCJ inquest, are astounding. Two instances exemplify this pattern.

Movements of key British personnel. Morgan gives extensive citations from newspaper articles, testimony, and other sources on the relationship between MI6 and the Crown, which may operate through government channels, or directly, under the “Royal prerogative power” still held by the Queen. Then, in his Diana Inquest: Part 5 compendium, he has gridded the official staffing lists of the British Embassy in Paris around the time of Diana’s death, against the inquest testimony of MI6 officials identified only by numerical designations. He found evidence identifying the officer who testified as “Mr. 4,” the chief of MI6 in France, as Eugene Curley, posted under cover as a political officer at the British Embassy. Morgan then posed a number of questions concerning the man who arrived to succeed Curley at the Embassy apparently the very day Diana died—career diplomat and intelligence operative Sherard Cowper-Coles, whose autobiography recounts his training at the Foreign Office’s Middle East Centre for Arab Studies (MECAS) in Lebanon, dubbed by Egyptian President Nasser “the British spy school.”[19]

And yet, Morgan points out, no testimony from Cowper-Coles was taken at the inquest, although presiding Lord Justice Scott Baker had announced that the involvement of British security services was a major topic for review. That omission is even more striking in view of Cowper-Coles’s relationship to the Anglo-Saudi Al-Yamamah arms deal,[20] in which Prince Charles and Prince Andrew have both directly participated.

Motorbikes/paparazzi. The presence of “other, unidentified motorcyclists, who may have cut in front of [Dodi and Diana’s] Mercedes Benz, causing the crash,” has been part of the case from the beginning.[21] The outrageous dismissal in September 1999 of all evidence concerning them, by the first French investigating prosecutor, who also dropped manslaughter charges against 10 identified paparazzi photographers who showed up at the scene minutes after the crash, drove Mohamed Al-Fayed to undertake the series of lawsuits resulting in the Paget and RCJ investigations. The latter, 2007-08, inquest jury ultimately went beyond the French attribution of all blame to “drunk driver” Henri Paul—it added that the “unlawful killing” of Diana and Dodi was also caused by the “grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles.”

There were genuine paparazzi following Diana and Dodi in Paris on Aug. 30, as there were wherever Diana went. But a handful of them were different from the usual photographers. They began swarming around Diana and Dodi as soon as they arrived at Le Bourget Airport that afternoon. The genuine paparazzi did not know the ones on powerful motorbikes, calling them “the fans.” Fabrice Chassery, one of the genuine paparazzi, told the French police that the newcomers “were behaving like madmen,” an observation buttressed by bodyguard Kez Wingfield, as reported by Morgan: “This was the first time in my experience that I had seen the paparazzi behaving so dangerously.” With six sections titled “Unidentified Motorbikes” and “Other Motorbikes” in his summary volume, Morgan presents all the testimony collected by various agencies about these suspicious vehicles. No law enforcement agency has ever followed up satisfactorily on their identity.

The CCTV cameras in the d’Alma Tunnel, which normally recorded 24 hours a day, were unaccountably turned off that night, but numerous eye-witnesses have testified to what happened as the Mercedes approached the tunnel. Daily Mail investigator Sue Reid, in her article, reminds about long-standing reports of “a powerful black motorbike, with no connection to the paparazzi,” which “emerged from a slip road and began chasing Diana and Dodi as their Mercedes was about to enter the tunnel. Fourteen eyewitnesses say it was the bike’s rider and pillion passenger who really caused the crash.” Continued Reid, “Some 15 ft. in front of the Mercedes, witnesses say, a fierce flash of white light came from the motorbike and shone straight into the eyes of Henri Paul. The Mercedes ploughed into the 13th pillar on the tunnel’s left side, instantly killing Paul and Dodi who sat in its front left and back seats respectively. Within seconds, the mystery motorbike had sped away and the two men on board have never been traced.” British and French police also claimed they had been unable to trace the white Fiat Uno, which witnesses said had bumped the Mercedes, although Morgan provides evidence that the French did trace it to photographer James Andanson, who a few years later was found dead inside a locked, burnt-out vehicle with two bullet holes in his head (the French police ruled it “suicide”).

Morgan’s books provide tables of potential witnesses, not called to testify in Operation Paget or the RCJ inquest, as well as item-by-item annotation of Paget evidence and testimony, withheld from the inquest jury. Lord Justice Scott Baker, presiding over the inquest, in his formal presentation of 20 topics for the inquiry, included the following two:

• Whether and, if so in what circumstances, the Princess of Wales feared for her life;

• Whether the British or any other security services had any involvement in the collision.

Despite their obvious relevance to both counts, no Royals were called to testify, only the Queen’s Private Secretary Robert Fellowes (Diana’s brother-in-law), who was later demonstrated to have lied his head off about his role in the crucial events of the hours and days following the crash.

Near the end of Keith Allen’s “Unlawful Killing” film, clinical psychologist Oliver James delivers his own verdict, one shared by many friends of Diana, as well as her high-powered enemies: that she “could have started a movement to end the monarchy.” Or, as Allen summed up, “The British Establishment think that they have got away with murder. But then, what’s new? They’ve been getting away with murder for centuries.” But, he concluded, with the murder of Diana, the Royals have gone one too far: “We may soon witness what the British Establishment fears the most—the end of the monarchy.”

[1] Richard Freeman and William F. Wertz, Jr., “Charles of Arabia. The British Monarchy, Saudi Arabia, and 9/11,” EIR, May 23, 2014; and Richard Freeman, “King Faisal and the Forging of the Anglo-Saudi Terror Alliance,” EIR, June 27, 2014, document ties between the Saudi and British Royals, particularly Charles.

[2] Mark Hollingsworth with Sandy Mitchell, Saudi Babylon: Torture, Corruption and Cover-Up Inside the House of Saud (Edinburgh and London: Mainstream Publishing, 2005).

[3] The book is Charles: Heart of a King (London: WH Allen, 2015), by Time magazine journalist Catherine Mayer.

[4] “Truth, Lies, Diana at the Charing Cross Theatre,” interviews with [[Jon Conway]][[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPknQ1KZ1S4 and Barry Bloxham, WhatsOnStage YouTube channel, Nov. 24, 2014.

[5] Sue Reid, “So is there ANY truth in the tawdry new play about Diana?”, Daily Mail, Jan. 14, 2015.

[6] EIR published 30 articles on the d’Alma Tunnel murders between September 1997 and November 2002. Many of them broke certain elements of the events and the cover-up of them, for the first time internationally. In the June 4, 1998 Daily Telegraph, then owned by the now defunct Hollinger Corporation of Canadian Conrad Black, journalist Ambrose Evans Pritchard laid the blame for all “theories” about Diana’s death at the door of Lyndon LaRouche and EIR (Jeffrey Steinberg, “New ‘Diana Wars’ in Britain Put Focus on LaRouche,” EIR, June 19, 1998). Highlights of our coverage were summarized in EIR on May 27, 2011, in articles by Jeffrey Steinberg, “Battle Royal Shattering the British Empire,” and Susan Welsh, “The 14-Year Cover-Up of Princess Diana’s Death.” Key EIR articles on the topic are listed in “Additional Reading,” below.

[7] Robert Barwick, “Suppressed Film Exposes Royal Stonewall of Diana Murder Probe,” EIR, May 9, 2014.

[8] Paul Burrell, A Royal Duty (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2003).

[9] Issued through various publishers, the volumes are listed and available on Morgan’s website “Princess Diana Death; The Evidence; John Morgan’s Investigation,” as well as through Amazon and other sellers.

[10] Tony Blair, A Journey: My Political Life (London: Random House, 2010).

[11] Ken Wharfe with Robert Jobson, Diana: Closely Guarded Secret (London: Michael O’Mara Books, 2002).

[12] John Morgan, How They Murdered Princess Diana: the Shocking Truth (Australia: Shining Bright Publishing, 2014), p. 80.

[13] Simone Simmons and Ingrid Seward, Diana: The Last Word (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2005).

[14] Scott Thompson, “Princess Diana’s War with the Windsors,” EIR,Sept. 12, 1997.

[15] “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor,” EIR, Oct. 28, 1994.

[16] “Can the House of Windsor Survive Diana’s Death?”, EIR, Sept. 12, 1997. In his books, Morgan explores Diana’s anti-land-mine activity itself as another dimension of her conflict with the Royals, who are personally committed to the British arms industry, starting with the giant munitions company BAE Systems.

[17] Tiny Rowland. The Ugly Face of Necolonialism in Africa (EIR: Washington, D.C., 2003). The old London and Rhodesia Mining Company, reinvented as Lonrho in 1961 under the guidance of Crown financier Harley Drayton, has a history of tight links with the Crown’s household. On the board sat Drayton’s longtime personal assistant, Royal family member Sir Angus Ogilvy, who was married to the Queen’s first cousin Princess Alexandra of Kent. His brother David Ogilvy, 13th Earl of Airlie, was Lord Chamberlain of the Royal Household in 1984-97, whose activity on the day of Diana’s death and thereafter is documented by Morgan in Diana Inquest: Part 4, along with the failure of the 2007-08 inquest to question him. Sir Joseph Ball, former head of MI5, was also active in Lonrho.

[18] Jeffrey Steinberg and Allen Douglas, “French Police Hush Up New Leads on Diana’s Murder,” EIR, Dec. 12, 1997.

[19] Sherard Cowper-Coles, Ever the Diplomat: Confessions of a Foreign Office Mandarin (London: HarperCollins, 2012).

[20] Jeffrey Steinberg, “Scandal of the Century Rocks British Crown and the City,” EIR, June 22, 2007.

Cowper-Coles had headed the Hong Kong Department of the British Foreign Office, until the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997. As Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (2003-07), he played a decisive role in 2006 in shutting down the British Serious Fraud Office investigation of the Al-Yamamah deal, which Prince Bandar had negotiated with the huge British arms company BAE Systems. Al-Yamamah generated a slush fund of $100 billion, used to finance the Afghan mujahedin networks that gave rise to Al-Qaeda. Cowper-Coles was later the British Ambassador to Afghanistan (2007-09) and the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan (2009-10). In 2007, Afghan President Hamid Karzai expelled two MI6 agents caught funding the Taliban, one of whom, Michael Semple, was a close associate of Cowper-Coles. (Ramtanu Maitra, “Does the U.S. Understand What Is at Stake in Afghanistan?”, EIR, Sept. 24, 2010, details the involvement of Cowper-Coles in the matter of British dope-promotion in Afghanistan, while also mentioning his track record with respect to Diana’s death and the Saudi arms scandal.) After leaving the Foreign Office, Cowper-Coles became a senior executive at BAE Systems. He left BAE in 2013 and is currently Senior Advisor to the CEO of another elite British company, one with a background in the narcotics trade, HSBC Group. In 2004 Queen Elizabeth made Cowper-Coles a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George.

Phases of Al-Yamamah, as well as other BAE-Saudi arms deals, were negotiated by Charles himself, most recently during his February 2014 state visit to Saudi Arabia. In November 2010, major British press reported on Andrew’s advocacy for BAE, as revealed in a U.S. diplomatic telegram, exposed by Wikileaks, expressing shock at how he had “railed at British anticorruption investigators, who had had the ‘idiocy’ of almost scuttling the al-Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia.”

[21] Jeffrey Steinberg, “Can the House of Windsor Survive Diana’s Death?”, EIR, Sept. 12, 1997.